coulomb/frontend-patterns
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Record human pilot-01 review progress (S05)

Browse source 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 182330@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 242866cf-789d-4e24-ac5e-0a1d7b47a701
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-10-19 23:21:23 +02:00
parent a5b8cfef08
commit 0c92065a59
1 changed files with 22 additions and 22 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

44
research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/human-review/review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json
View file

@ -153,38 +153,38 @@
{
"answer": "S05-U",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
"C1": 1,
"C2": 1,
"R": 1,
"Q": 1
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
"C1": "Reviewer: yes.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 receipt updates P's own history, 'should not alter the active content or the status of Q'.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes.",
"Q": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'clear contract for the receiver's ancestry and precondition behavior'."
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S05): the resolution strategies are a simplification of keeping git-style version histories for all participants and offering every possible merge-conflict resolution. A system designer could select from a fairly complete strategy set by limiting history count/storage and applying merge, rebase and conflict-diff UI facilities. Reviewer guidance (S05, R): design two different interaction systems. (1) Synchronous collaboration (shared whiteboard, document, multiplayer): the conflict-resolved state is visible to all participants, who can react, correct or modify it to establish their intent before the result is finalized for asynchronously reached mid/long-term consumers. (2) A register that feeds, or is queried by, other consumers asynchronously: changes may propagate before their resolution, and updating all consumers with the resolution may be infeasible without an additional distribution mechanism, which carries its own design considerations."
},
{
"answer": "S05-V",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
"C1": 1,
"C2": 1,
"R": 1,
"Q": 1
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
"C1": "Reviewer: yes.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 update P's status to accepted, 'not reapply P's changes to revision c or Q'.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes.",
"Q": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'critical missing contract is the receiver's ancestry and precondition behavior'."
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S05): the resolution strategies are a simplification of keeping git-style version histories for all participants and offering every possible merge-conflict resolution. A system designer could select from a fairly complete strategy set by limiting history count/storage and applying merge, rebase and conflict-diff UI facilities. Reviewer guidance (S05, R): design two different interaction systems. (1) Synchronous collaboration (shared whiteboard, document, multiplayer): the conflict-resolved state is visible to all participants, who can react, correct or modify it to establish their intent before the result is finalized for asynchronously reached mid/long-term consumers. (2) A register that feeds, or is queried by, other consumers asynchronously: changes may propagate before their resolution, and updating all consumers with the resolution may be infeasible without an additional distribution mechanism, which carries its own design considerations."
},
{
"answer": "S06-U",