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

Record human pilot-01 review progress (S03)

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 18:31:41 +02:00
parent c36e45452f
commit 223cee91ae
1 changed files with 23 additions and 22 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

45
research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/human-review/review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json
View file

@ -79,38 +79,39 @@
{
"answer": "S03-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 \u2014 'locally committed' vs 'pending upload was explicitly rejected'; handles the problem consistently but does not solve it.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes, with reservation: U could be misunderstood as a server-side reject only.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes.",
"Q": "Reviewer: yes, stated clearly \u2014 'can the user continue to view, edit, or export these notes, or should they be purged?'"
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S03): both answers handle the problem consistently but a real solution is missing. Proposed: the server accepts the data into a pending-review quarantine without writing it to the backend database; it stays quarantined until reviewed and accepted by a user with sufficient credentials.",
"ambiguity": "C2: reviewer scored 1 but noted U's wording could be read as a server-side rejection only; V judged clearer."
},
{
"answer": "S03-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 \u2014 'accepted locally, rejected remotely'; handles the problem consistently but does not solve it.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 V's re-upload wording is better and less easy to misinterpret.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 V's description is more explicit.",
"Q": "Reviewer: yes, stated clearly \u2014 contract on 'retention, viewing, and export of local data' after revocation."
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S03): both answers handle the problem consistently but a real solution is missing. Proposed: the server accepts the data into a pending-review quarantine without writing it to the backend database; it stays quarantined until reviewed and accepted by a user with sufficient credentials."
},
{
"answer": "S04-U",