From 223cee91ae847b3216d44a6225593e514ce748f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 18:31:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Record human pilot-01 review progress (S03) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 182330@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 242866cf-789d-4e24-ac5e-0a1d7b47a701 --- .../review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json | 45 ++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/human-review/review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json b/research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/human-review/review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json index d3b9368..7bdb4cb 100644 --- a/research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/human-review/review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json +++ b/research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/human-review/review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json @@ -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",