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

Record human pilot-01 review progress (S04)

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 18:44:23 +02:00
parent 223cee91ae
commit a5b8cfef08
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

@ -116,38 +116,39 @@
{
"answer": "S04-U",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
"C1": 1,
"C2": 1,
"R": 1,
"Q": 0
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
"C1": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'server may have accepted operation K despite the timeout and local cancellation'.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'A new submission is unsafe.'",
"R": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 inform user status unknown, 'check with the service provider'.",
"Q": "Reviewer: no \u2014 does not directly mention the cancellation contract; relies on context."
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S04, C1): state clearly that cancelling is multi-step: a cancel request that may or may not succeed; if the booking already exists, a real cancellation (not just stopping the initial request) may carry costs and needs additional confirmation with that cost information, or at least a clearly stated risk."
},
{
"answer": "S04-V",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
"C1": 1,
"C2": 1,
"R": 1,
"Q": 0
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
"C1": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'server's status for K is unknown' after local Cancel.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes, with reservation: 'fresh identity' is unclear about what is actually OK; a new transaction/identity could lose the information about the unresolved pending booking and still double-book.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 retain K's identity/payload/pending status after local Cancel.",
"Q": "Reviewer: no \u2014 does not directly mention cancellation, nor lookup/history; relies on context."
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S04, C1): state clearly that cancelling is multi-step: a cancel request that may or may not succeed; if the booking already exists, a real cancellation (not just stopping the initial request) may carry costs and needs additional confirmation with that cost information, or at least a clearly stated risk.",
"ambiguity": "C2: reviewer scored 1 but found 'new, distinct operation with a fresh identity' puzzling; it could lose the link to the unresolved booking K and still lead to a double booking."
},
{
"answer": "S05-U",