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

Record in-progress human pilot-01 review (S01-S02)

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 15:36:11 +02:00
parent 795c5db736
commit c36e45452f
2 changed files with 227 additions and 1 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

226
research/evaluations/language-pilot-01/human-review/review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
{
"reviewer": "Bernd Worsch (founder, Binky Hedgehog GmbH; repository owner)",
"reviewed_at": "2026-10-19",
"read_assignment_or_results_before_scoring": false,
"answers": [
{
"answer": "S01-U",
"scores": {
"C1": 1,
"C2": 1,
"R": 1,
"Q": 0
},
"evidence": {
"C1": "Reviewer: 'confirmed accepted' \u2014 A is treated as saved.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'draft B is preserved', 'keeping draft B visible'.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes; U is more clearly put ('superseded and ignored'; refresh based on accepted revision while keeping B).",
"Q": "Reviewer: no \u2014 only states that the replica consistency contract must be defined, not the specifics of the missing guarantee."
},
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S01, C2): the user's work stays primary, with an unobtrusive hint that it started from a stale state and a convenient resolution option: a three-way diff of the user's current input, the state the user started from, and the current backend state, with simple selection options and the ability to edit or re-edit before submitting. Reviewer guidance (S01, Q): stating the contract generically may help generality; naming the specific missing guarantee as an example would combine specificity and generality."
},
{
"answer": "S01-V",
"scores": {
"C1": 1,
"C2": 1,
"R": 1,
"Q": 0
},
"evidence": {
"C1": "Reviewer: 'accepted' \u2014 A is treated as saved.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'draft B is present', 'preserving draft B'.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes, with reservation: 'Operation A is accepted' could lead to shortcutting, because the conditions do not require visibility of the kept state. Flagged as ambiguous.",
"Q": "Reviewer: no \u2014 only states that the replica consistency contract must be defined, not the specifics of the missing guarantee."
},
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S01, C2): the user's work stays primary, with an unobtrusive hint that it started from a stale state and a convenient resolution option: a three-way diff of the user's current input, the state the user started from, and the current backend state, with simple selection options and the ability to edit or re-edit before submitting. Reviewer guidance (S01, Q): stating the contract generically may help generality; naming the specific missing guarantee as an example would combine specificity and generality.",
"ambiguity": "R: reviewer scored 1 but noted 'Operation A is accepted' could invite the acceptance-equals-freshness shortcut; U judged clearer."
},
{
"answer": "S02-U",
"scores": {
"C1": 1,
"C2": 1,
"R": 1,
"Q": 0
},
"evidence": {
"C1": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'delivery status is unknown due to a lost response'.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 fresh-ID retry 'is problematic \u2026 risks sending a duplicate'.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 user prompted to manually reconcile, 'acknowledging potential duplication'.",
"Q": "Reviewer: no \u2014 the old device is not mentioned. Old-device recovery may be complicated and demanding; users could be annoyed if bound to it or reminded intrusively."
},
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S02, Q): choose policy by communication criticality \u2014 an accept-easily policy with a hint (optionally a remembered 'resend automatically' preference checkbox), or an avoid-duplicates policy for critical documents such as contracts or security-relevant information."
},
{
"answer": "S02-V",
"scores": {
"C1": 1,
"C2": 1,
"R": 1,
"Q": 0
},
"evidence": {
"C1": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 'unknown server outcome for the initial send attempt'.",
"C2": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 fresh-ID automatic retry 'is flawed \u2026 risks duplicating the message'.",
"R": "Reviewer: yes \u2014 user 'must be prompted to manually confirm re-sending \u2026 acknowledging the potential for duplication'.",
"Q": "Reviewer: no \u2014 the old device is not mentioned. Old-device recovery may be complicated and demanding; users could be annoyed if bound to it or reminded intrusively."
},
"unsupported_claims": [],
"suspected_condition_leakage": "none",
"notes": "Reviewer guidance (S02, Q): choose policy by communication criticality \u2014 an accept-easily policy with a hint (optionally a remembered 'resend automatically' preference checkbox), or an avoid-duplicates policy for critical documents such as contracts or security-relevant information."
},
{
"answer": "S03-U",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
},
{
"answer": "S03-V",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
},
{
"answer": "S04-U",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
},
{
"answer": "S04-V",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
},
{
"answer": "S05-U",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
},
{
"answer": "S05-V",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
},
{
"answer": "S06-U",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
},
{
"answer": "S06-V",
"scores": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"evidence": {
"C1": null,
"C2": null,
"R": null,
"Q": null
},
"unsupported_claims": null,
"suspected_condition_leakage": null,
"notes": null
}
],
"review_mode": "Interview: Claude Code presented each brief, answer and criterion in turn and recorded the reviewer's own judgements verbatim; Claude supplied no scores or hints.",
"reviewer_declaration": "I have not seen scores for these answers and will provide my best judgement as founder of Binky Hedgehog GmbH."
}

2
workplans/FEP-WP-0009-m1-independent-validation.md
View file

@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ FEP-WP-0002-T03 now wait on T03 here.
```task
id: FEP-WP-0009-T01
status: wait
status: progress
needs_human: true
priority: high
blocking_reason: "Needs an independent human reviewer to rate the masked pilot-01 answers; no model may supply or infer these scores."