{
  "reviewer": "Codex editorial assessment",
  "date": "2026-09-26",
  "stage": "before assignment key inspection",
  "independent_human": false,
  "masking_limit": "Assessor authored packs/rubrics; condition key and raw receipts not opened before these judgments. No pattern names in masked answers were noticed; inference from wording remains possible.",
  "criterion_order": [
    "C1",
    "C2",
    "R",
    "Q"
  ],
  "answers": [
    {
      "answer": "S01-U",
      "answer_sha256": "5eda5ddfd9725e38aa5827ffd2c929d64074f8c0fd31ee9b5f667362a5c28691",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "Operation A is confirmed accepted",
          "reason": "Recognizes stronger acceptance evidence."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "draft B is preserved",
          "reason": "Separates newer typing from A."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "replica read is superseded and ignored",
          "reason": "Rejects applying an earlier read; refresh remains contract-dependent."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "replica consistency contract needs to be explicitly defined",
          "reason": "Identifies missing consistency contract."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": ""
    },
    {
      "answer": "S01-V",
      "answer_sha256": "a63771e0792ab2df51720093a331e70e02a21120103f1adc7285e027721a8bf0",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "Operation A is accepted",
          "reason": "Does not regress A after promise rejection."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "while preserving draft B",
          "reason": "Retains newer draft."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 0,
          "locator": "the replica is stale",
          "reason": "Assumes a different opaque version is stale; no adequate response-order or unresolved-freshness action."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "replica consistency contract needs to be explicitly defined",
          "reason": "Identifies missing contract."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [
        {
          "quote": "the replica is stale",
          "reason": "The scenario establishes a different opaque version and unspecified consistency, not that this observation is older."
        }
      ],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "The later request for a contract does not establish the asserted stale ordering."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S02-U",
      "answer_sha256": "5cda87a8d3d5f7952ab3d855213c10056d1d43c26e137c0de2225ced5113d6ba",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "delivery status is unknown",
          "reason": "Recognizes uncertain original outcome."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "risks sending a duplicate message",
          "reason": "Rejects fresh-ID retry as duplicate-safe."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "asking if they want to resend it, acknowledging potential duplication",
          "reason": "Explicit informed reconciliation allowed by the rubric."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "lookup support and retention for operation IDs are critical",
          "reason": "Names both missing mechanisms."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "Content lookup is suggested, not asserted to uniquely prove identity; no guarantee credited."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S02-V",
      "answer_sha256": "0cab89bf9c994d5a87913eb956bdd400611a5aa05a25c46e9473fda524b4403b",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "unknown server outcome",
          "reason": "Retains uncertainty."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "automatically retry is flawed",
          "reason": "Rejects automatic fresh-ID recovery."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "manually confirm re-sending ... acknowledging the potential for duplication",
          "reason": "Proposes informed reconciliation; ellipsis locator paraphrases surrounding words."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "retention for operation IDs are critical but unspecified",
          "reason": "Identifies missing retention contract."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "Factual imprecision: deduplication scope was supplied, although answer calls scope unspecified. No unsupported safety guarantee is asserted."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S03-U",
      "answer_sha256": "0c773739af4a505c87fbea5659da9ba4e0d9207643597992b9050d22f04372ac",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "locally committed ... explicitly rejected due to authorization failure",
          "reason": "Separates local save and remote denial."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "Blindly retrying the upload with a new identity is rejected",
          "reason": "Does not use new identity to bypass authorization."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 0,
          "locator": "The notes remain editable locally",
          "reason": "Unconditional access and export options precede the unresolved access policy."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "can the user continue to view, edit, or export these notes, or should they be purged?",
          "reason": "Asks the material policy question."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [
        {
          "quote": "The notes remain editable locally. ... options to either discard ... or attempt to export/save the content locally.",
          "reason": "Grants local access/export before the missing revocation policy has been resolved."
        }
      ],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "Questioning the policy later does not make the earlier unqualified permissions conditional. The duplication explanation for an explicit rejection is also weak."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S03-V",
      "answer_sha256": "d1e51b0040acf54520444273b5445d45bee241d3941a0e82c7f7ac0b9b5f7804",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "accepted locally, rejected remotely",
          "reason": "Separates acknowledgement scopes."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "attempting a re-upload with a new identity is inappropriate",
          "reason": "Rejects this retry route."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 0,
          "locator": "must be retained",
          "reason": "Unconditional confidential-content retention conflicts with the unknown policy."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "retention, viewing, and export ... This will dictate the specific recovery options",
          "reason": "Explicitly requests the policy."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [
        {
          "quote": "The full local commit of confidential notes, including its revision and operation identity, must be retained.",
          "reason": "Treats permanent/mandatory retention as decided before knowing post-revocation policy."
        }
      ],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "Borderline for human review: final sentence conditions recovery options, but not the earlier must-retain statement. Export itself is framed tentatively; do not count it as a second violation."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S04-U",
      "answer_sha256": "acdf9bc9bb7faadfeb32be0ebdc9926984135f262fcf12cec7ebd07c9742cd1b",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "may have accepted operation K despite the timeout and local cancellation",
          "reason": "Local Cancel is not remote reversal."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "A new submission is unsafe",
          "reason": "Does not claim replacement is duplicate-safe."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "check with the service provider",
          "reason": "Provides authoritative escalation/reconciliation before replacement."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "lacks a documented operation-status lookup or deduplication retention guarantee",
          "reason": "Identifies needed contracts."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "Overstates that both identity and intent were discarded: only pending-entry removal is given. No harmful recovery guarantee follows; flag for human review."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S04-V",
      "answer_sha256": "f388d3514a2c73c5a237c1559c7b47a945c2bac43bf42ba3fe604479206d3f2f",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "server's status for K is unknown",
          "reason": "Does not infer rejection from Cancel."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "cannot safely assume a new submission will not result in a duplicate",
          "reason": "Explicitly rejects a safety guarantee."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 0,
          "locator": "should be treated as a new, distinct operation with a fresh identity",
          "reason": "Does not specify reconciliation before replacement or remote reversal after known acceptance."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "server's behavior regarding duplicate submissions and its retention window",
          "reason": "Names missing contracts."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "Borderline: recommends fresh identity but warns duplication. Score recovery omission; do not infer an explicit duplicate-free guarantee the answer does not make."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S05-U",
      "answer_sha256": "338eafdf7ce803f1cae6a5126596a6f75683a7eef0eb7c3ec7ca92b765337d00",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 0,
          "locator": "original pending operation P and its identity must also be retained",
          "reason": "No explicit atomic block/supersession of P alongside c and Q, despite restart mention."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "should not alter the active content or the status of Q",
          "reason": "Scopes old receipt to old operation."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "how the receiver handles an in-flight operation ... superseding operation",
          "reason": "Requires server handling of the in-flight operation, rather than trusting local retirement."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "clear contract for the receiver's ancestry and precondition behavior",
          "reason": "Names missing contract."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": ""
    },
    {
      "answer": "S05-V",
      "answer_sha256": "8685235bcfc59fc1f3b2e922e47cd6bb46eee18daf0c224d11a16775197fee7d",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 0,
          "locator": "potentially flag that P's original intent was superseded",
          "reason": "Does not specify atomic queue transition/crash boundary."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "update P's status to \"accepted\" but **not** reapply P's changes to revision c or Q",
          "reason": "Restricts receipt to P; no status promotion of Q."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "Without knowing how the receiver handles concurrent updates and what preconditions it enforces",
          "reason": "Does not assume local queue action prevents remote stale write."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "critical missing contract is the receiver's ancestry and precondition behavior",
          "reason": "Explicit missing contract."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "C2 uses semantic reading of not applying P to Q; reviewer may ask for more explicit Q acknowledgement scope."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S06-U",
      "answer_sha256": "6c60c9c12851331cfd8f3f1af4ac6455cdf41e62b79d89fb7b37f464707ace12",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "cannot guarantee edits survive device loss or complete power failure",
          "reason": "Does not upgrade restart test evidence."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "two copies ... same device ... sync protocol propagates deletions, which risks data loss",
          "reason": "Recognizes the stated copies/sync do not establish independent recovery."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "remove conflict review ... eliminates the user's ability to resolve divergent versions",
          "reason": "Retains accessible resolution."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 0,
          "locator": "no documented contract ... device loss or power failure",
          "reason": "Omits an independently recoverable backup/restore contract."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "C2 is semantically adequate about inadequate recovery, though it does not use the word backup; Q still requires independent restore contract."
    },
    {
      "answer": "S06-V",
      "answer_sha256": "f5965dd3ada0156bf46bbe5cdde96893b3caecd8600729d322d2b934ba4a4c0e",
      "criteria": {
        "C1": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "cannot guarantee survival ... power failure",
          "reason": "Correctly denies the promised guarantee."
        },
        "C2": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "same device ... sync protocol propagates deletions, which is insufficient for robust recovery",
          "reason": "Recognizes no independent recovery protection."
        },
        "R": {
          "score": 1,
          "locator": "Removing conflict review from the keyboard interface is premature and risky",
          "reason": "Rejects removal of accessible resolution."
        },
        "Q": {
          "score": 0,
          "locator": "no documented contract for restart-safe storage beyond process restart",
          "reason": "Omits independent backup and restore requirement."
        }
      },
      "unsupported_claims": [
        {
          "quote": "it cannot recover from power or device loss",
          "reason": "Converts lack of tested power-loss/device-loss evidence into categorical inability. Unsupported certainty; not a claim of guaranteed survival."
        }
      ],
      "suspected_condition_leakage": false,
      "notes": "Flag for human adjudication: this is an unsupported negative capability assertion, separate from the correctly rejected guarantee. C1 still meets its narrow requirement."
    }
  ]
}