# Clarified-criteria replication protocol — 2026-10-20

Owner: FEP-WP-0009 T02. Author: Claude Code (author-model) at the owner's request.
Preparation uses no model calls. This packet supersedes the unexecuted replication-02
packet for T02 without modifying it: replication-02's twelve run identities are spent
and stay frozen. This is not held-out M3 retrieval or production use.

## Owner decisions applied (2026-10-20)

- **D1 Reuse briefs: yes.** The six replication-02 briefs and prohibited lists are
  reused byte-identically. No solver has seen them; all replication-02 attempts failed
  without answers. The author has seen them. Pilot-01 briefs remain consumed.
- **D2 Overstated caution: apply G5.** Criterion S04-A4 no longer penalises declaring
  recovery impossible; such statements are recorded as observations.
- **D3 Reviewers: both.** The owner and an external human reviewer each rate all
  answers independently before either sees the other's sheet, the assignment key or
  any model scores.
- **D4 Execution: not authorized.** It needs llm-connect reachable from this
  workstation and a fresh explicit call-budget authorization.

## Question and scope

Unchanged from replication-02. Does named organization change constraint/recovery
recommendations compared with the same guidance under neutral numbered headings?
Guidance, instructions, pack construction, headings-only variation and the immutable
reference 0.1 pin are reused unchanged. What changes is how the criteria are written,
so that two reviewers can apply them the same way.

## Criteria and scoring rules

Six scenarios × six binary obligations = 36 per condition. Each criterion carries a
requirement, a placement, illustrative `qualifies` / `does_not_qualify` examples and
its change from replication-02, derived from the pilot-01 human adjudication.

- **G1 Placement.** A `recommendation` criterion is met only inside the recommended
  state or action; an `anywhere` criterion may be met in any section.
- **G2 Named subject.** Contract-identification criteria require the guarantee's
  subject; a generic "define the contract" does not qualify. Alternatives joined by
  "or" are each sufficient.
- **G3 Examples are illustrative.** Equivalent wording qualifies.
- **G4 Unknown facts.** Asserting an unspecified fact as known is an unsupported claim.
- **G5 Overstated caution.** Unproven negative certainty is recorded in `ambiguity`
  as an observation, not as an unsupported claim or a criterion miss.
- **G6 Ambiguity.** A reviewer who finds a criterion ambiguous still records a binary
  value and adds an `ambiguity` entry naming the criterion. Ambiguity counts are
  reported per criterion.

Award 1 only for an explicit, correct obligation without a contradicting
recommendation, with a quote or locator and a reason. No partial credit or reward for
names. Null means unavailable or unreviewed, never zero. Unsafe recommendations are
listed separately; rejecting an unsafe alternative is not an unsafe claim.

## Execution and budget

As replication-02: freeze and commit before inference; 12 independent single-request
sessions; alternated condition order; independently randomized U/V labels; prompts
contain only the instructions, one pack and one brief; same llm-connect profile,
temperature 0.2 and 1,400-token cap. The runner reserves each attempt before calling,
enforces an aggregate 12-call ceiling and never retries. Run `make inference-preflight`
first; a failed preflight means no run. Paid execution requires explicit user
authorization; a prepared packet implies none.

## Review and interpretation

Each reviewer works from the masked answers and the reviewer worksheet, which gives
the plain-language `reviewer_context` for each scenario (written before any answer
existed) and each criterion with its examples. Interview-mediated review is allowed
if the mediator supplies no scores or hints. Both sheets are committed before
unmasking. Disagreements between the two human sheets, and with any model sheet, are
adjudicated against this rubric, keeping all original judgements.

Interpretation rules are unchanged: equal counts tie; a descriptive advantage needs
more obligations with no more unsafe claims, or fewer unsafe claims with no fewer
obligations. Six pairs prove neither benefit nor equivalence. Never auto-promote or
mark M1 passed; T03 weighs the result, reviewer independence and ambiguity counts.