frontend-patterns/research/evaluations/language-replication-03/README.md
tegwick 559d9a4f99 Draft replication-03 criteria from pilot-01 adjudication (FEP-WP-0009-T02)
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
2026-10-20 00:07:33 +02:00

69 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

# Replication 03 — draft criteria revision
Status: **draft, not frozen, not authorized for execution.** Owner: FEP-WP-0009 T02.
Prepared 2026-10-20 by Claude Code (author-model) at the owner's request, using no
model calls. It applies the results of the pilot-01 human review and adjudication
([review](../language-pilot-01/human-review/review-bernd-worsch-2026-10-19.json),
[adjudication](../language-pilot-01/human-review/disagreements-2026-10-19.json)).
Replication-02 and its spent run identities stay unchanged.
## Why a revision
Replication-02 already uses six single-obligation criteria per scenario. The pilot-01
adjudication found 11 of 16 disagreements were caused by rubric wording, not by the
reviewers. Four kinds of ambiguity recur, and several replication-02 criteria still
admit them:
| Ambiguity found in pilot-01 | Example | Replication-02 criteria affected |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Generic vs specific contract naming | S01/S02/S04 Q | S01-A3, S02-A6, S03-A5, S05-A6, S06-A6 |
| Condition stated elsewhere vs in the recommendation | S03 R | S01-A4, S01-A5 |
| End state vs stated atomic step | S05 C1 | S03-A1 |
| Flat assertion of an unknown fact | S01-V "stale"; S03-V "must be retained" | S01-A6, S06-A5 |
The reviewer's recurring guidance was to pair abstract wording with a concrete
example. Each criterion in [scenarios.draft.json](scenarios.draft.json) therefore
carries `qualifies` and `does_not_qualify` examples, a `placement` and a
`change_from_r02` note. Briefs and prohibited lists are copied unchanged.
## Draft scoring rules
- **G1 Placement.** A `recommendation` criterion is met only inside the recommended
state or action. A matching statement only in a later questions section does not count.
An `anywhere` criterion may be met in any section.
- **G2 Named subject.** A contract-identification criterion requires the guarantee's
subject (for example lookup, replay window, read-after-write). A generic "define the
contract" does not qualify. Listed alternatives joined by "or" are each sufficient.
- **G3 Examples are illustrative.** Equivalent wording qualifies; the examples show
where the line is, not required phrases.
- **G4 Unknown facts.** Asserting an unspecified fact as known (stale, permanent,
succeeded) is recorded as an unsupported claim.
- **G5 Overstated caution** (for example "cannot recover" where it is only untested)
is recorded as a separate observation, not an unsupported claim, following the
owner's S06-V adjudication.
- **G6 Ambiguity is a valid result.** A reviewer may mark a criterion ambiguous (X)
instead of forcing a score; ambiguity counts are reported per criterion.
## Reviewer support
The pilot-01 human review worked only in interview form, with plain-language context
per scenario. A replication-03 worksheet should include that context, written before
any answers exist, without hints about any answer.
## Decisions needed before freezing
- **D1 Reuse briefs.** The six replication-02 briefs were never shown to a solver, so
reuse keeps them unseen. The author has seen them, as before. Recommended: reuse.
- **D2 "Impossible" claims.** Replication-02 S04-A4 scored "recovery is impossible"
as a miss. Under G5 it becomes an observation. Recommended: apply G5.
- **D3 Reviewer.** Owner review again, an external reviewer, or both. An external
reviewer strengthens M1 independence.
- **D4 Execution.** A new run identity, restored llm-connect reachability from this
workstation and a fresh call-budget authorization (12 capped calls, no retries,
as before).
## Not yet done
No freeze, prompts, assignment, runner wiring or tests. These follow D1–D4 and reuse
the replication-02 tooling with a new packet identity. Packs stay byte-identical to
replication-02 unless a decision changes them.