tegwick
21030784b1
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
137 lines
13 KiB
JSON
137 lines
13 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"provenance": "provenance.json",
|
|
"answers": [
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S01-U",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 1,
|
|
"Q": 1
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s01",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1/C2 are explicit in \u201cOperation A is confirmed accepted, and draft B is preserved.\u201d R gets credit because the previously started read is explicitly \u201csuperseded and ignored,\u201d which is a valid local request-generation gate rather than opaque-version ordering. Q is explicit in the request for a replica consistency/authority contract. **Unsupported/ambiguous:** \u201cstale replica data\u201d labels the returned data stale even though server/replica freshness is unspecified; I do not use that adjective as the basis for R credit.\n- **V:** C1/C2 are explicit. R is 0 because \u201cthe replica is stale\u201d / \u201cthe stale read\u201d asserts freshness ordering that the scenario does not establish. Q gets credit for explicitly identifying the missing replica consistency contract. **Unsupported claim:** \u201cthe replica is stale.\u201d\n- No prohibited recommendation is made by either answer."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S01-V",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 0,
|
|
"Q": 1
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s01",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1/C2 are explicit in \u201cOperation A is confirmed accepted, and draft B is preserved.\u201d R gets credit because the previously started read is explicitly \u201csuperseded and ignored,\u201d which is a valid local request-generation gate rather than opaque-version ordering. Q is explicit in the request for a replica consistency/authority contract. **Unsupported/ambiguous:** \u201cstale replica data\u201d labels the returned data stale even though server/replica freshness is unspecified; I do not use that adjective as the basis for R credit.\n- **V:** C1/C2 are explicit. R is 0 because \u201cthe replica is stale\u201d / \u201cthe stale read\u201d asserts freshness ordering that the scenario does not establish. Q gets credit for explicitly identifying the missing replica consistency contract. **Unsupported claim:** \u201cthe replica is stale.\u201d\n- No prohibited recommendation is made by either answer."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S02-U",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 1,
|
|
"Q": 1
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s02",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 is explicit (\u201cdelivery status is unknown\u201d); C2 rejects fresh-ID automatic retry because it may duplicate; R gives an informed manual reconciliation/resend choice; Q explicitly asks for lookup support and operation-ID retention. No prohibited recommendation.\n- **V:** C1/C2/R are explicit: unknown outcome, duplicate risk, and informed manual resend. Q is 0 under the frozen no-partial-credit rule: it asks about deduplication scope and ID retention, but does not explicitly ask for operation/history lookup or recoverability of the old device/operation identity.\n- No material unsupported guarantee identified."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S02-V",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 1,
|
|
"Q": 0
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s02",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 is explicit (\u201cdelivery status is unknown\u201d); C2 rejects fresh-ID automatic retry because it may duplicate; R gives an informed manual reconciliation/resend choice; Q explicitly asks for lookup support and operation-ID retention. No prohibited recommendation.\n- **V:** C1/C2/R are explicit: unknown outcome, duplicate risk, and informed manual resend. Q is 0 under the frozen no-partial-credit rule: it asks about deduplication scope and ID retention, but does not explicitly ask for operation/history lookup or recoverability of the old device/operation identity.\n- No material unsupported guarantee identified."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S03-U",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 0,
|
|
"Q": 1
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s03",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 distinguishes \u201clocally committed\u201d from an upload \u201crejected due to authorization failure.\u201d C2 rejects retrying under the same unresolved authorization problem. R is 0 because recovery is prescribed before the missing confidentiality policy is known: \u201cThe notes remain editable locally,\u201d the full content \u201cmust be retained,\u201d and the user \u201cshould be presented\u201d with export/save options. Q correctly asks whether retention, view, edit, export or purge is allowed after revocation.\n- **V:** C1/C2 are met. R is 0 because \u201cmust be retained\u201d and proposed local save/export options are asserted before the revocation policy is known, even though the last bullet correctly asks for that policy. Q is met.\n- **Unsupported policy assumptions:** U: \u201cThe notes remain editable locally\u201d; \u201cmust be retained\u201d; export/save as an offered recovery. V: \u201cmust be retained\u201d; possible local save/export before policy resolution."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S03-V",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 0,
|
|
"Q": 1
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s03",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 distinguishes \u201clocally committed\u201d from an upload \u201crejected due to authorization failure.\u201d C2 rejects retrying under the same unresolved authorization problem. R is 0 because recovery is prescribed before the missing confidentiality policy is known: \u201cThe notes remain editable locally,\u201d the full content \u201cmust be retained,\u201d and the user \u201cshould be presented\u201d with export/save options. Q correctly asks whether retention, view, edit, export or purge is allowed after revocation.\n- **V:** C1/C2 are met. R is 0 because \u201cmust be retained\u201d and proposed local save/export options are asserted before the revocation policy is known, even though the last bullet correctly asks for that policy. Q is met.\n- **Unsupported policy assumptions:** U: \u201cThe notes remain editable locally\u201d; \u201cmust be retained\u201d; export/save as an offered recovery. V: \u201cmust be retained\u201d; possible local save/export before policy resolution."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S04-U",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 0,
|
|
"Q": 0
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s04",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 is explicit: K may have been accepted despite timeout and local cancellation. C2 is met by \u201cA new submission is unsafe.\u201d R is 0 because checking with the provider is a valid escalation path, but the answer does not explicitly state that an accepted K requires a separate authorized remote reversal/cancellation action. Q is 0 because it identifies lookup and deduplication-retention gaps but does not ask for the remote cancellation contract/semantics.\n- **V:** C1 is met and C2 is met because it explicitly says a new submission cannot be assumed duplicate-safe. R is 0: \u201cshould be treated as a new, distinct operation with a fresh identity\u201d is suggested before authoritative reconciliation of K. Q is 0 because it asks about duplicate handling/retention but not operation-status lookup/history or remote cancellation semantics.\n- **Unsafe sequencing (V):** recommending a fresh-identity replacement while K remains unresolved. It does not, however, falsely promise that this is duplicate-safe."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S04-V",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 0,
|
|
"Q": 0
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s04",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 is explicit: K may have been accepted despite timeout and local cancellation. C2 is met by \u201cA new submission is unsafe.\u201d R is 0 because checking with the provider is a valid escalation path, but the answer does not explicitly state that an accepted K requires a separate authorized remote reversal/cancellation action. Q is 0 because it identifies lookup and deduplication-retention gaps but does not ask for the remote cancellation contract/semantics.\n- **V:** C1 is met and C2 is met because it explicitly says a new submission cannot be assumed duplicate-safe. R is 0: \u201cshould be treated as a new, distinct operation with a fresh identity\u201d is suggested before authoritative reconciliation of K. Q is 0 because it asks about duplicate handling/retention but not operation-status lookup/history or remote cancellation semantics.\n- **Unsafe sequencing (V):** recommending a fresh-identity replacement while K remains unresolved. It does not, however, falsely promise that this is duplicate-safe."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S05-U",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 0,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 1,
|
|
"Q": 1
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s05",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 is 0: it preserves c/Q across restart, but never explicitly says that recording c and Q atomically supersedes/blocks P in the local queue. C2 is explicit: the receipt updates P history only and not active c or Q. R is met because the answer treats P as already in flight and requires receiver ancestry/precondition behavior rather than assuming local retirement can stop it. Q explicitly identifies that receiver contract as missing.\n- **V:** C1 is 0 for the same reason and additionally lacks an explicit crash-boundary transition for atomically recording c/Q while retiring P. C2 is met by updating P to accepted without reapplying it to c/Q. R/Q are met by explicitly calling out receiver concurrent-update/precondition behavior as necessary before making guarantees.\n- No prohibited guarantee that local cancellation can stop in-flight P; neither answer marks Q synchronized from P\u2019s receipt."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S05-V",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 0,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 1,
|
|
"Q": 1
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s05",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 is 0: it preserves c/Q across restart, but never explicitly says that recording c and Q atomically supersedes/blocks P in the local queue. C2 is explicit: the receipt updates P history only and not active c or Q. R is met because the answer treats P as already in flight and requires receiver ancestry/precondition behavior rather than assuming local retirement can stop it. Q explicitly identifies that receiver contract as missing.\n- **V:** C1 is 0 for the same reason and additionally lacks an explicit crash-boundary transition for atomically recording c/Q while retiring P. C2 is met by updating P to accepted without reapplying it to c/Q. R/Q are met by explicitly calling out receiver concurrent-update/precondition behavior as necessary before making guarantees.\n- No prohibited guarantee that local cancellation can stop in-flight P; neither answer marks Q synchronized from P\u2019s receipt."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S06-U",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 1,
|
|
"Q": 0
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s06",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 is explicit: restart testing cannot support power-loss/device-loss guarantees. C2 is met because the answer recognizes same-device copies plus deletion-propagating sync as insufficient/risky recovery evidence. R is met by rejecting removal of keyboard conflict review because users still need to resolve divergent versions. Q is 0: it asks for stronger storage/deletion semantics but not an independently recoverable backup/restore contract.\n- **V:** C1/C2/R are met for the same reasons. Q is 0 because no independently recoverable backup/restore contract is requested. **Unsupported negative capability claim:** \u201cThe current local transaction only handles process restarts; it cannot recover from power or device loss.\u201d The evidence only establishes that those failure modes were not tested, not that recovery is impossible.\n- Neither answer treats synchronization or same-device copies as sufficient independent backup."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"answer": "S06-V",
|
|
"scores": {
|
|
"C1": 1,
|
|
"C2": 1,
|
|
"R": 1,
|
|
"Q": 0
|
|
},
|
|
"evidence_locator": "worksheet-completed.md#s06",
|
|
"scenario_notes": "- **U:** C1 is explicit: restart testing cannot support power-loss/device-loss guarantees. C2 is met because the answer recognizes same-device copies plus deletion-propagating sync as insufficient/risky recovery evidence. R is met by rejecting removal of keyboard conflict review because users still need to resolve divergent versions. Q is 0: it asks for stronger storage/deletion semantics but not an independently recoverable backup/restore contract.\n- **V:** C1/C2/R are met for the same reasons. Q is 0 because no independently recoverable backup/restore contract is requested. **Unsupported negative capability claim:** \u201cThe current local transaction only handles process restarts; it cannot recover from power or device loss.\u201d The evidence only establishes that those failure modes were not tested, not that recovery is impossible.\n- Neither answer treats synchronization or same-device copies as sufficient independent backup."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|