tegwick
3690af12a5
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
383 lines
15 KiB
JSON
383 lines
15 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"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"locator": "replica read is superseded and ignored",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."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|