# Blinded assessment

I read only cases.json, rubric.json and S1.json through S6.json. I assessed each actual reason and question against the full case, without arm labels, preparation notes, other conversations, external sources or an exemplar. The 120 case judgements are in the six corresponding adjudication files.

All six reports adequately identify the decisive substantive distinctions in all 20 cases. Their reasons preserve evidence scope, distinguish investigation from commitment, and avoid treating authority, presentation polish, scenario numbers or learning labels as substitutes for the relevant evidence. No reason merits a penalty for material distortion, an invented requirement, unsupported acceptance, scope collapse or a missed decisive fact. This is not a finding of general competence beyond these supplied cases.

## Fixed-rubric results

| Report | Admissible actions /20 | Sound cases /20 | EXPLORE sound /10 | DECIDE sound /10 | Reason points /40 | Question points /20 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| S1 | 19 | 19 | 10 | 9 | 40 | 19 |
| S2 | 19 | 19 | 10 | 9 | 40 | 19 |
| S3 | 17 | 17 | 10 | 7 | 40 | 17 |
| S4 | 17 | 17 | 10 | 7 | 40 | 17 |
| S5 | 19 | 19 | 10 | 9 | 40 | 19 |
| S6 | 19 | 19 | 10 | 9 | 40 | 19 |

All six reports choose **reject** with a null question for J16, where the frozen rubric allows only **ask**. S3 and S4 additionally choose reject/null for J07 and J09, again against ask-only entries. These are the complete action differences. Each associated reason still receives 2: it recognises the decisive distinction accurately. Action conformity is scored separately, as the rubric requires.

For fixed-rubric question scoring, null receives 0 on these ask-only entries because it omits the required targeted inquiry. Null receives 1 on admissible keep/reject entries. The error code `unnecessary_block` records the fixed rubric's objection to rejection instead of clarification; it does not claim that the underlying recommendation was safe, supported or ready to execute. All actual questions in the six reports target the decisive missing evidence or ambiguity and receive 1.

## Rubric challenges and transparent sensitivity

**J16 is the clearest challenge.** The case says the trial will permanently overwrite the only originals. This supplies an explicit contradiction of reversibility, not just an absent backup attestation. Rejecting the design as supplied and requiring revision is therefore defensible, much as the known capacity contradiction warrants rejection in J05. The frozen ask-only rule can be retained for the primary scores, but its sole-admissible-action choice should not be treated as decisive evidence of a reasoning failure. Accepting reject-as-is for J16 alone produces 20 sound cases for S1/S2/S5/S6 and 18 for S3/S4; the corresponding question totals would also rise by one.

**J07 and J09 have a weaker but genuine action-semantics ambiguity.** The supplied rubric does not define whether reject means rejecting a recommendation as presently justified or ruling out the underlying action despite possible further evidence. S3/S4 explicitly seek a revised migration/full-cost case in J07 and revision plus local comparability in J09. Neither says migration is inherently wrong or the 18% saving impossible. Their reasons reject misleading framing or an invalid validation argument in the current recommendation. Ask is a good response, but reject-as-is is also defensible under the former meaning. A broader sensitivity allowing that interpretation for J07/J09 as well as J16 yields 20/20 sound cases and 20/20 question scores for every report. This broader analysis is conditional and does not replace the fixed results.

The observed ranking under the fixed rubric therefore comes entirely from ask-versus-reject choices on these three cases, not from any difference in identifying the supplied substantive distinctions. S1/S2/S5/S6 use targeted questions for missing migration and budget applicability evidence; S3/S4 express the required repair in their reasons while rejecting the current recommendation. Their choice is more categorical, but the text does not support claiming that they missed those evidence gaps.

Confidence is descriptive only. High confidence predominates; several reports use medium confidence on J07/J09 or J11/J12. These 20 cases do not establish calibration, transfer or durable learning.