{ "protocol_id": "PW-238-essai02-scoped-feedback-v1", "freeze_sha256": "8f8794ea19df16163f79e7c1b56a58f55d0a0e5b4c5d9a4ea94581635c889bf3", "state": "adjudicated", "runs": [ { "id": "frozen-1", "arm": "frozen", "replicate": 1, "metadata": { "agent_task": "/root/participant238_frozen1", "fork_turns": "none", "fresh": true, "model_setting": "Exact model/setting not exposed (inherited)", "assigned_packets": [ "frozen-stage1.md", "stage2.md" ], "decision_tool_scope": "No external tools beyond packet reading during decisions", "export_timing": "Export after final response", "responses_revised": false, "capture_validation": "Root parsed raw final output and verified equal JSON values; no semantic repair.", "preparation_output_words": 222, "test_raw_output_words": 845, "output_limit_deviation": false }, "answers": [ { "id": "J20", "action": "keep", "reason": "The note supports investigating competing explanations and identifying discriminating evidence. It acknowledges incompleteness without treating participation or agreement as confirmation.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J01", "action": "keep", "reason": "The historical audit is adequate to generate hypotheses for a desk comparison. The note explicitly identifies changed conditions and makes no claim about current compliance.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J19", "action": "keep", "reason": "Checked evidence supports this isolated rehearsal, including its staffing, inputs and stopping conditions. The outstanding cybersecurity review remains relevant to the later launch and does not invalidate the stated rehearsal.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J12", "action": "ask", "reason": "An unsupported percentage cannot establish that fatigue has decreased sufficiently to stop investigating it. Calling the document exploratory does not supply the missing measurement.", "question": "What measurement establishes the claimed 25% reduction and supports dropping fatigue from further investigation?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J15", "action": "ask", "reason": "The diagram obscures an existing-versus-proposed distinction essential to the comparison. This is a material ambiguity rather than unfinished cosmetic styling.", "question": "Which depicted links already exist, and which are proposed?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J18", "action": "ask", "reason": "One rural town's flows do not establish superiority across all districts. Applicability and comparative evidence are missing for the proposed exclusion of alternatives.", "question": "What comparison accounts for urban and rural district differences and supports excluding the other designs?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J11", "action": "ask", "reason": "The director's signature does not resolve the untested production mappings, and demo-schema samples do not establish their correctness. Production reconciliation is the specific unresolved gap.", "question": "What test evidence establishes that all required production mappings, including those listed as untested, reconcile correctly?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J06", "action": "keep", "reason": "The proposal supports a limited test with a cost cap, comparison, daily cover checks, an owner and a defined return to the current rota. Its claim is that testing is worthwhile, not that savings are already established.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J14", "action": "keep", "reason": "The material claims, options, dependencies and uncertainties are sufficiently covered for working discussion. The unfinished styling does not affect the stated use.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J16", "action": "reject", "reason": "Permanently overwriting the only originals contradicts the claimed reversibility and easy rollback. A sound cleaning process and authorised budget do not repair that contradiction; the trial design must change.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J08", "action": "keep", "reason": "The vendor's claim is attributed and its unverified comparability is explicit. It is adequate to motivate questions about possible mechanisms without establishing a local saving.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J09", "action": "reject", "reason": "Acceptance of a vendor claim for exploration does not validate using it to reduce this site's budget. The stated justification is invalid, and the budget recommendation requires revision and evidence of local comparability.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J10", "action": "keep", "reason": "The signed evidence covers production extracts, the full live mapping inventory and resolved exceptions, supporting the cutover recommendation. The specialist's lack of spending authority does not undermine that evidence, and the director's separate approval remains explicit.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J05", "action": "reject", "reason": "The verified reading above the operating limit contradicts the claimed adequate capacity, with no mitigation or explanation supplied. Describing the opening as learning does not make the recommendation sound.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J07", "action": "reject", "reason": "The proposed start entails contract termination, service deletion and a non-refundable annual commitment, so the two-week pilot framing materially understates the action. Demo responses do not justify those commitments without a revised migration and full-cost case.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J17", "action": "keep", "reason": "The town is explicitly a starting case for comparing concepts and planning later case selection. The brief avoids claiming a regional ranking from its limited observations.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J13", "action": "keep", "reason": "The arbitrary percentage is transparently an illustration of possible value, not a claimed result or forecast. That bounded use supports exploring the hypothesis and developing a fatigue measure.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J03", "action": "keep", "reason": "Recent signed inspection confirms that the older survey's relevant geometry remains unchanged, and the actuator specification and load have been checked against it. That supports the replacement recommendation while preserving the separate procurement approval.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J04", "action": "keep", "reason": "The inconsistency is explicitly the subject of investigation rather than concealed beneath a capacity conclusion. Comparing timestamps and boundary conditions is a focused next step supported by the supplied material.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J02", "action": "ask", "reason": "Historical low demand does not establish current demand after the extension and new peak service. The missing current observation matters to a permanent removal.", "question": "What evidence of boarding demand since the extension and new peak service supports permanently removing the staffed point?", "confidence": "high" } ], "report_sha256": "a5ddc2f180f837fd0c0bff6441bb07ec931450cdb901b42304b27a01ad43e471", "action_agreement": 17, "output_words": 703, "adequacy_state": "adjudicated", "preparation_words": 222, "stage2_within_word_limit": true, "stage1_within_word_limit": true, "judgments": [ { "id": "J01", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies bounded hypothesis generation, disclosed changed conditions and absence of a present compliance claim.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J02", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises that historical demand does not establish demand after the two changes and asks for evidence bearing on permanent removal.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J03", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies recent confirmation of unchanged geometry plus checks of the actual actuator, preserving later approval.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J04", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises that inconsistency is openly being investigated through timestamps and conditions rather than used to assert capacity.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J05", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly treats the verified limit breach as contradicting the opening's capacity justification; the learning label cannot repair it.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J06", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies trial controls and the limited claim that testing is worthwhile, without importing a requirement for demonstrated savings.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J07", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Accurately identifies irreversible commitments and missing migration/full-cost support; reject/null nevertheless replaces the fixed rubric's targeted ask.", "rubric_challenge": "The rubric supplies no action definitions distinguishing reject-the-current-recommendation from ask-for-its-missing-support. This reason rejects the misleading pilot framing and unsupported current commitment, not migration forever. Reject-as-is is defensible under that interpretation, although less clearly required than in J16; fixed ask-only scoring is retained.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J08", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Preserves vendor attribution and unverified comparability while allowing mechanism investigation without a local saving claim.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J09", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Correctly rejects the inference from exploratory acceptance to budget validation and identifies missing local comparability; fixed action is ask and no question is offered.", "rubric_challenge": "Reject-as-is can reasonably mean rejecting a budget whose explicit validation argument is invalid while requiring local evidence for revision. The supplied rubric does not define why that differs impermissibly from ask. Retain fixed penalties; broader sensitivity may admit this bounded rejection, without treating the 18% saving as disproved.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J10", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly uses full production mapping coverage and resolved exceptions and separates evidential competence from spending authority.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J11", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the untested production reconciliation gap and asks for tests covering the required live mappings.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J12", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises that an unsupported percentage cannot justify stopping fatigue inquiry and requests measurement supporting both claim and closure.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J13", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Distinguishes an arbitrary illustrative scenario from a result or forecast and accepts its limited role in studying value and measurement.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J14", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts substantive coverage for working discussion and correctly treats unfinished styling as immaterial here.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J15", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies existing versus proposed connections as essential meaning and asks directly for that distinction.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J16", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Correctly identifies permanent overwrite of the only originals as incompatible with easy rollback and requires a changed design; fixed ask is absent.", "rubric_challenge": "Permanent overwrite of the only originals is an explicit destructive fact, making rejection of this design defensible. Ask-only scoring understates the case's contradiction. Keep fixed penalties; admitting reject-as-is would accept the action and null question.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J17", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Preserves the single-town starting scope, later case-selection purpose and explicit exclusion of a regional ranking.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J18", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies missing cross-district applicability and comparison for excluding alternatives; the question targets both.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J19", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies checked staffing, inputs, stop conditions and isolation as adequate for rehearsal despite the later launch review.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J20", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts investigation seeking discriminating evidence while preserving incompleteness and avoiding agreement-as-proof.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true } ], "sound": 17, "by_use": { "EXPLORE": 10, "DECIDE": 7 } }, { "id": "frozen-2", "arm": "frozen", "replicate": 2, "metadata": { "agent_task": "/root/participant238_frozen2", "fresh": true, "fork_turns": "none", "model_setting": "exact model/setting not exposed (inherited)", "assigned_packets": [ "frozen-stage1.md", "stage2.md" ], "decision_tools": "no external tools beyond packet reading during decisions", "export_timing": "export after final response", "capture_validation": "Root parsed raw final output and verified equal JSON values; no semantic repair.", "preparation_output_words": 215, "test_raw_output_words": 884, "output_limit_deviation": false }, "answers": [ { "id": "J20", "action": "keep", "reason": "The referenced incidents and explicitly incomplete evidence support investigating the two explanations. The note seeks discriminating evidence without treating participation or agreement as proof.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J01", "action": "keep", "reason": "The historical audit supports a bounded comparison of hypotheses, and the platform extension is explicitly identified as a possible difference. No present demand or compliance conclusion is claimed.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J19", "action": "keep", "reason": "Checked evidence covers the controlled rehearsal and its isolation from live services. The outstanding cybersecurity review concerns the later launch and does not invalidate this preparatory action.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J12", "action": "ask", "reason": "The claimed observed reduction has no evidential basis supplied, leaving the recommendation to stop investigating fatigue unsupported. Calling the document exploratory does not resolve that specific gap.", "question": "What measurement and comparison establish the claimed 25% fatigue reduction and justify dropping fatigue from further investigation?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J15", "action": "ask", "reason": "The indistinguishable symbols conceal a distinction essential to comparing the options. This is a substantive ambiguity despite the complete sources and balanced prose.", "question": "Which diagram links already exist and which are proposed?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J18", "action": "ask", "reason": "Flows from one rural town do not establish a ranking across all districts or justify removing alternatives. The missing issue is applicability and comparative performance, not whether the initial observations have any value.", "question": "What comparison accounting for urban and rural district differences supports this regional ranking and exclusion of the other designs?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J11", "action": "ask", "reason": "The director's signature does not supply the missing production mapping evidence, and demo records do not establish live reconciliation. The stated facts identify untested mappings rather than a demonstrated mapping failure.", "question": "What production reconciliation evidence establishes that the currently untested field mappings are ready for cutover?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J06", "action": "keep", "reason": "The sample supports testing a possibility, and the proposed trial has a defined comparison, owner, cost cap and cover-based stopping condition. This justifies the trial without establishing that savings will result.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J14", "action": "keep", "reason": "Sourced claims, covered options and explicit uncertainties adequately support the working discussion. The unfinished styling does not obscure any decision-relevant distinction.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J16", "action": "reject", "reason": "Permanently overwriting the only originals across the full database contradicts the claimed reversibility and easy rollback. A sound cleaning process and authorised spending cap do not repair that contradiction.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J08", "action": "keep", "reason": "The vendor's claim is attributed, its comparability remains explicitly unresolved, and the proposed use is to investigate possible mechanisms. No local saving or budget reduction is asserted.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J09", "action": "reject", "reason": "Acceptance of a claim for exploratory investigation does not validate using it as a local budget saving. That stated justification must be revised, and the supplied brief also lacks the site comparability needed to support the reduction.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J10", "action": "keep", "reason": "The specialist's signed evidence covers production extracts, the full mapping inventory and resolved exceptions, supporting the technical recommendation. Spending authority is a separate issue, and the director's go/no-go approval remains explicit.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J05", "action": "reject", "reason": "The verified reading above the operating limit directly contradicts the stated adequate-capacity justification. With no mitigation or explanation, describing the opening as learning does not support proceeding.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J07", "action": "reject", "reason": "Contract termination, deletion of the previous service and a non-refundable annual commitment invalidate the presentation of this action as a bounded two-week pilot. The recommendation needs reassessment as a substantive migration, for which the brief supplies neither migration nor full-cost evidence.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J17", "action": "keep", "reason": "The observed town flows support an initial concept comparison within the stated limits. The note preserves the unresolved regional differences and uses them to guide later case selection.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J13", "action": "keep", "reason": "The arbitrary percentage is clearly a scenario illustrating potential value, not evidence of an achieved or forecast reduction. That is adequate for exploring whether and how fatigue effects should be measured.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J03", "action": "keep", "reason": "The recent inspection confirms that the older dimensional evidence still applies, and the actuator specification and load have been checked against it. The retained procurement approval does not undermine the supported replacement recommendation.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J04", "action": "keep", "reason": "The inconsistency is the explicit subject of investigation, rather than being hidden beneath a conclusion. Comparing timestamps and boundary conditions is a focused next step supported by the supplied evidence.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J02", "action": "ask", "reason": "The historical demand observation does not establish current demand after the platform and service changes. The permanent removal depends on the unsupported assumption that those changes do not matter.", "question": "What observation of demand after the platform extension and new peak service supports permanently removing the staffed boarding point?", "confidence": "high" } ], "report_sha256": "679ca3c9fc9c5709282f6bc78b7335c9cfbc47c8d2e417d6f095980c4d6876f1", "action_agreement": 17, "output_words": 742, "adequacy_state": "adjudicated", "preparation_words": 215, "stage2_within_word_limit": true, "stage1_within_word_limit": true, "judgments": [ { "id": "J01", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly uses the historical audit for bounded hypotheses while preserving the disclosed platform difference and withholding current conclusions.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J02", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies unsupported continuity of demand after platform/service changes and requests post-change observation relevant to permanent removal.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J03", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises the recent applicability check and actual actuator specification/load checks, without confusing retained approval with an evidence gap.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J04", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Treats the disclosed inconsistency as a legitimate investigation with a focused comparison rather than an unsupported conclusion.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J05", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the verified limit breach and absent mitigation/explanation as defeating the asserted capacity justification.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J06", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Connects the sample to a controlled, capped test with ownership and a stopping condition, while withholding a savings conclusion.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J07", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Identifies irreversible consequences hidden by the pilot label and missing evidence for the substantive migration; fixed rubric calls for ask, not reject/null.", "rubric_challenge": "Rejecting the present pilot-framed recommendation pending reassessment is defensible if reject means reject-as-is. The rubric does not define the boundary between that and asking for missing support. This is a narrower semantic challenge than J16's explicit destructive contradiction; retain fixed scoring and consider broader sensitivity separately.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J08", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts an attributed, qualified vendor claim as a mechanism lead without validating savings or a budget reduction.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J09", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Correctly distinguishes exploratory acceptance from budget validation and identifies missing site comparability; its reject/null fails the fixed ask requirement.", "rubric_challenge": "The report rejects an invalid stated justification and requests revision in its reason, without asserting that the saving is impossible. Reject-as-is is defensible unless the action definitions exclude it, and none are supplied. Retain fixed penalties; a broader sensitivity can admit this interpretation.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J10", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises complete production mapping evidence and resolved exceptions as technical support, with spending and go/no-go authority separate.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J11", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Targets missing production reconciliation rather than another signature and avoids treating an untested mapping as a demonstrated failure.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J12", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies unsupported fatigue-inquiry closure despite the exploratory label and asks for measurement and comparison supporting the claimed reduction.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J13", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises an arbitrary value scenario rather than empirical or forecast evidence and allows its bounded research use.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J14", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Relates sourced claims and options to the working discussion and correctly finds no material ambiguity caused by unfinished styling.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J15", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the link-state ambiguity as substantive and asks exactly which diagram links already exist or are proposed.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J16", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Recognises full-database permanent overwrite of the only originals as contradicting rollback, irrespective of sound processing or authorised cost; fixed ask is missing.", "rubric_challenge": "Rejecting this design is defensible because the supplied facts explicitly contradict reversibility, rather than only leaving it unverified. Ask-only is too narrow for a reject-as-is interpretation. Keep fixed penalties and show the alternative only in sensitivity.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J17", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Keeps the town comparison within its starting scope and uses unresolved regional differences for later case selection.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J18", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies unsupported regional ranking and exclusion while preserving local evidential value; the question addresses district differences and comparison.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J19", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Uses checked rehearsal scope and isolation to avoid importing the later launch cybersecurity requirement.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J20", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts a referenced, incomplete investigation seeking discriminating evidence and does not treat participation or agreement as proof.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true } ], "sound": 17, "by_use": { "EXPLORE": 10, "DECIDE": 7 } }, { "id": "history-1", "arm": "history", "replicate": 1, "metadata": { "agent_task": "/root/participant238_history1", "fresh": true, "fork_turns": "none", "model_and_setting": "Exact model/setting not exposed (inherited)", "assigned_packets": [ "history-stage1.md", "stage2.md" ], "decision_phase_tools": "No external tools beyond packet reading during decisions", "artifact_export": "Export after final response; no answers revised", "capture_validation": "Root parsed raw final output and verified equal JSON values; no semantic repair.", "preparation_output_words": 334, "test_raw_output_words": 910, "output_limit_deviation": false }, "answers": [ { "id": "J20", "action": "keep", "reason": "The note supports an investigation of two explanations without claiming either is established. Incident references and a focused effort to distinguish them are adequate for this use.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J01", "action": "keep", "reason": "The historical audit supplies hypotheses for a desk comparison, with the platform extension explicitly identified as a possible limitation. The note makes no unsupported claim about current conditions.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J19", "action": "keep", "reason": "Checked evidence supports this isolated rehearsal and its controls. The outstanding cybersecurity review concerns the later launch, so accepting the rehearsal does not establish launch readiness.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J12", "action": "ask", "reason": "An unsupported percentage cannot justify dropping fatigue from investigation, even in an early ideas document. No supplied observation establishes that the claimed reduction is false, so the decisive gap is its evidential basis.", "question": "What measurement supports the claimed 25% fatigue reduction and its use to justify ending further fatigue investigation?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J15", "action": "ask", "reason": "The diagram obscures a distinction on which the central comparison depends. Complete sources do not make that ambiguity merely cosmetic.", "question": "Which depicted connections already exist, and which are proposed?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J18", "action": "ask", "reason": "Observations from one rural town do not establish a regional winner or justify excluding the alternatives. Evidence connecting the comparison to differing districts is missing.", "question": "What comparative evidence establishes that the preferred design also outperforms the alternatives across the relevant urban and rural differences?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J11", "action": "ask", "reason": "The director's signature does not substantiate the untested production mappings. Demo-schema samples leave a specific gap in the claimed cutover readiness.", "question": "What production-based reconciliation establishes that the currently untested field mappings are correct?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J06", "action": "keep", "reason": "The sample supports testing a possible benefit within a specified duration and spending cap, with ownership, comparison, daily checks and a return condition. It need not already prove savings to justify this bounded trial.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J14", "action": "keep", "reason": "The material claims, options, dependencies and uncertainties are adequate for the working discussion. Unfinished styling does not affect the stated use.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J16", "action": "reject", "reason": "Permanently overwriting the only originals without restoration contradicts the recommendation's claim of reversibility and easy rollback. The trial must be redesigned or its recommendation revised; the spending cap and sound cleaning process do not resolve that contradiction.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J08", "action": "keep", "reason": "The vendor claim is attributed, its untested comparability is disclosed, and it is used to generate explanatory questions. No budget or verified saving is inferred from it.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J09", "action": "ask", "reason": "Acceptance as an exploratory lead did not validate an 18% saving for this site's budget. The decision-changing gap is whether the installations' results apply to this site's assets, workloads and costs.", "question": "What evidence connects the vendor results to this site's conditions and supports an achievable 18% reduction in next year's maintenance allowance?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J10", "action": "keep", "reason": "The specialist's attestation is supported by production extracts, full mapping coverage and resolved exceptions. Separate director approval is explicitly retained and does not create a defect in the technical recommendation.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J05", "action": "reject", "reason": "The verified reading above the operating limit directly contradicts the asserted adequate capacity, with no mitigation or reconciliation. Calling the opening a learning opportunity does not repair the recommendation.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J07", "action": "ask", "reason": "The proposed start commits the organisation to an irreversible migration and annual cost before the two-week evaluation concludes. Four demo responses do not establish that this larger commitment is justified; irreversibility alone does not prove that migration is the wrong choice.", "question": "What migration and full-cost assessment supports terminating the existing arrangements and committing the annual licence before the evaluation can report?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J17", "action": "keep", "reason": "The rural observations are explicitly a starting case for comparing concepts and identifying later case-selection differences. The note preserves the limits of that evidence and makes no regional ranking.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J13", "action": "keep", "reason": "The arbitrary percentage is clearly a conditional illustration rather than an observed or forecast benefit. It can support discussion of possible value while the proposed study develops a fatigue measure.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J03", "action": "keep", "reason": "The recent inspection establishes continued applicability of the older dimensional survey, and the specification and load have been checked against it. The retained procurement approval is a separate step.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J04", "action": "keep", "reason": "The inconsistent model and incident evidence are the disclosed subjects of investigation. Comparing their timestamps and boundary conditions is appropriate before drawing a capacity conclusion.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J02", "action": "ask", "reason": "The historical low-demand observation does not establish current demand after the extension and new peak service. The unsupported assertion that these changes are immaterial leaves the permanent removal recommendation unsubstantiated.", "question": "What current observation or supported comparison shows that the platform extension and new peak service have not materially changed demand at this boarding point?", "confidence": "high" } ], "report_sha256": "3e9bdc12f78d96543dd013bdb3dc02771a2e378da9c3ac38e1366ceab3a48577", "action_agreement": 19, "output_words": 768, "adequacy_state": "adjudicated", "preparation_words": 334, "stage2_within_word_limit": true, "stage1_within_word_limit": true, "judgments": [ { "id": "J01", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly limits the historical audit to hypothesis generation and acknowledges the extension; null is appropriate.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J02", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the unsupported bridge from old demand to permanent removal after both changes; the question targets that bridge.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J03", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Uses the recent geometry confirmation and specification/load checks, while retaining separate procurement approval.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J04", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises the inconsistency as the disclosed subject of investigation, with a relevant comparison already proposed.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J05", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the verified operating-limit breach and absent mitigation as contradicting the capacity justification; rejection needs no clarification first.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J06", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Connects the preliminary sample to a bounded, controlled trial and expressly avoids demanding proof of savings.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J07", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies irreversible commitments beyond the evaluation period and asks for migration and full-cost support, without claiming migration must fail.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J08", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Preserves vendor attribution and untested comparability while allowing a mechanism question, without treating the percentage as a saving.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J09", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Separates exploratory acceptance from local budget validation and requests evidence linking the installations to local conditions and costs.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J10", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly relies on full production mapping evidence and resolved exceptions while keeping director approval separate.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J11", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Targets the untested production mappings that the director signature and demo samples cannot establish.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J12", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises that the unsupported percentage cannot close fatigue inquiry and asks for its measurement basis without declaring the benefit disproved.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J13", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly treats 25% as a conditional illustration rather than an empirical or forecast claim.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J14", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Assesses substantive adequacy for the working discussion and does not make styling a condition of acceptance.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J15", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the central existing/proposed-link ambiguity and asks exactly which connections have which status.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J16", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Correctly identifies destructive overwrite and the irrelevance of the spending cap to recovery; fixed rubric requires ask, but the report rejects and asks nothing.", "rubric_challenge": "Rejecting the design as supplied is defensible: it explicitly permanently overwrites the only originals, contradicting reversibility rather than merely omitting corroboration. The rubric permits only ask. Retain that fixed action/question penalty; a sensitivity allowing reject-as-is would accept this response and its null question.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J17", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises the single town as a limited starting case for concepts and later sampling, not a regional ranking.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J18", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies unjustified regional ranking and exclusion; the question requests comparative evidence addressing district differences.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J19", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Keeps checked isolated-rehearsal adequacy distinct from the outstanding full-launch cybersecurity requirement.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J20", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts a referenced investigation with a discriminating question while withholding any claim that an explanation is established.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true } ], "sound": 19, "by_use": { "EXPLORE": 10, "DECIDE": 9 } }, { "id": "history-2", "arm": "history", "replicate": 2, "metadata": { "agent_task": "/root/participant238_history2", "fresh": true, "fork_turns": "none", "model_and_setting": "exact model/setting not exposed (inherited)", "assigned_packets": [ "/private/tmp/pw-stronger-essais-20261019/learning-from-feedback/scoped-feedback/packets/history-stage1.md", "/private/tmp/pw-stronger-essais-20261019/learning-from-feedback/scoped-feedback/packets/stage2.md" ], "decision_tool_scope": "no external tools beyond packet reading during decisions", "export_timing": "export after final response", "export_note": "Preparation and final responses exported verbatim; JSON parsed mechanically with identical values.", "capture_validation": "Root parsed raw final output and verified equal JSON values; no semantic repair.", "preparation_output_words": 325, "test_raw_output_words": 959, "output_limit_deviation": false }, "answers": [ { "id": "J20", "action": "keep", "reason": "The incident references and explicitly incomplete evidence support investigating the two explanations. The workshop seeks discriminating evidence without treating participation or agreement as proof.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J01", "action": "keep", "reason": "The historical audit is being used to generate hypotheses for a desk comparison, with the platform extension explicitly acknowledged. That limited use does not require the audit to establish present demand or compliance.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J19", "action": "keep", "reason": "The checked evidence covers the proposed isolated rehearsal and its controls. The outstanding cybersecurity review concerns the later full launch and does not invalidate this rehearsal, which cannot affect live services.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J12", "action": "ask", "reason": "The asserted fatigue reduction lacks any evidential basis, leaving the recommendation to stop investigating unsupported. Calling the document 'ideas only' does not narrow the claim it actually makes.", "question": "What measurement and source establish the claimed 25% reduction sufficiently to justify dropping fatigue from further investigation?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J15", "action": "ask", "reason": "The diagram leaves a distinction essential to the comparison unresolved. Complete sources and balanced prose do not make the indistinguishable link states merely cosmetic.", "question": "Which links already exist and which are proposed, and can the diagram distinguish those states for the central comparison?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J18", "action": "ask", "reason": "Flows from one rural town do not establish a ranking across urban and rural districts or justify excluding alternatives. The missing issue is applicability across district differences.", "question": "What comparative evidence or reasoning establishes that this design is best across the relevant urban and rural district differences?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J11", "action": "ask", "reason": "The director's signature cannot substantiate production mappings that neither the director nor an identified tester checked. The demo sample leaves a specific readiness gap for the proposed cutover.", "question": "What production-based reconciliation establishes that the currently untested field mappings are ready for cutover?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J06", "action": "keep", "reason": "The sample supports testing possible savings within the specified five-day, £900 exposure, with an owner, comparison, daily checks and return condition. It need not already prove repeatable savings to justify this bounded trial.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J14", "action": "keep", "reason": "The sourced claims, covered options and dependencies, and explicit uncertainties support the working discussion. The unfinished styling does not affect any material comparison or decision.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J16", "action": "reject", "reason": "Permanently overwriting the only originals contradicts the claimed reversibility and easy rollback. The sound process design and authorised cap do not repair that contradiction; the proposed trial must be revised.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J08", "action": "keep", "reason": "The vendor claim is attributed, its untested comparability is disclosed, and it is used only to motivate investigation of possible mechanisms. The brief does not adopt the claimed saving as a site result or budget assumption.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J09", "action": "ask", "reason": "Acceptance of the claim for exploration supplies no validation for this site's budget reduction. Comparable assets, workloads and costs are the missing bridge between the vendor observations and the proposed allowance.", "question": "What evidence establishes that this site's assets, workloads and cost base support the proposed 18% reduction?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J10", "action": "keep", "reason": "The specialist's attestation is supported by production extracts, full mapping coverage and resolved exceptions. The explicitly retained director approval is a separate authorisation step, so the specialist's lack of spending authority is not an evidence defect.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J05", "action": "reject", "reason": "The verified live reading above the stated operating limit contradicts the asserted adequate capacity, with no mitigation or explanation supplied. Calling the opening a learning opportunity does not resolve the invalid justification.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J07", "action": "ask", "reason": "The actual commitment includes contract termination, service deletion and a non-refundable annual licence, so the pilot label does not establish bounded or reversible exposure. Demo responses leave the migration feasibility and full commitment costs unresolved.", "question": "What migration and full-cost assessment justifies terminating the existing service and taking the non-refundable annual commitment on the available benefit evidence?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J17", "action": "keep", "reason": "The rural town is explicitly a starting case for comparing concepts and identifying differences relevant to later case selection. The brief avoids a regional ranking or procurement conclusion that the single case could not establish.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J13", "action": "keep", "reason": "The arbitrary percentage is clearly a hypothetical illustration, with no observational or forecasting claim. It can support discussion of potential value and how to measure fatigue without proving a benefit.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J03", "action": "keep", "reason": "The recent inspection establishes continued applicability of the older geometry survey, and the actuator specification and load have been checked against it. The later procurement approval does not undermine the replacement recommendation's evidential basis.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J04", "action": "keep", "reason": "The disagreement between model and incident log is disclosed and forms the subject of the proposed comparison. No settled capacity conclusion or construction change is being justified by the inconsistent evidence.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J02", "action": "ask", "reason": "The historical low-demand observation lacks a supported connection to conditions after the platform extension and new peak service. Those changes do not themselves prove removal wrong, but they leave the permanent decision unsupported.", "question": "What observations establish demand at the staffed boarding point under the extended platform and new peak service sufficiently to justify permanent removal?", "confidence": "high" } ], "report_sha256": "12625410e2da33b39f3c0c20de3a5a2db2f9008a718cbea9568c699a11d9c071", "action_agreement": 19, "output_words": 817, "adequacy_state": "adjudicated", "preparation_words": 325, "stage2_within_word_limit": true, "stage1_within_word_limit": true, "judgments": [ { "id": "J01", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts explicitly historical evidence for hypothesis comparison, with the platform change acknowledged and no current-demand/compliance inference.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J02", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the missing bridge to changed current conditions without claiming removal is disproved; the question targets demand under both changes.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J03", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the recent geometry confirmation and checks of the actual actuator/load while preserving separate procurement approval.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J04", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises disclosed disagreement as the subject of comparison rather than a premise for a capacity conclusion or construction recommendation.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J05", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly rejects the adequate-capacity justification contradicted by the verified limit breach and absent mitigation/explanation.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J06", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the sample and five-day, capped, controlled exposure as adequate for a trial without demanding established repeatable savings.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J07", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies actual irreversible operational and annual-cost commitments, then requests migration/full-cost justification on the available benefit evidence.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J08", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly accepts an attributed, qualified vendor claim only as motivation for mechanism investigation, not as a local result or budget premise.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J09", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the missing local asset/workload/cost bridge and denies that exploratory acceptance validates the proposed budget reduction.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J10", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises complete production mapping evidence and resolved exceptions as technical support independent of the retained director approval.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J11", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Targets the production mappings that no identified reviewer checked; the question seeks reconciliation evidence rather than extra authority.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J12", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises that the ideas label does not narrow the actual quantitative assertion or justify closing inquiry, and asks for measurement/source support.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J13", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly distinguishes hypothetical value illustration from observation or forecast and accepts its role in forming a measurement question.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J14", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Relates adequate sources, options, dependencies and uncertainties to the working discussion and treats nonmaterial styling as irrelevant.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J15", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies a central link-state meaning gap and requests both the actual statuses and a diagram that distinguishes them.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J16", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Correctly identifies permanent overwrite of the only originals as contradicting rollback despite cost/process assurances; fixed rubric requires ask rather than reject/null.", "rubric_challenge": "Rejecting the current design is defensible because permanent loss of the only originals explicitly contradicts reversibility. This is stronger than merely lacking a recovery attestation. Preserve ask-only fixed penalties; a reject-as-is sensitivity would accept action and null question.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J17", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Preserves the rural starting-case scope and later sampling purpose without deriving a regional or procurement conclusion.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J18", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies unsupported cross-district ranking and exclusion, and asks for comparative evidence or reasoning addressing urban/rural differences.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J19", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Keeps checked isolated-rehearsal adequacy separate from the outstanding full-launch cybersecurity review.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J20", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts referenced inquiry seeking discriminating evidence while preserving incompleteness and the distinction between agreement and proof.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true } ], "sound": 19, "by_use": { "EXPLORE": 10, "DECIDE": 9 } }, { "id": "scoped-1", "arm": "scoped", "replicate": 1, "metadata": { "agent_task": "/root/participant238_scoped1", "fresh": true, "fork_turns": "none", "model_setting": "Exact model/setting not exposed (inherited)", "assigned_packets": [ "scoped-stage1.md", "stage2.md" ], "decision_tool_scope": "No external tools beyond packet reading during decisions", "export_timing": "Export after final response", "responses_revised": false, "capture_validation": "Root parsed raw final output and verified equal JSON values; no semantic repair.", "preparation_output_words": 475, "test_raw_output_words": 900, "output_limit_deviation": false }, "answers": [ { "id": "J20", "action": "keep", "reason": "The note supports investigating two explanations with referenced incidents and explicitly incomplete evidence. It does not confuse participation or agreement with proof.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J01", "action": "keep", "reason": "The historical audit supplies hypotheses for a desk comparison, with the platform extension explicitly identified as a possible applicability limit. No current demand or compliance conclusion is claimed.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J19", "action": "keep", "reason": "The checked evidence covers the isolated rehearsal being proposed. The outstanding cybersecurity review concerns the later launch, and the rehearsal cannot affect live services.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J12", "action": "ask", "reason": "Dropping fatigue investigation depends on an unsupported claim of an observed reduction. Calling the document 'ideas only' does not supply the missing measurement, but the supplied facts do not establish that the reduction is false.", "question": "What measurement and comparison establish the claimed 25% fatigue reduction and support ending further investigation?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J15", "action": "ask", "reason": "The ambiguous symbols obscure a distinction on which the comparison depends. This affects the paper's meaning, even though its sources and discussion are otherwise complete.", "question": "Which depicted links already exist, and which are proposed?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J18", "action": "ask", "reason": "One rural town's flows do not establish a ranking across all districts or justify excluding alternatives. The observation remains useful within its local scope.", "question": "What evidence about district differences and the competing designs supports extending this ranking across urban and rural districts?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J11", "action": "ask", "reason": "The director's signature does not cover the untested production mappings. Demo-schema samples leave a specific readiness gap rather than proving that production cutover will fail.", "question": "What production-based reconciliation evidence establishes readiness for the currently untested field mappings?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J06", "action": "keep", "reason": "The small observation supports testing a possibility through a capped trial with comparison, ownership, daily cover checks and a return condition. The brief does not claim that savings or a wider rollout are already established.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J14", "action": "keep", "reason": "The working discussion has sourced material claims, relevant alternatives and dependencies, and explicit uncertainties. The unfinished styling does not affect the stated use.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J16", "action": "reject", "reason": "Permanently overwriting the only originals without restoration contradicts the recommendation's claim of reversibility. A sound process design and authorised spending cap do not repair that contradiction.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J08", "action": "keep", "reason": "The vendor claim is attributed and its unchecked comparability is disclosed. It can motivate questions about possible mechanisms without validating a local saving.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J09", "action": "ask", "reason": "Acceptance of an attributed claim for exploration does not validate applying it to this budget. The decision-changing gap is whether the installations and savings are applicable to this site's assets, workloads and costs.", "question": "What site-specific comparison or measurement supports transferring the claimed 18% saving into next year's maintenance allowance?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J10", "action": "keep", "reason": "The specialist's attestation is supported by production evidence covering the full live mapping inventory and resolved exceptions. The retained director approval is a separate step and does not undermine the technical recommendation.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J05", "action": "reject", "reason": "The verified live reading above the stated operating limit contradicts the adequate-capacity justification, with no mitigation or explanation supplied. Calling the opening a learning opportunity does not resolve this conflict.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J07", "action": "ask", "reason": "Starting this activity entails irreversible commitments beyond the two-week test, so evidence sufficient for a reversible learning trial cannot simply be carried across. The demo responses do not establish migration feasibility or the full business case.", "question": "What migration and full-cost assessment justifies terminating the existing arrangements and making the non-refundable annual commitment?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J17", "action": "keep", "reason": "The town is explicitly a starting case for comparing concepts and identifying differences that should guide further sampling. The paper does not turn that observation into a regional ranking.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J13", "action": "keep", "reason": "The arbitrary percentage is clearly a scenario illustrating possible value, not an observation or forecast. Asking how to measure fatigue is appropriate to the proposed investigation.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J03", "action": "keep", "reason": "The recent inspection supplies an applicability bridge for the old geometry survey, and the replacement specification and load have been checked against it. The retained procurement approval does not create a defect in this recommendation.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J04", "action": "keep", "reason": "The conflicting indications are the explicit subject of investigation, with timestamps and boundary conditions identified for comparison. The note does not present either indication as a settled basis for construction.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J02", "action": "ask", "reason": "The permanent removal depends on historical demand remaining applicable after a platform extension and new peak service. The note supplies no observation bridging those changes, although the audit's age alone does not invalidate it.", "question": "What observations since the extension and new peak service show whether demand for the staffed boarding point remains low enough to support permanent removal?", "confidence": "high" } ], "report_sha256": "debc006d4bc67dc0b5007664ff59033c95d5c0e55169c4f89a176eb3f2684bd9", "action_agreement": 19, "output_words": 758, "adequacy_state": "adjudicated", "preparation_words": 475, "stage2_within_word_limit": true, "stage1_within_word_limit": true, "judgments": [ { "id": "J01", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the audit's historical, hypothesis-generating role and the disclosed applicability limit; no extra question is necessary.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J02", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Makes the changed-condition bridge decisive rather than age alone, and asks for post-change demand observations relevant to removal.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J03", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Uses the recent inspection to establish old geometry's applicability and recognises the actual specification/load checks and later approval.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J04", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises conflicting indications as an explicit investigation with a concrete comparison, not a settled construction premise.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J05", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly rejects the capacity justification contradicted by the verified limit breach, despite the learning label.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J06", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the initial observation and operational limits as sufficient for testing a possibility, without claiming established savings or rollout adequacy.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J07", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises commitment beyond the two-week label and asks about migration and total cost rather than merely pilot duration.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J08", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts the attributed, qualified claim only as a mechanism lead; no local saving is inferred.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J09", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the unsupported transfer from an exploratory vendor claim to a local budget and requests a site-specific applicability basis.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J10", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises that full production coverage and resolved exceptions substantiate the technical claim separately from director authority.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J11", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Distinguishes absent production evidence from demonstrated failure and asks for reconciliation of the untested mappings.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J12", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies unsupported inquiry closure, does not equate missing measurement with falsehood, and asks for measurement and comparison.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J13", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly accepts an explicit arbitrary scenario and measurement question without promoting the scenario to evidence.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J14", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Relates the sourced substantive coverage to working discussion and does not invent a styling requirement.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J15", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises that link-state ambiguity changes the comparison's meaning and asks which links exist or are proposed.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J16", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Accurately identifies destructive overwrite as contradicting reversibility, unaffected by process quality or cost authorisation; reject/null misses the fixed ask requirement.", "rubric_challenge": "The explicit permanent overwrite of the only originals supports rejecting the present design, not just seeking evidence. Ask-only is narrower than the supplied facts warrant. Fixed penalties remain; allowing reject-as-is would make both action and null question acceptable.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J17", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Preserves the town's role as a starting case and source of later sampling questions rather than a regional ranking.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J18", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies unsupported cross-district ranking and exclusion while retaining the local observation's value; the question targets applicability and comparison.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J19", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Uses the checked scope and isolation of the rehearsal to separate its adequacy from later launch cybersecurity clearance.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J20", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts referenced, explicitly incomplete investigation and preserves the distinction between agreement and proof.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true } ], "sound": 19, "by_use": { "EXPLORE": 10, "DECIDE": 9 } }, { "id": "scoped-2", "arm": "scoped", "replicate": 2, "metadata": { "agent_task": "/root/participant238_scoped2", "fresh": true, "fork_turns": "none", "model_setting": "Exact model/setting not exposed (inherited)", "assigned_packets": [ "/private/tmp/pw-stronger-essais-20261019/learning-from-feedback/scoped-feedback/packets/scoped-stage1.md", "/private/tmp/pw-stronger-essais-20261019/learning-from-feedback/scoped-feedback/packets/stage2.md" ], "decision_tools": "No external tools beyond packet reading during decisions", "export_timing": "Export after final response", "export_only": true, "capture_validation": "Root parsed raw final output and verified equal JSON values; no semantic repair.", "preparation_output_words": 469, "test_raw_output_words": 976, "output_limit_deviation": false }, "answers": [ { "id": "J20", "action": "keep", "reason": "The note supports investigating two explanations with traceable incidents and openly incomplete evidence. It seeks a way to distinguish them without treating participation or agreement as proof.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J01", "action": "keep", "reason": "The historical audit is adequate to generate hypotheses for a desk comparison, with the platform extension explicitly identified as a possible difference. No current compliance or implementation conclusion depends on treating the old observations as current.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J19", "action": "keep", "reason": "Checked evidence covers the isolated rehearsal and its controls, so it supports that specific learning action. The outstanding cybersecurity review concerns the later launch and does not prevent this rehearsal from exposing remaining questions.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J12", "action": "ask", "reason": "The unsubstantiated percentage does not support treating the fatigue benefit as established or dropping further investigation. Calling the document 'ideas only' does not supply the missing evidence.", "question": "What measured evidence establishes the claimed 25% fatigue reduction and supports dropping fatigue from further investigation?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J15", "action": "ask", "reason": "The ambiguous symbols conceal a distinction essential to the central comparison, so the issue affects meaning rather than cosmetic finish. Complete sources do not make that comparison interpretable as presented.", "question": "Which links in the central comparison already exist, and which are only proposed?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J18", "action": "ask", "reason": "One rural town provides a starting observation but does not establish a ranking across urban and rural districts. Excluding alternatives requires evidence addressing those differences and the competing designs.", "question": "What comparative evidence shows that the preferred design remains best across the relevant urban and rural district differences?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J11", "action": "ask", "reason": "The director's signature does not cover production mappings that neither the director nor any cited reviewer inspected. Demo-schema results leave a specific gap in the cutover readiness claim.", "question": "What production-level test results establish that the currently untested field mappings reconcile correctly?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J06", "action": "keep", "reason": "The preliminary observation supports testing possible savings through a bounded trial with a comparison, daily cover checks, ownership and a specified return condition. Acceptance justifies the trial, not a conclusion that savings will occur.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J14", "action": "keep", "reason": "The sourced claims, relevant options, dependencies and explicit uncertainties support the working discussion. The unfinished styling does not affect any material distinction needed for that use.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J16", "action": "reject", "reason": "Permanently overwriting the only originals without restoration contradicts the brief's claim that this is a reversible trial with easy rollback. The authorised spending cap and checked process design do not resolve that contradiction; the trial design or recommendation must change.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J08", "action": "keep", "reason": "The vendor claim is attributed, its unchecked comparability is disclosed, and the proposed use is to investigate possible explanations. The note does not adopt the percentage as an established local saving.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J09", "action": "ask", "reason": "Acceptance of the vendor claim as an exploratory lead did not validate an 18% reduction in this site's budget. The missing connection between the installations and local assets, workloads and costs prevents the budget conclusion.", "question": "What evidence connects the vendor installations' savings to this site's assets, workloads and costs sufficiently to support the 18% budget reduction?", "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J10", "action": "keep", "reason": "The specialist's attestation is supported by production extracts, full live mapping coverage and resolved exceptions. Separate spending and go/no-go authority remains explicitly retained, so its absence from the specialist's role does not weaken the supplied technical evidence.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J05", "action": "reject", "reason": "The verified live reading above the operating limit directly contradicts the capacity justification for opening today, with no mitigation supplied. Calling the opening a learning opportunity does not repair that contradiction.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J07", "action": "ask", "reason": "The proposed action includes contract termination, service deletion and an annual financial commitment, so its evidential burden exceeds that of a short reversible trial. Four favourable demo responses leave migration feasibility and the full commitment's costs unresolved.", "question": "What migration and full-cost assessment supports terminating the existing arrangements and making the annual commitment now?", "confidence": "medium" }, { "id": "J17", "action": "keep", "reason": "The town's observed flows support a starting comparison and identifying differences for later case selection. The paper expressly limits the inference and does not claim a regional winner.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J13", "action": "keep", "reason": "The arbitrary percentage is transparently a scenario for illustrating possible value, not evidence of an observed or forecast benefit. It supports the proposed exploration of whether fatigue changes and how to measure it.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J03", "action": "keep", "reason": "The recent inspection establishes the continued applicability of the old geometry, and the proposed specification and load have been checked against it. That evidence supports the replacement recommendation while preserving the later procurement approval.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J04", "action": "keep", "reason": "The inconsistent evidence is disclosed and forms the subject of the proposed comparison. Checking timestamps and boundary conditions is appropriate before selecting a capacity conclusion or recommending construction changes.", "question": null, "confidence": "high" }, { "id": "J02", "action": "ask", "reason": "The historical low-demand finding lacks a supported connection to conditions after the platform extension and new peak service. The supplied changes do not prove demand rose, but the unsupported dismissal of their relevance cannot justify permanent removal.", "question": "What current observations establish that demand at the staffed boarding point remains low after the platform extension and new peak service?", "confidence": "high" } ], "report_sha256": "45a2e941de5952f03cc2619320179221301c76d778455822513cc07c41aad808", "action_agreement": 19, "output_words": 834, "adequacy_state": "adjudicated", "preparation_words": 469, "stage2_within_word_limit": true, "stage1_within_word_limit": true, "judgments": [ { "id": "J01", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Accepts historical observations for hypotheses while explicitly preserving the platform difference and absence of a current implementation/compliance claim.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J02", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the absent changed-condition bridge without assuming demand increased; the question requests relevant current observations.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J03", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies continued geometry applicability and checks of the proposed actuator while retaining later procurement approval.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J04", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly recognises disclosed inconsistent evidence as a research subject with an appropriate comparison before any conclusion or construction change.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J05", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the live operating-limit breach as contradicting opening capacity and does not let the learning description override it.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J06", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Connects preliminary evidence to bounded testing with comparison, checks, owner and return condition, without claiming established savings.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J07", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the true contract, service and annual-cost commitments and asks for migration and full-cost evidence supporting them now.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J08", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Preserves attribution and unchecked comparability while allowing explanatory investigation without establishing a local percentage saving.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J09", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Separates an exploratory lead from validated local budget reduction and targets assets, workloads and costs in the applicability question.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J10", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly identifies the full production evidence and resolved exceptions while keeping technical adequacy separate from retained authority.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J11", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies uninspected production mappings as the substantive gap and asks for their production-level reconciliation results.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J12", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies the unsupported benefit assertion and premature investigation closure; measurement is a targeted basis to request.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J13", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly treats the arbitrary percentage as a transparent value scenario, supporting research and measurement rather than proving a benefit.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J14", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Finds substantive claims, options, dependencies and uncertainties sufficient for the discussion, without imposing immaterial styling requirements.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J15", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Identifies ambiguity that prevents interpreting the central comparison and asks which links are existing versus proposed.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J16", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 0, "errors": [ "unnecessary_block" ], "rationale": "Identifies the irreversible overwrite of the only originals and explains why cost approval and process quality cannot provide rollback; fixed ask is replaced by reject/null.", "rubric_challenge": "The stated destructive operation directly contradicts the reversible-trial claim, making rejection of the supplied design defensible. Ask-only scoring is restrictive here. Preserve fixed penalties; allowing reject-as-is would accept both action and null question.", "sound": false }, { "id": "J17", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Preserves the town's limited starting role and later case-selection purpose while withholding regional superiority.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J18", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises that excluding designs requires cross-district comparative evidence and asks for that evidence rather than discarding the original observation.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J19", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Correctly uses checked controls and isolation to support the rehearsal while leaving the full-launch cybersecurity review outstanding.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true }, { "id": "J20", "reason_score": 2, "question_score": 1, "errors": [], "rationale": "Recognises traceable incidents and a discriminating investigation as adequate despite incomplete evidence, without using participation as proof.", "rubric_challenge": null, "sound": true } ], "sound": 19, "by_use": { "EXPLORE": 10, "DECIDE": 9 } } ], "cases": [ { "id": "J01", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A station team uses a 2020 accessibility audit to list three possible causes of boarding delay. The note labels the audit historical, identifies a new platform extension as a possible difference, and proposes only a desk comparison of the hypotheses. It makes no current compliance claim." }, { "id": "J02", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A station note recommends permanently removing a staffed boarding point because the 2020 audit recorded low demand there. A platform extension and new peak service began last year. The note says these changes are unlikely to matter, but provides no supporting observation." }, { "id": "J03", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A floodgate note recommends replacing a like-for-like actuator. Its dimensional survey is six years old. Last week's signed inspection by the engineer who measured the mounting confirms no geometry changes; the proposed actuator specification and load have been checked against that geometry. Procurement approval remains a later step." }, { "id": "J04", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A drainage workshop note lists both 'capacity probably sufficient' from a model and 'overtopping reported' from an incident log. It flags their inconsistent assumptions and proposes comparing timestamps and boundary conditions before forming a conclusion. No construction change is recommended." }, { "id": "J05", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A drainage note recommends opening a new service area today because the system has adequate capacity. The same note includes a verified live reading above the stated operating limit, no mitigation and no account of why the limit could be ignored. The author calls the opening a chance to learn." }, { "id": "J06", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A scheduling lead proposes a five-day trial on two volunteer teams, capped at £900 with a return to the current rota on any missed cover. A recent sample suggests possible savings. The note defines a comparison and daily cover check, assigns an owner, and claims only that testing the idea is worthwhile." }, { "id": "J07", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A brief calls its supplier migration a two-week pilot. Starting it requires terminating the current contract, deleting the previous data service and committing a non-refundable annual licence. The business case relies on four favourable demo responses; no migration or full-cost assessment is provided." }, { "id": "J08", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A commercial note quotes a vendor's claimed 18% maintenance saving, attributes it to the vendor's three named installations and states that comparability has not been checked. It proposes asking which failure modes could account for the claim, without adopting the number in a budget." }, { "id": "J09", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A maintenance budget reduces next year's allowance by 18%, citing the vendor's three installations. The brief does not establish comparable assets, workloads or costs at this site. Its conclusion says the reduction is validated because the same claim was accepted in last month's exploratory note." }, { "id": "J10", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A cutover note recommends proceeding after a database specialist signs that all required source-to-target fields reconcile. The signed test log identifies production extracts, covers the full live mapping inventory and records resolved exceptions. The specialist lacks spending authority; the note explicitly retains the director's separate go/no-go approval." }, { "id": "J11", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A cutover note recommends proceeding because a director has signed 'ready'. The linked log shows only sample records from a demo schema. Several production field mappings are listed as untested. The director did not inspect those mappings and cites no one who did." }, { "id": "J12", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "An early workforce note asserts that remote rostering has already cut fatigue by 25%, and recommends dropping fatigue from further investigation. It provides no source, measurement or explanation for the percentage. The author labels the document 'ideas only'." }, { "id": "J13", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A workforce note proposes studying whether remote rostering could reduce fatigue. A clearly labelled illustration uses an arbitrary 25% scenario to show what a benefit might be worth. It explicitly says the number is not an observation or forecast and asks how fatigue could be measured." }, { "id": "J14", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "An options paper contains plain unformatted notes and incomplete graphics. Each material claim is sourced, the relevant options and dependencies are covered, and the uncertainties are explicit. Its stated use is a working discussion; no decision turns on the unfinished visual styling." }, { "id": "J15", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "An options paper has complete sources and a balanced discussion, but its only diagram gives the same unlabelled symbol to 'already connected' and 'connection proposed'. The discussion's central comparison depends on which links exist. The author says this is just a cosmetic issue in an early draft." }, { "id": "J16", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A team recommends a reversible data-cleaning trial under an authorised £1,200 cap. Its checked process design is sound, but the trial will run across the full customer database and permanently overwrite the only originals. The brief gives no backup or restoration method and calls rollback 'easy'." }, { "id": "J17", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A regional transport note compares three routing concepts using observed flows from one rural town. It labels that town a starting case, expressly excludes a regional ranking, and asks which urban and rural differences should drive later case selection. It seeks no procurement decision." }, { "id": "J18", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A regional transport note uses flows from one rural town to announce that one route design is best for all urban and rural districts. It proposes excluding the other designs from the upcoming options workshop. No reasoning about district differences is supplied." }, { "id": "J19", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A readiness note recommends a controlled rehearsal after checked evidence covers the rehearsal's staff, inputs, stop rules and isolation from live operations. A later full launch still requires a cybersecurity review, clearly shown as outstanding. The rehearsal cannot affect live services and is specifically intended to expose remaining launch questions." }, { "id": "J20", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A readiness workshop note proposes investigating two possible explanations for recurring release failures. It accurately marks current evidence as incomplete, includes incident references and invites the operations lead to identify what would distinguish the explanations. It does not treat attendance or later agreement as proof of either explanation." } ], "feedback": [ { "id": "F01", "phase": "original", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A harbour options note uses a named 2019 passenger survey to suggest two queue layouts worth investigating. It says travel patterns may have changed and asks only to compare the options on paper, not to select or implement one.", "decision": "keep", "reason": "The source is traceable and its age is openly bounded. It can motivate a hypothesis without proving today's demand. Preserve that limited use; acceptance is not endorsement of a layout." }, { "id": "F02", "phase": "original", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A polished slide recommends retaining the baseline handover date because the programme is 'fully on track'. Its own appendix shows an unresolved critical-path delay and offers no recovery logic. The author says the meeting is only exploratory.", "decision": "reject", "reason": "An exploratory meeting does not make an internally contradicted recommendation sound. The recommendation needs revision; an attractive slide and lower-stakes audience do not remove the contradiction." }, { "id": "F03", "phase": "original", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "An options workshop paper ranks a scheduling tool best for all twelve depots because two volunteers at one depot found it useful. It proposes dropping the alternatives from discussion, but supplies no comparison or evidence about other roles and locations.", "decision": "ask", "reason": "The evidence does not support that broad ranking even at an options workshop. Ask what establishes applicability and comparison, or retain the alternatives. This does not mean the small trial was worthless." }, { "id": "F04", "phase": "original", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "A working cost-and-capacity note sets out a one-day survey as an option within the agreed preparation budget. Its sources address the stated question and dependencies. It asks the workshop to compare the option, while clearly retaining a manager approval step before any booking.", "decision": "keep", "reason": "The option is adequately supported for discussion. Reviewing it does not execute the booking. Do not manufacture an evidence defect from a separate, explicitly retained approval step." }, { "id": "F05", "phase": "additional", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "The desk previously kept an old survey as an exploratory lead. A later note uses it to select a permanent interchange layout, asserting that nothing important has changed without giving any basis for that assertion.", "decision": "ask", "reason": "A lesson accepted for exploration has crossed into commitment. Ask for a bridge from the old observations to today's relevant conditions. Age alone does not invalidate evidence; an evidenced applicability bridge could make old material useful for this decision." }, { "id": "F06", "phase": "additional", "use": "EXPLORE", "brief": "An investigation note presents inconsistent sensor readings, explains that either calibration or an actual load change could explain them, and proposes a non-disruptive comparison of the two hypotheses. It does not select one as true.", "decision": "keep", "reason": "Here the disagreement is the subject of exploration. It is disclosed rather than concealed in a supposedly settled recommendation. Preserve the rule against unsupported conclusions without requiring every investigation to resolve its question before starting." }, { "id": "F07", "phase": "additional", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A team recommends a ten-day scheduling trial capped at £2,000, with rollback, a named owner and predeclared stop conditions. A credible small observation suggests possible benefit. The brief proposes the trial to learn whether the benefit repeats; it promises no rollout benefit.", "decision": "keep", "reason": "The next action is a bounded, reversible learning step with specified exposure. Its evidence can justify running the trial without already proving the uncertain benefit the trial is meant to test. This permission does not extend to an effectively irreversible or materially harmful action merely called a pilot." }, { "id": "F08", "phase": "additional", "use": "DECIDE", "brief": "A sponsor signs that an integration is ready, although the only attached test covers a demonstration database and no one has checked the live data mappings. The desk initially treated the signature as sufficient attestation.", "decision": "ask", "reason": "Accountability is not omniscience. An attestation supports the observation or check its author can substantiate, not untested parts of the claim. Ask specifically about the live mappings; neither seniority nor the word 'checked' supplies the missing scope." } ] }