{
"format": "driftproof-answers/2",
"receipt_hash": "cb33a80a2e7db6d3d612b4ea17dcd7648b245fe68eb6adc08989983b6e2a98db",
"model_id": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
"answers": {
"e58581cfa1e8c1ba5f18f53e52618f12ffdb00165d003aadbbfdbc07d5852e6e": "I haven't looked at your real state machine, so this demo uses an assumed model. Swap in your actual transition table when you build it. Everything below is design only; nothing has been created or run.\n\n## Question\n\nCan a reservation reach `paid` after `cancelled`?\n\nThis is a logic question, so the demo is a single double-clickable HTML file with free-play buttons and guided walkthrough tabs. Name it `reservation-paid-after-cancelled.PROTOTYPE.html` and put it next to the reservation module.\n\n## Assumed model\n\n- **States:** `pending`, `confirmed`, `payment_in_flight`, `paid`, `cancelled`\n- **Events:** `confirm`, `start_payment`, `payment_succeeded` (async webhook), `cancel`, `expire`\n- **Likely hole:** `cancel` is allowed while `payment_in_flight`, but the `payment_succeeded` webhook arrives later and the table has an entry like `* -> paid`, or a guard that only checks \"not already paid\".\n\n## Layout\n\n1. **State panel** (always visible): current state, full event history, and a flag set to \"VIOLATION: paid after cancelled\" if the history ever contains `cancelled` followed by `paid`.\n2. **Model toggle:** *Naive* (the transition table as assumed to exist) versus *Guarded* (`payment_succeeded` is only valid from `payment_in_flight`, and on `cancelled` it triggers a refund action instead). Same buttons, same history, so the difference is easy to see.\n3. **Free-play tab:** one button per event. Illegal events in the current model are shown as \"rejected\" in the log, not hidden.\n4. **Guided tabs**, each a scripted sequence with a \"step\" button and a one-line explanation of what to watch:\n - **Happy path:** confirm, start_payment, payment_succeeded gives `paid`.\n - **Cancel before payment:** confirm, cancel, then payment_succeeded. This should be rejected.\n - **The race:** confirm, start_payment, cancel, then a late payment_succeeded. This is the case most likely to fail.\n - **Expire versus pay:** start_payment, expire, payment_succeeded.\n - **Duplicate webhook:** payment_succeeded twice, to check idempotency.\n\n## Core sketch\n\n```js\n// PROTOTYPE: throwaway, in-memory only\nconst naive = {\n pending: { confirm:'confirmed', cancel:'cancelled', expire:'cancelled' },\n confirmed: { start_payment:'payment_in_flight', cancel:'cancelled', expire:'cancelled' },\n payment_in_flight: { payment_succeeded:'paid', cancel:'cancelled' },\n cancelled: { payment_succeeded:'paid' }, // the suspected hole\n paid: {},\n};\nconst guarded = structuredClone(naive);\ndelete guarded.cancelled.payment_succeeded; // late payment => refund path\n\nlet model = naive, state = 'pending', history = [];\nfunction fire(ev) {\n const next = model[state][ev];\n history.push({ ev, from: state, to: next ?? 'REJECTED' });\n if (next) state = next;\n render(); // full state + history + violation flag every time\n}\nconst violated = () =>\n history.some((h,i) => h.to==='paid' && history.slice(0,i).some(p => p.to==='cancelled'));\n```\n\n## What you learn\n\n- **Under Naive,** the race walkthrough ends in `paid` with the violation flag set. That confirms the path exists whenever your real table lets `payment_succeeded` fire from `cancelled`, or from `payment_in_flight` after a cancel was accepted.\n- **Under Guarded,** the same script ends in `cancelled` with a rejected event. The demo should also show a \"needs refund\" note, because rejecting the event doesn't undo the charge.\n- **The real decision** is what to do with money that arrives after a cancel: refund, or reject cancel while payment is in flight. Add a third toggle for the second option if you want to compare them.\n\n## Closing out\n\nOnce you've decided, put the guard in the real code. Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch (not `main`), link that branch from the implementation issue, and record the verdict there too.\n\nIf you'd like, I can write the file once tools are allowed. Sharing your real transition table would let me replace the assumed one.",
"0ac1dc106bce4333f7e484ee438e5cfceb390788262701299b2ba5fb6530a4c3": "No facts about your real state machine were supplied, so this is based on an assumed model. The assumption is stated at the top of the file, and you should swap in your real transition table.\n\n## Question being answered\n\nCan a reservation reach `paid` after it has reached `cancelled`? The logic branch fits, so the demo is a single HTML file you double-click, with in-memory state only.\n\n## Assumed model\n\n- **States:** `pending`, `confirmed`, `paid`, `cancelled`\n- **Events:** `confirm`, `startPayment` (sets an in-flight flag), `paymentSucceeded` (a late async webhook), `cancel`\n- **Key detail:** payment is two steps, so a cancel can land between `startPayment` and `paymentSucceeded`. That interleaving is the most likely way to reach `paid` after `cancelled`.\n- **Guard toggle:** a checkbox switches between \"naive\" (`paymentSucceeded` always sets `paid`) and \"guarded\" (ignored or flagged for refund if the state is `cancelled`).\n\n## UI\n\n- A state panel showing the current state, the `paymentInFlight` flag, and the full event log, re-rendered after every action.\n- Free-play buttons for each event, plus Reset.\n- A banner that turns red the moment `paid` follows `cancelled` in the log.\n- Tabs for guided walkthroughs, each of which resets and steps through scripted events with a \"Next\" button and a one-line explanation:\n 1. **Happy path:** confirm, startPayment, paymentSucceeded gives `paid`.\n 2. **Cancel before pay:** cancel, then startPayment, which should be rejected.\n 3. **The race:** confirm, startPayment, cancel, paymentSucceeded. Naive mode ends in `paid`, guarded mode doesn't.\n 4. **Duplicate webhook:** paymentSucceeded twice after a cancel.\n\n## Sketch (single file, throwaway)\n\n```html\n\n\n\n\n\n\n```\n\n## What you should learn\n\n- **Naive mode:** the race walkthrough ends in `paid` after `cancelled`. If your real machine's transition table lets `paymentSucceeded` fire from `cancelled`, the answer is yes.\n- **Guarded mode:** `paid` is unreachable, but the payment succeeded with nothing to receive it, so you need a refund or compensation path. The demo surfaces that gap.\n- **Duplicate webhook:** this checks whether the guard is idempotent.\n\n## Capture\n\nOnce you have your verdict, fold the guard decision into the real code. Commit the HTML to a throwaway branch, leave a pointer to that branch on the implementation issue, and record the answer (\"yes, via cancel during in-flight payment; guard plus refund path\") in the issue or a commit message. Main keeps only the validated decision.\n\nI haven't created or run anything, per your instructions. If you share the real transitions or event names, I can adjust the model before you build it.",
"b05a3bbae570bae396ca2fbba902180c61d4140f105945c3b76b45e0cf7ebf3b": "This is a \"does this state model hold up\" question, so I'd build one self-contained HTML file with free-play buttons and a few guided walkthroughs. I haven't written or run anything. Your facts didn't include the real state machine, so I've assumed one, and the assumptions are listed after the code.\n\n## Where it lives\n\nPut it next to the reservation module as `reservation-paid-after-cancelled.prototype.html`. Double-click to run, no build step, state in memory only.\n\n## The model\n\n- **States:** `pending`, `held`, `paid`, `cancelled`, `expired`\n- **Separate flag:** `paymentInFlight`, because the likely bug is that payment confirmation is asynchronous and arrives after the cancel.\n- **Events:** `reserve`, `startPayment`, `cancel`, `paymentSucceeded` (the webhook), `expire`\n- **Mode toggle:** `naive` (transitions only check \"is it already paid?\") versus `guarded` (`paymentSucceeded` is rejected, and flagged for refund, when the status is `cancelled` or `expired`). Flipping it on the same walkthrough shows the fix working.\n- **Detector:** the history is scanned after every step, and a red banner appears if `cancelled` is ever followed by `paid`.\n\n## Walkthrough tabs\n\n1. **Happy path:** reserve, startPayment, paymentSucceeded. Ends in `paid`.\n2. **Cancel then click pay:** reserve, cancel, startPayment. The UI-level attempt should be rejected in both modes.\n3. **The race (the real question):** reserve, startPayment, cancel, paymentSucceeded. Naive mode reaches `paid` after `cancelled`. Guarded mode stays `cancelled` and flags a refund.\n4. **Expiry race:** reserve, startPayment, expire, paymentSucceeded. This is the same hole through a different door.\n5. **Duplicate webhook:** paymentSucceeded twice after a cancel. This checks that the fix is idempotent.\n\n## Sketch of the file\n\n```html\n\n\nPROTOTYPE: paid-after-cancelled\n\n
PROTOTYPE (throwaway): can a reservation reach paid after cancelled?
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n```\n\n## What the result tells you\n\n- If the **race** tab ends in `paid` in naive mode, the machine can reach paid after cancelled whenever payment confirmation is decoupled from the cancel. The actual fix is then to make `paymentSucceeded` check the current status, or to void or refund the in-flight payment on cancel.\n- If the **cancel then pay** tab is rejected in both modes, the synchronous path is safe and the hole is only the async one.\n- If the **duplicate webhook** tab flips anything in guarded mode, the fix isn't idempotent.\n\n## Assumptions to check\n\n- Payment confirmation really is asynchronous in your system. If it's synchronous and atomic with the status change, the race tab can't happen and the answer is likely \"no\".\n- `cancel` is allowed from `paid` (as a refund path). If it isn't, drop that clause.\n- There is a separate `expired` state. If expiry is just `cancelled`, tab 4 collapses into tab 3.\n\nWhen you're done, fold the verdict into the real transition code, commit the HTML to a throwaway branch, and link that branch from the implementation issue along with the one-line answer.",
"97df2dac47785a6a46b579c12d2add1438e75b4c741ccb77b4477b8b75d90e42": "I haven't run any of this, and I don't have your actual transition table, so the demo uses a stand-in you can swap for the real one. It answers the question at two levels.\n\n## What to test\n\n1. **Table level:** does any event sequence reach `paid` after visiting `cancelled`? Explore this exhaustively.\n2. **Concurrency level:** even if the table forbids `cancelled -> paid`, can a non-atomic \"read state, then write state\" let it happen? Enumerate every interleaving of two handlers.\n\nMost real cases are level 2, such as a late payment webhook racing a user cancel.\n\n## Throwaway script (`demo.py`)\n\n```python\nfrom itertools import combinations\n\n# ---- Part 1: reachability over (state, ever_cancelled) ----\nEVENTS = [\"pay\", \"cancel\", \"expire\", \"late_webhook\"]\nTABLE = { # swap in your real transitions\n (\"pending\", \"pay\"): \"paid\",\n (\"pending\", \"cancel\"): \"cancelled\",\n (\"pending\", \"expire\"): \"cancelled\",\n (\"paid\", \"cancel\"): \"cancelled\",\n (\"cancelled\", \"late_webhook\"): \"paid\", # the suspect edge; delete to test the fix\n}\n\ndef reachable_violation():\n start = (\"pending\", False)\n seen, frontier = {start: []}, [start]\n while frontier:\n s, was_c = frontier.pop(0)\n for e in EVENTS:\n n = TABLE.get((s, e))\n if n is None:\n continue\n nxt = (n, was_c or n == \"cancelled\")\n if nxt not in seen:\n seen[nxt] = seen[(s, was_c)] + [e]\n frontier.append(nxt)\n return seen.get((\"paid\", True)) # path, or None\n\nprint(\"table-level path to paid-after-cancelled:\", reachable_violation())\n\n# ---- Part 2: check-then-write race, all interleavings ----\ndef run(order, cas):\n db, hist, loc = {\"s\": \"pending\"}, [\"pending\"], {}\n def pay_read(): loc[\"p\"] = db[\"s\"]\n def pay_write():\n if loc[\"p\"] != \"pending\": return\n if cas and db[\"s\"] != loc[\"p\"]: return # compare-and-set guard\n db[\"s\"] = \"paid\"; hist.append(\"paid\")\n def can_read(): loc[\"c\"] = db[\"s\"]\n def can_write():\n if loc[\"c\"] not in (\"pending\", \"paid\"): return\n if cas and db[\"s\"] != loc[\"c\"]: return\n db[\"s\"] = \"cancelled\"; hist.append(\"cancelled\")\n ops = {\"pr\": pay_read, \"pw\": pay_write, \"cr\": can_read, \"cw\": can_write}\n for step in order: ops[step]()\n return hist\n\ndef interleavings():\n for pos in combinations(range(4), 2): # slots taken by pay's 2 steps\n pay, can = iter([\"pr\", \"pw\"]), iter([\"cr\", \"cw\"])\n yield [next(pay) if i in pos else next(can) for i in range(4)]\n\nfor cas in (False, True):\n bad = [o for o in interleavings()\n if (h := run(o, cas)).index(\"cancelled\") < len(h) - 1 and h[-1] == \"paid\"\n if \"cancelled\" in h]\n print(f\"cas={cas}: bad interleavings = {bad}\")\n```\n\n## What you should see\n\n- **Part 1:** with the `late_webhook` edge present, it prints `['cancel', 'late_webhook']`. Delete that edge and it prints `None`. That is the table-level answer.\n- **Part 2, `cas=False`:** the order `pr, cr, cw, pw` shows up as bad. Pay reads `pending`, cancel completes, then pay blindly writes `paid`. With `cas=True` the list is empty, because pay's write is rejected once the state has changed.\n\n## How to read the result\n\n- If Part 1 finds a path, the design allows it by intent or oversight. Decide whether late payment should auto-refund or be rejected.\n- If only Part 2 fails, the table is fine but the write path isn't atomic. The fix is a conditional update (`UPDATE ... SET status='paid' WHERE id=? AND status='pending'`, checking the affected row count) or a row lock.\n- To extend it, add more events or states to `TABLE` and `EVENTS`. Part 2 scales poorly past about 3 handlers, so treat it as a demo and not a model checker.\n\nIf you paste your real transition table, I can adapt Part 1 to it directly.",
"afa77c5e259664181108f925bd58addc13d6385c138b57cb64fc739530146a09": "I haven't seen your actual state machine, so this demo uses a placeholder transition table you'd replace with yours. It answers the question in two ways: a static check of the table, and a check for races, which usually cause this bug.\n\n## Approach\n\n1. **Static reachability**: Model states and events as a table, then run BFS from the start state. If `paid` is reachable from `cancelled` through any event sequence, the table allows it.\n2. **Race check**: A correct table can still fail if \"check state, then write\" isn't atomic. Simulate two actors, a payment-confirmed handler and a cancel handler, and try every interleaving of their read and write steps.\n\n## Throwaway demo (Python)\n\n```python\nfrom itertools import permutations\n\n# 1. Static reachability: replace with your real table\nT = {\n \"new\": {\"hold\": \"held\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\"},\n \"held\": {\"pay\": \"paid\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\", \"expire\": \"cancelled\"},\n \"paid\": {\"refund\": \"refunded\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\"},\n \"cancelled\": {}, # terminal? change to test your real rules\n \"refunded\": {},\n}\n\ndef reachable_from(start):\n seen, stack = {start}, [start]\n while stack:\n for nxt in T[stack.pop()].values():\n if nxt not in seen:\n seen.add(nxt); stack.append(nxt)\n return seen\n\nprint(\"paid reachable from cancelled (table):\", \"paid\" in reachable_from(\"cancelled\"))\n\n# 2. Race: non-atomic check-then-write\ndef run(order):\n state = {\"s\": \"held\"}\n local = {}\n steps = {\n (\"pay\", \"read\"): lambda: local.__setitem__(\"pay\", state[\"s\"]),\n (\"pay\", \"write\"): lambda: state.__setitem__(\"s\", \"paid\") if local[\"pay\"] == \"held\" else None,\n (\"cancel\", \"read\"): lambda: local.__setitem__(\"cancel\", state[\"s\"]),\n (\"cancel\", \"write\"): lambda: state.__setitem__(\"s\", \"cancelled\") if local[\"cancel\"] in (\"held\", \"paid\") else None,\n }\n for step in order:\n steps[step]()\n return state[\"s\"]\n\nops = [(\"pay\",\"read\"),(\"pay\",\"write\"),(\"cancel\",\"read\"),(\"cancel\",\"write\")]\nvalid = [p for p in permutations(ops)\n if p.index((\"pay\",\"read\")) < p.index((\"pay\",\"write\"))\n and p.index((\"cancel\",\"read\")) < p.index((\"cancel\",\"write\"))]\n\nfor order in valid:\n cancel_write_idx = order.index((\"cancel\",\"write\"))\n pay_write_idx = order.index((\"pay\",\"write\"))\n if pay_write_idx > cancel_write_idx: # pay landed after cancel committed\n print(\"final =\", run(order), \"| order:\", [f\"{a}.{b}\" for a, b in order])\n```\n\n## What to expect\n\n- **Static check**: Prints `False` if `cancelled` is terminal in your table. If it prints `True`, the design allows the transition outright.\n- **Race check**: Any interleaving where `pay.write` lands after `cancel.write` but `pay.read` saw `held` ends in `paid`. That is the \"paid after cancelled\" bug, which the stale read causes.\n\n## Fixes if the race shows up\n\n- Make the write conditional on the expected prior state (`UPDATE ... SET status='paid' WHERE id=? AND status='held'`) and check the affected row count.\n- Or add a version column and use optimistic locking.\n- Or use a row lock (`SELECT ... FOR UPDATE`).\n- For payment webhooks that arrive after cancellation, decide the policy explicitly, such as auto-refund or flag for review, instead of letting the state flip.\n\n## Caveats\n\n- The table is made up, so the static result only tells you about your machine once you copy in the real transitions.\n- The interleaving model covers one in-process read/write pair per actor. It doesn't cover retries, duplicate webhooks, or multi-service ordering. Add those as extra actors if they exist.\n\nIf you paste the real states and transitions, I can adapt the table and say what it shows.",
"113c75109850526dbc83660cd859a4a90936b83b0f8b375d394b3389606fd217": "I haven't seen your actual state machine, so this demo uses a stand-in transition table. Swap in your real one and the answer will be about your system.\n\n## Approach\n\nThere are two ways `paid` can follow `cancelled`:\n\n1. **Modeled path**: the transition table itself allows it, directly or through intermediate states. An exhaustive search over the table settles this.\n2. **Race path**: the table forbids it, but a payment confirmation (such as a webhook) is validated against stale state and then applied after the cancel commits. A two-thread interleaving shows this.\n\n## Throwaway script (Python, standard library only)\n\n```python\nimport threading, time\nfrom collections import deque\n\n# 1. Modeled reachability: replace with your real table\nT = {\n \"pending\": {\"hold\": \"held\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\", \"expire\": \"expired\"},\n \"held\": {\"pay\": \"paid\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\", \"expire\": \"expired\"},\n \"paid\": {\"refund\": \"refunded\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\"},\n \"cancelled\": {}, # terminal? try adding {\"reopen\": \"pending\"} to see it flip\n \"expired\": {},\n \"refunded\": {},\n}\n\ndef paid_after_cancelled(start=\"pending\"):\n # BFS over (state, has_been_cancelled)\n seen, q = set(), deque([(start, False, [start])])\n while q:\n s, c, path = q.popleft()\n if (s, c) in seen: continue\n seen.add((s, c))\n if s == \"paid\" and c:\n return path\n for ev, nxt in T[s].items():\n q.append((nxt, c or nxt == \"cancelled\", path + [f\"-{ev}->\", nxt]))\n return None\n\nprint(\"modeled path:\", paid_after_cancelled())\n\n# 2. Race: check-then-act without a lock\nclass Reservation:\n def __init__(self): self.state = \"held\"; self.lock = threading.Lock()\n\ndef pay_unsafe(r):\n if \"pay\" in T[r.state]: # check\n time.sleep(0.05) # widen the window (e.g. gateway call)\n r.state = \"paid\" # act, with no recheck\n\ndef cancel(r):\n time.sleep(0.01)\n r.state = \"cancelled\"\n\nr = Reservation()\na, b = threading.Thread(target=pay_unsafe, args=(r,)), threading.Thread(target=cancel, args=(r,))\na.start(); b.start(); a.join(); b.join()\nprint(\"unsafe final state:\", r.state) # \"paid\": cancel was overwritten\n```\n\nThe race run ends in `paid` because the cancel is overwritten. If `cancelled` had landed last, you'd instead see a lost payment. Either outcome is a bug worth knowing about.\n\n## How to read the results\n\n- **Modeled path prints `None`**: the table is safe. Only the race remains.\n- **Modeled path prints a path**: the table allows it. Look for edges like `reopen` or `retry` out of `cancelled`, or a `cancel` that doesn't clear a pending payment.\n- **Race ends in `paid`**: the transition needs to be atomic. Typical fixes:\n - a compare-and-set update (`UPDATE ... SET state='paid' WHERE id=? AND state='held'`, then check rows affected)\n - a row lock\n - a version column\n\n## What to adapt\n\n- Replace `T` with your real transitions, including admin or system events and retries.\n- If payments are async, model the webhook as its own event that can arrive in any state. The most common real-world path to `paid` after `cancelled` is a late webhook handled by code that doesn't check current state.\n- Decide the intended behavior for a late payment on a cancelled reservation. Usually it's \"auto-refund and log\", not a transition to `paid`.\n\nIf you paste the real transition table or handler code, I can adjust the demo to match it.",
"f0f73b4e47311939350f7476fa0e5aac11a50e546fa5a2f79196de9c1d41a7b2": "# Checkout page prototype: proposed shape\n\nThis is a **\"what should this look like?\"** question, so it takes the UI branch: one route, three radically different variations, switched by a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.\n\n## Route and entry\n- **One route**, placed according to the project's existing prototype route convention. I don't know the exact path from what's been supplied, so I'd follow whatever that convention dictates rather than invent a structure. Name it unmistakably as a prototype (e.g. `checkout-prototype`).\n- **One command** to start it from the project's task runner, e.g. `pnpm checkout-proto`, so launching takes no thought.\n\n## Switching\n- Search param: `?variant=a|b|c`. The URL is shareable, so a reviewer can be sent straight to a given direction.\n- A **floating bottom bar** with one button per variant, plus the active variant's name. Clicking updates the param without a full reload.\n- Default to `a` when the param is missing or invalid.\n\n## The three variants\nEach should differ in structure and interaction model, not just styling. Since I don't have your three directions, here are placeholders to replace with yours:\n\n- **A: Single-page, all sections stacked.** Contact, shipping, payment and the order summary are visible at once, with the summary in a sticky sidebar.\n- **B: Stepped wizard.** One focused step per screen, with a progress indicator and a persistent compact order summary.\n- **C: Express-first / minimal.** Wallet or one-tap payment up front, with the manual form collapsed behind a \"pay another way\" option.\n\nIf your three directions differ from these, swap them in. The point is that they diverge on layout and flow.\n\n## Data and state\n- **Hardcoded mock cart** shared by all variants, so the comparison is about presentation and flow, not data.\n- **In-memory state only.** No persistence, no real payment or network calls. \"Place order\" just shows a fake confirmation.\n- Include one or two awkward cases in the mock data (long item names, a discount code, many line items) so each layout is stressed.\n- **Surface state:** a small collapsible panel in the bar showing the current variant, step (for B), and form values, updating on every change.\n\n## Rules I'd follow\n- No tests, no error handling beyond what keeps it runnable, no shared abstractions between variants. Duplication is fine.\n- Each variant lives in its own clearly named component so they can be deleted independently.\n\n## Wrap-up\nOnce you pick a direction, fold the winning decision into the real checkout code. The prototype itself goes on a throwaway branch, out of main, with a pointer to that branch left on the implementation issue. The verdict and the reasoning behind it go in the issue or a commit message.\n\n## Open question\nWhat are your three directions? Once I have them, I can replace the placeholders above and specify each variant's layout in more detail.",
"c45cfa5b597929bcd4c07eecba2596a79d91b44da598def382955173cd2cfbd6": "## Prototype shape: checkout page, three visual directions\n\nThis is the \"what should this look like?\" question, so it follows the UI branch: one route, three radically different variants, switchable from a URL param and a floating bottom bar.\n\n**Route and naming**\n- Put it on a single route that follows the project's existing prototype route convention. I'm not inventing a new top-level structure.\n- Name it so it's obviously throwaway, for example `checkout-prototype` or whatever prefix the convention uses.\n- Variant is selected with `?variant=a|b|c`. A missing or unknown value defaults to `a`.\n\n**Floating bottom bar**\n- It's fixed to the bottom of the screen and has one button per variant, with the active one highlighted.\n- It also shows the variant's name and a one-line description of its direction.\n- Switching updates the search param without a full reload, so each variant has a shareable link.\n\n**The three directions**\n\nThey should differ in structure, not just in color or typography:\n1. **Single-page, stacked.** Everything on one scrolling page: cart summary, shipping, payment, and a sticky order total. It's dense and fast, and nothing is hidden.\n2. **Stepped wizard.** One focused step at a time (shipping → payment → review) with a progress indicator and a persistent mini-summary. It's calm, guided, and low in cognitive load.\n3. **Split-pane.** The order summary is always visible on one side, with a compact accordion form on the other. It reads as a trust-heavy, \"receipt-first\" layout.\n\nIf the user already has directions in mind, I'd swap those in. These three are just far enough apart to make the comparison meaningful.\n\n**Data and state**\n- All data is hard-coded: a few cart items, a fake address, and a fake card. Nothing persists and there are no network calls.\n- Form state lives in memory and is shared across the three variants, so switching doesn't lose what you typed. That keeps the comparison about layout, not data entry.\n- Each variant renders the same state, including the order total, the selected step, and validation status, so you can see what changed on each interaction.\n\n**Out of scope**\n- No tests, no real payment integration, no error handling beyond keeping it runnable, and no shared abstractions between variants. Duplicate freely.\n\n**How to run it**\n- One command in the project's task runner, such as `pnpm checkout-proto`, that starts the dev server and opens the route. I'd check the repo's scripts and use its existing convention.\n\n**Capturing the result**\n- Once a direction is chosen, fold only that decision into the real checkout code.\n- Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, kept out of `main`, and leave a pointer to that branch on the implementation issue.\n- Record the verdict in the issue or a commit message: which variant won and why.\n\nOne caveat is that I don't know your route convention yet. The first step when we build this is reading how existing prototype routes are laid out, so the new one matches.",
"8bc6dfdd4d8a04b1dc455a39ecbe12ce164a4340765821f88bb1f272e1c15e21": "## Prototype shape: checkout page, three visual directions\n\nThis is the \"what should this look like?\" branch, so the shape is one route with three radically different variants.\n\n**Route**\n- One prototype route placed according to the project's existing prototype-route convention. I haven't seen that convention's details here, so I'd follow it exactly rather than invent structure.\n- The name should make it obvious it's throwaway, e.g. `checkout-prototype`.\n- Variants are switched with a URL search param, `?variant=a|b|c`. Without the param it defaults to `a`, so a shared link always lands somewhere sensible.\n\n**Floating bottom bar**\n- A fixed bar with three buttons (A / B / C) and the active one highlighted.\n- Each button changes only the search param, so a variant is shareable and survives a refresh.\n- The bar shows the variant's one-line label, such as \"Single page\" or \"Stepped\".\n- It also shows a small state readout: current step, selected shipping and payment options, and the order total. That way every switch and interaction shows what changed.\n\n**The three variants**\n\nThese are placeholders. If you already have three directions in mind, I'd swap them in.\n- **A, single long page:** all sections stacked (contact, shipping, payment, review), with express pay at the top and a sticky total.\n- **B, stepped wizard:** one decision per screen, a progress indicator, and a back/next flow with a minimal summary.\n- **C, split layout:** the form on one side and a persistent, always-visible order summary on the other, collapsing to an accordion on narrow screens.\n\nThe variants should differ in layout and interaction model, not just color or spacing. Otherwise the comparison tells you little.\n\n**Data and state**\n- All three variants read the same hardcoded mock cart (a few items, one discount line, shipping options), so differences come from the design and not the data.\n- State lives in memory only, with no persistence, no real payment calls, and no backend.\n- \"Place order\" just shows a fake confirmation.\n\n**What I'd skip**\n- Tests, validation beyond what keeps the form usable, abstractions, and shared component polish. Some duplication across variants is fine.\n\n**Running it**\n- One command in the project's task runner, e.g. `pnpm checkout-proto`, that opens the route.\n\n**Capturing it when done**\n- Fold the chosen direction into the real checkout code.\n- Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, kept out of `main`.\n- Leave a pointer to that branch on the implementation issue, along with the verdict: which variant won and why.\n\nBefore building, I'd want to know whether you have specific three directions to use instead of my placeholders, and what the existing prototype-route convention is.",
"395f389e5969545419e2af681e349a696c7acd6cd56301a298d3d92ada3ec560": "**Branch:** UI (\"what should this look like?\"). Three visual directions of one page is the case for the single-route, multi-variant prototype.\n\n**Shape**\n\n- **One route, three variants.** The checkout prototype lives at a single route placed per the project's existing prototype route convention. I won't invent a new top-level structure, and I haven't seen the convention, so the exact path and file layout are for you to confirm.\n- **Variant switching via URL search param**, e.g. `?variant=a|b|c`. Each direction is a shareable link, and a reload keeps you on the same one.\n- **Floating bottom bar** with a button per variant, highlighting the active one. Clicking it updates the search param.\n- **Three radically different directions**, not three tweaks of one layout. For example:\n - **A, single-page:** everything visible at once, with order summary beside the form.\n - **B, stepped:** a multi-step flow (shipping, payment, review) with a progress indicator.\n - **C, minimal/express:** a compact, wallet-first layout with secondary fields collapsed.\n\n These are placeholders. If you already have three directions in mind, I'd use those.\n- **Shared fake data, in memory.** All variants read from the same hardcoded cart and form state, so differences come from layout and interaction, not content. Nothing is persisted and no real payment or API calls are made.\n- **Surface state on every switch.** Each variant renders its current form and cart state, and the bar could show the active variant name, so you can see what changed.\n- **Naming:** clearly marked as a prototype (e.g. a `prototype` or `proto` prefix in file and route names), so nobody mistakes it for production.\n- **Run:** one command from the project's task runner, e.g. `pnpm `.\n- **No polish:** no tests, minimal error handling, no abstractions beyond what keeps it runnable.\n\n**Wrap-up**\n\nOnce you pick a direction, I'd fold the decision into the real checkout code. The prototype would be committed to a throwaway branch (not main), with a pointer to that branch and the verdict left on the implementation issue.\n\n**Open questions**\n\n1. What is the existing prototype route convention (path and naming)?\n2. Do you have specific directions in mind for the three, or should I choose them?",
"cd1a0e4508881e3c0cf4583f3b979f758024ea611e4fb4e1a9d4916672b38af2": "# Prototype shape: checkout page, three visual directions\n\nThis is the \"what should this look like?\" branch, so the prototype is one route with three radically different variants.\n\n## Route and switching\n- **One route**, placed wherever the project's existing prototype route convention says. I haven't inspected it, so I won't guess the path. Name it so it reads as a prototype, e.g. `checkout-prototype` or whatever prefix the convention uses.\n- **Variant switching via a URL search param**, e.g. `?variant=a|b|c`. Default to `a` when the param is missing or invalid. This makes each direction linkable, so you can send someone \"look at `?variant=b`\".\n- **A floating bottom bar** with one button per variant, highlighting the active one. Clicking updates the search param without a full reload. It could also show the variant's one-line label, such as \"A: single-page\", so the bar doubles as a legend.\n\n## The three variants\nThey should differ in structure and feel, not just color or spacing. Since I don't know your product's brand, these are placeholders to adjust:\n\n- **A. Single-page, dense:** order summary, shipping, and payment all visible at once in a two-column layout. Optimizes for speed and a sense of control.\n- **B. Stepped wizard:** one focused step at a time with a progress indicator, large type, and lots of whitespace. Optimizes for clarity and low anxiety.\n- **C. Summary-first, conversational/accordion:** the cart and total are the hero, and the form sections expand inline as you complete them. Optimizes for trust and price transparency.\n\nIf you already have three directions in mind, swap them in. The scaffolding stays the same.\n\n## Data and state\n- **Hardcoded mock cart** shared by all three variants, so differences come from design rather than data. Include one awkward case, such as a long product name, a discount line, or an out-of-stock item, to stress each layout.\n- **In-memory state only.** No persistence, no real payment or API calls. Submit just shows the resulting state.\n- **Surface the state:** on each variant switch and form action, render the current variant and form state in a small debug panel, so it's clear what changed.\n\n## Running it\nAdd a single command in the project's task runner (e.g. `pnpm checkout-proto`) that opens straight to `?variant=a`. No setup beyond that.\n\n## Skipped on purpose\nNo tests, no validation beyond what keeps it runnable, and no shared abstractions between variants. Duplication is fine.\n\n## Wrapping up\nOnce a direction is chosen, fold only that decision into the real checkout code. Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, out of `main`, and leave a pointer to that branch on the implementation issue along with the verdict and the question it settled.\n\nOne thing I can't tell from here is the exact route convention. Once I can look at the project, I'll place the prototype accordingly.",
"3179abf6d3e83f641cc3628ec121af0d98904802004402779caf1f64f92246e5": "I can't see your prototype route convention. Nothing in the context describes it, and I'm not reading the repo, so the shape below is provisional. Map it onto your convention once you confirm what it is.\n\n**Recommended shape: one prototype route with a variant switcher, not three separate routes.**\n\n- **Single entry point:** one route following your existing prototype naming, e.g. `/checkout`.\n- **Variant selection via query param:** `?variant=a|b|c`, defaulting to `a`. Links are shareable, so reviewers can open any direction directly and compare in separate tabs.\n- **Small on-page switcher:** a floating toggle (prototype-only, clearly labeled) that changes the param. It lets stakeholders flip between directions on the same state without losing their place.\n- **Shared structure, swapped presentation:**\n - One shared mock-data module (cart items, totals, address, payment state), so differences you see are purely visual.\n - One shared page skeleton or logic layer for form state and step flow.\n - Three isolated variant components (`VariantA`, `VariantB`, `VariantC`), each owning its own layout, typography, spacing and color treatment. Variant-specific styles stay scoped to its component so nothing leaks between directions.\n- **State coverage:** each variant should render the same key states (empty cart, filled cart, validation error, processing, success). Toggle these via a second param like `?state=error` so the comparison is apples to apples.\n- **Isolation from production:** no real payment calls, no real API writes, and no linking from production navigation. Clean deletion later should be one folder removal plus the route entry.\n- **Responsive check:** review each direction at mobile and desktop widths, since checkout differences often show up on mobile first.\n\n**Why this over three routes:** it keeps data and behavior identical, makes side-by-side comparison trivial, and means only the winning variant needs promotion to the real checkout.\n\n**What I need from you:** the actual convention (directory, route prefix, naming, any gating like env flags or auth bypass). If you paste it, I'll adjust the shape to match exactly. If your convention strongly prefers one-route-per-prototype, I'd still keep a single route and use the variant param inside it.",
"9d0783d247d9c7ab8f309e4b82931177755132329e6c18d64112741c6e708a30": "I can't see the project's prototype route convention (no tools, and it isn't in the context you gave me), so I'll propose the shape in terms of that convention and not guess its paths.\n\n**Recommended shape: one prototype route with a variant switcher, three isolated variant components.**\n\n1. **One entry under the existing prototype convention.** Use whatever slug the convention prescribes, with `checkout` as the name. Do not create three separate routes.\n\n2. **Variant selection via a query param**, e.g. `?v=a|b|c`, defaulting to `a`. This makes each direction linkable, so reviewers can share exact URLs and open them side by side in separate tabs.\n\n3. **Three self-contained variant components**, `VariantA`, `VariantB`, `VariantC`, each owning its own layout and styling. Keep them isolated so one direction's choices don't leak into another and the losing two can be deleted cleanly.\n\n4. **Shared pieces kept thin and neutral:**\n - One fixture module for cart items, totals, and shipping and payment options, so every direction renders identical content and the comparison is purely visual.\n - No real payment or backend calls. Submit just advances to a static confirmation state.\n\n5. **A small switcher bar**, visible only in prototype mode, with A/B/C links that set the query param. It's the only shared chrome.\n\n6. **States to cover in each variant**, since this is where checkout directions usually diverge: default, validation error, and order summary collapsed/expanded on mobile. Check each at a narrow and a wide viewport.\n\n7. **Naming:** give each direction a short descriptive label (for example \"single-page\", \"stepped\", \"split summary\") in the switcher, so feedback refers to ideas and not letters.\n\n**Why this over three routes:** identical fixtures and a single URL make the comparison fair, and removal after the decision is just deleting two components and the switcher.\n\n**Open question:** if the convention is file-based routing under a dedicated prototypes directory, this maps onto one route file plus a variants folder next to it. If it's a registry or config list, it's one registry entry. Tell me which, or point me at an existing prototype, and I'll match its structure, naming, and comment style when building it.",
"7781eb5b3f200774829352e96a2de6951b6c866aa38c384ec8058ab6a0de5d61": "I can't see the project's prototype route convention from the facts supplied, so I'm describing the shape in terms of that convention. The paths below are placeholders to be renamed to match it.\n\n**Recommendation: three sibling prototype routes plus one comparison index, all sharing one fixture and one logic layer.**\n\n**Routes**\n- `/checkout/a`, `/b`, `/c`: one route per visual direction. Use descriptive slugs once the directions have names, for example `/checkout/compact`.\n- `/checkout`: a small index that links to the three, with a one-line description of each direction. If the convention allows it, it can also render them side by side in iframes or a split view for quick comparison.\n\n**Structure**\n- **Shared fixture:** one mock cart, with the same items, totals, promo code, shipping options, and a few error and empty states. Every direction renders identical content, so differences are purely visual.\n- **Shared behavior stub:** a thin, fake checkout state (step, selected shipping, validation errors) that all three consume. No real payment or network calls.\n- **Per-direction view layer:** each route owns only its layout, typography, spacing, color tokens, and component styling. Keep these isolated so one direction can be deleted without touching the others.\n\n**What to vary and what to hold constant**\n- Vary: layout (single page vs. stepped vs. split summary), visual density, hierarchy of the order summary and primary CTA, and trust and payment affordances.\n- Hold constant: content, copy, field set, and viewport behavior, so comparisons are fair.\n\n**States to include in each direction**\n- Default, validation error, loading and submitting, and order-confirmed.\n- Mobile and desktop widths, since checkout layouts often diverge there.\n\n**Comparison criteria**\nAgree on these before building: clarity of the total and CTA, perceived effort, error recovery, and mobile fit. That way the choice isn't made on taste alone.\n\n**After the decision**\nPromote the winning direction into the real checkout route and delete the other two prototype routes along with the index. The shared fixture can stay if it's useful for tests.\n\nIf you tell me the actual convention (directory, naming, how routes get registered), I can map this onto it exactly.",
"4c768e762f1b79e7dfe271216b9e884f1e6a52db6f9c4d571659e9c626c0bd32": "I can't see the project's prototype route convention (no tools, and you haven't described it), so this is a shape you can map onto it, not a claim about how it works.\n\n**Recommendation: one prototype route with a variant switch, three isolated variant components, and one shared fixture.**\n\n**Route**\n- Put a single checkout entry under the existing prototype convention, e.g. `/checkout`.\n- Pick the variant with a query param (`?v=a|b|c`), defaulting to `a`. Reviewers can then share links to each direction, and no extra routes are needed.\n- If the convention is one route per prototype, use the sibling form instead: `/checkout/a`, `/checkout/b`, `/checkout/c`. Choose whichever matches the convention.\n\n**Structure**\n```\ncheckout/\n index # reads ?v=, renders the chosen variant, shows a small variant toggle\n fixtures # one cart, address, shipping, and payment state shared by all variants\n variants/\n a- # direction 1\n b- # direction 2\n c- # direction 3\n shared/ # only unstyled logic: totals, validation, step state\n```\n\n**Principles**\n- **Same data, different presentation.** All three variants consume the same fixtures and shared logic, so differences are purely visual and structural, not behavioral.\n- **No cross-variant imports.** Each variant owns its markup and styles. This keeps the comparison honest and lets you delete the losers cleanly.\n- **No real integrations.** Payment and order submission are stubbed, and the submit button leads to a static confirmation state.\n- **Cover the states that differentiate designs.** Include empty or error validation, a long cart, and mobile width. Expose these through the toggle or a `&state=` param.\n- **Side-by-side view (optional).** A `?v=all` mode could render the three in columns or frames at the same viewport for quick review.\n\n**Comparison aids**\n- Give each variant a one-line rationale at the top of its file or in the toggle label, such as the layout idea or the trade-off it's testing.\n- Decide up front what you're judging (clarity, speed to complete, trust signals, mobile fit) so the review has criteria.\n\n**Next step**\nOnce you tell me the actual convention (route location, naming, and whether prototypes are flagged or isolated from production), I can adjust the paths and entry point to match.",
"3a5b375133014a9f9ae2a6404651115c56c3f8b63e3c0332169ac058677f5b0f": "I can't see the project's prototype route convention (you mentioned it exists, but not what it is), and I'm not allowed to look. So this is a shape you'd map onto it, not a final path layout.\n\n**Recommendation: one prototype entry with three swappable variants over shared fixtures.**\n\n1. **One prototype route for checkout**, placed wherever your convention puts prototypes. Each direction is selectable via a query param or segment, e.g. `?v=a|b|c` (or `/a`, `/b`, `/c` if the convention is segment-based). Direct URLs matter because reviewers can then share a link to a specific direction.\n\n2. **Three isolated variant components** (`DirectionA`, `DirectionB`, `DirectionC`), each owning only its visual layer: layout, typography, color, spacing, and component styling. No variant imports from another.\n\n3. **Shared, non-visual fixtures**: one mock cart, one mock address/payment state, and the same copy. Every direction renders identical content, so differences you see are purely visual. No real payment or backend calls.\n\n4. **A small comparison shell** (prototype-only, easy to delete):\n - a variant switcher at the top\n - an optional side-by-side view that renders all three at the same viewport width\n - a viewport toggle (mobile / desktop), since checkout often diverges most on mobile\n\n5. **States worth covering in each direction**: default, validation error, loading/processing, and order-confirmed. Those are where checkout designs usually differ.\n\n6. **Throwaway boundaries**: keep everything under the prototype namespace so the winning direction can be promoted into the real checkout and the other two deleted without touching production code.\n\n**Open question:** if your convention is one-route-per-prototype with no query-param support, I'd instead create three sibling routes sharing a common fixtures module. Tell me the convention (or let me inspect the repo) and I'll turn this into concrete file paths.",
"77df9e869e528fa759346bffad5395926819561c9fa620dabc62c1a897e52929": "I can't see the project's prototype route convention. Nothing in what you've given me describes it, and I'm not reading the repo. So this is a shape you can map onto that convention, not one that claims to match it.\n\n**Recommended shape: one prototype entry, three variants selected by a route segment or query param, sharing one fixture.**\n\n- **One route, three variants.** Put the checkout prototype where your convention says prototypes live, with the variant as the last segment: `/checkout/a`, `/b`, `/c`. If the convention is flat, use `?v=a|b|c` instead. Either way the three directions are directly linkable and can be opened side by side.\n- **A small index at `/checkout`.** It lists the three directions with a one-line description each, so reviewers have one URL to start from.\n- **Shared fixture data.** All three variants read the same mock cart, totals, shipping options, and error states. Then differences you see are purely visual, not data-driven.\n- **Separate presentation per variant.** Each direction gets its own folder or file for layout and styling (`variant-a/`, `variant-b/`, `variant-c/`). Shared logic, such as form state and validation stubs, lives in one common module so it isn't triplicated.\n- **State toggles for review.** A minimal control, such as query flags like `?state=empty|error|loading|success`, lets reviewers compare each direction under the same conditions, not only the happy path.\n- **No real integrations.** Payment, auth, and network calls are stubbed so the prototype is safe to share and deletable in one commit.\n\n**Why this over three separate prototypes:** it keeps the comparison fair (same data and states), keeps the diff small, and makes the loser variants easy to delete once a direction is chosen.\n\n**What I need from you to make it concrete:**\n1. The prototype root path and file naming convention.\n2. Whether the project's convention prefers path segments or query params for variants.\n3. A short description of each of the three visual directions.\n\nOnce I have those, I can adapt this to the actual convention, or look at the repo if you want me to use tools.",
"0f8c23c7d61c144818acbedfc960cba322c29834a103994cc6bde7bdfa133eca": "I can't see the project's prototype route convention. It isn't in the facts you gave me, and I'm not reading the repo. So this is a convention-agnostic shape, and you'd map it onto the real convention.\n\n**Recommended shape: one prototype route, three variants selected by a param**\n\n- **Route:** one entry under your prototype convention, named for the page (e.g. `checkout`), with the variant as a segment or query param: `…/checkout?v=a|b|c` (or `…/checkout/a`, `/b`, `/c` if the convention favors path segments).\n- **Index view:** the bare `checkout` route shows a simple switcher (three links or tabs, plus a short label per direction). That makes side-by-side review quick for stakeholders.\n- **Shared scaffold:** the same mock cart, user, and shipping/payment state feed all three variants. Only the visual layer differs, so you compare design rather than data.\n- **Variant isolation:** each direction lives in its own component or folder (`VariantA`, `VariantB`, `VariantC`) with its own styles. Nothing is shared except the mock data and the page shell. Deleting the two losers is then trivial.\n- **No real integrations:** payment, order submission, and analytics are stubbed. The \"Place order\" button just routes to a static confirmation state.\n- **States worth covering in each:** default, validation error, loading/processing, and a mobile viewport. These are where checkout directions usually diverge.\n- **Review aid:** a small note per variant stating the design intent (e.g. \"dense single-page\", \"stepped\", \"summary-first\") so feedback is about the direction rather than details.\n\n**Why this over three separate routes:** one switcher and one shared data fixture keep the comparison fair and make it easy to flip between directions on the same screen state.\n\nIf you tell me the convention (directory, naming, how prototypes are registered or gated), I can adjust the shape to fit it exactly. I'd need to look at the repo for that, so say the word if you want me to use tools.",
"4252c61c554c08586ef90e99ffb0c7517711cc9bf9e7ff9f4f48adec5bdb52cc": "I don't know your prototype route convention. It wasn't in the facts you supplied, and I can't inspect the repo in this mode. So this is a shape to adapt to the convention, not a claim about what it is.\n\n**Recommended shape: one prototype, three variants, switchable by URL**\n\n- **One route, variant selected by a segment or param.** Under whatever your prototype prefix is, add a single checkout entry. For example, `/checkout/[variant]`, or `?v=a|b|c` if the convention favors query params. Each direction is then linkable and shareable, and reviewers can flip between them in the same browser tab.\n- **A small index at the checkout root.** It lists the three directions with a one-line description and a link to each, so the comparison starts from one place.\n- **Shared scaffolding, separate visuals.** Keep the following identical across variants so the comparison is about look and feel, not behavior:\n - the same fake cart data (a fixture)\n - the same form fields and step order\n - the same stubbed submit with no real payment or network calls\n \n Each variant then owns only its layout, typography, color, spacing, and component styling. Put each in its own folder or file (`variant-a`, `variant-b`, `variant-c`, ideally named for the direction, such as \"minimal\", \"bold\", \"editorial\").\n- **Isolated styling.** Scope each variant's tokens or styles to its own wrapper, so one direction can't bleed into another or into the real app.\n- **Review aids.** A small floating variant switcher and viewport presets (mobile and desktop) help. Cover the states that stress a design: empty cart, long item names, a validation error, and a loading or processing state.\n- **Easy to discard.** Everything lives under the prototype area and isn't linked from production navigation, so removing the losers (or all three) is a delete, not a refactor.\n\n**What I'd need to finalize it:**\n1. The actual route convention, meaning the prefix, file layout, and whether it uses dynamic segments or one file per prototype.\n2. Whether the three directions already have names or moodboards.\n3. Whether you want a side-by-side view (all three on one page) in addition to the switchable one.\n\nIf you share the convention, or let me look at the repo, I'll map this onto the exact paths and file names.",
"d186fd5e948ba1a8660fc64527c1c8816092224ca52259a39ed14594c2e3193f": "I can't see the project's prototype route convention. The only supplied facts are that one exists, the repo is clean, and the main branch is `main`. So this is a convention-agnostic shape, and you'll need to map it onto the real paths and naming.\n\n**Recommended shape: one prototype route with a variant switch**\n\n- **One route, three variants.** Place a single checkout prototype under whatever the convention's prototype prefix is. Each direction (A, B, C) is a self-contained component. The route picks one via a `?variant=a|b|c` query param, with a default.\n- **Shared fixtures.** All three variants read the same mock cart, prices, and form state, so the comparison reflects visual direction rather than data differences.\n- **Isolation.** Each variant lives in its own folder and shares only the fixtures and any existing design-system primitives. Nothing from the prototype is imported by production code, so discarding the losers is a straight delete.\n- **Side-by-side view.** Add a small compare mode, such as `?variant=all`, that renders the three at the same viewport width in columns. Reviewers can then judge them together without flipping between URLs.\n- **Reviewability.** Keep everything on one branch off `main`. Each variant is a separate commit, which makes it easy to cherry-pick or drop one.\n\n**Scope for each variant**\n\n- Order summary, contact and shipping, payment, and the primary CTA.\n- Only the states that differentiate the directions: default, a field error, and mobile width.\n- No real payment or API calls. The submit button goes to a stubbed confirmation state.\n\n**Open questions for you**\n\n1. What is the convention's route prefix and file layout? I'd follow it exactly rather than use the generic structure above.\n2. What are the three directions? Even one-line descriptions would let me say which states and components matter most to compare.\n3. Should the prototype use the existing design tokens, or is part of the point to test departures from them?\n\nIf you paste the convention, or let me look at the repo, I can turn this into concrete file paths and a scaffold.",
"bf64fff295fd9d7b750b23550c7148ac5cd8a38496946d14803871982765bb60": "I can't see the project's prototype route convention. Nothing in the supplied facts describes it, and I've been told not to inspect the repo. So this is a convention-agnostic shape. Map the names onto your real convention, or paste it and I'll adjust.\n\n**Recommended shape: one prototype entry, three variants selected by a route segment**\n\n```\n/checkout/\n index -> lightweight chooser linking to A, B, C (and a side-by-side view)\n a/ -> Direction A\n b/ -> Direction B\n c/ -> Direction C\n _shared/ -> fixture data, mock cart, mock handlers, shared layout shell\n```\n\nExample URLs, if the convention uses path-based routes:\n- `//checkout` (chooser)\n- `//checkout/a`, `/b`, `/c`\n\n**Why this shape**\n- **Fair comparison:** all three variants consume the same `_shared` fixtures (cart items, totals, address, payment states), so differences come only from the visual direction.\n- **Easy to review:** each direction has a stable, linkable URL, so people can compare in separate tabs or share a specific one.\n- **Disposable:** deleting a losing direction means removing one folder. Nothing leaks into the real checkout.\n- **Isolated:** no real payment, API, or auth calls. Everything is mocked, and the prototype routes are clearly separate from production routes.\n\n**What each variant should cover (same scope across all three)**\n1. Default state with a populated cart\n2. Form validation error state\n3. Processing/loading state\n4. Success/confirmation state\n5. Mobile and desktop widths\n\n**Optional extras**\n- A `?state=error|loading|success` query param on each variant to flip states without extra routes.\n- A compare view at `/checkout/compare` that renders A, B, C in a row of frames.\n- A short `NOTES` file per direction stating the intent (for example, \"dense and minimal\" vs. \"guided multi-step\") so reviewers judge the idea, not the polish.\n\n**Open questions**\n- What is the actual prototype route prefix and file layout?\n- Does the convention allow nested routes, or is it one file per prototype?\n- Is there an existing design token or component set the three directions should share or deliberately diverge from?\n\nShare the convention and I'll translate this into the exact file and route names.",
"0a0d9d26ae5fe85f8cf886a0c78aa0d0d1a5e45e8e671bb19d9444193bdc21f0": "**Provisional direction: the logic branch (LOGIC.md).**\n\nAssumption, to be stated at the top of the prototype: the stakeholder is unreachable, the code in question is a backend retry module, and there's no UI work. That makes this a \"does this state model feel right?\" question, not a \"what should this look like?\" one. So the artifact is a single, double-clickable HTML file with free-play buttons and tabbed guided walkthroughs, not a set of UI variations on a route.\n\n**What the prototype should answer**\n\nThe core question: does the retry state model behave sensibly in the cases that are hard to reason about on paper? Concretely, it should push the state machine through:\n\n- **Backoff progression:** does the delay sequence grow as intended, and does it cap where expected?\n- **Jitter:** does randomization stay within bounds without breaking ordering assumptions?\n- **Attempt limits:** what happens at exactly the max attempt, and what state is the caller left in?\n- **Retryable vs. terminal errors:** does a non-retryable failure short-circuit immediately, and is that distinguishable from exhausting retries?\n- **Success after partial failure:** is the counter and backoff state reset correctly?\n- **Overlapping or repeated triggers:** what happens if a new request arrives mid-backoff, or a retry fires after cancellation?\n- **Timeouts and deadlines:** how does a total time budget interact with per-attempt delays?\n\nAfter every action, the prototype should render the full state (attempt count, current delay, next scheduled retry, terminal or not, last error), so a non-developer can drive it and see what changed.\n\n**Practical shape**\n\n- Placed next to the retry module, named clearly as a prototype (for example `retry-prototype.html`), with in-memory state only and no tests or polish.\n- Once the decision is validated, fold it into the real code, commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, and leave a pointer to that branch on the implementation issue along with the verdict.\n\nSince the stakeholder couldn't confirm the branch choice, treat this as a provisional call. If it turns out they wanted something UI-facing (for example a retry status display), the prototype would need to switch to the UI branch.",
"a446b3024539699d82b5d6065a0aa729affcc16aabd8de3871c2967a7e8e074f": "**Provisional direction: the logic branch.** The stakeholder is unreachable, and the context is a backend retry module with no UI work, so this is a \"does this state model feel right?\" question rather than a \"what should this look like?\" one. Assumption to state at the top of the prototype: *chosen by default because the surrounding code is a backend module; revisit if the real question was about presentation.*\n\n**Shape of the prototype**\n- A single HTML file, double-clickable, with no persistence and all state in memory.\n- Named and placed next to the retry module so it's obviously a prototype (something like `retry-PROTOTYPE.html`).\n- Free-play buttons to drive the retry state machine, plus tabbed guided walkthroughs for the hard cases.\n- After every action, the full state is rendered: attempt count, current delay, state (idle / waiting / retrying / succeeded / exhausted), and a log of events.\n\n**Questions the prototype should answer**\n1. **Transitions:** Is the set of states and the transitions between them right? Are there any illegal or ambiguous ones (e.g., a success arriving while a retry is scheduled)?\n2. **Backoff:** Does the delay progression (fixed, exponential, jitter, cap) feel right across many consecutive failures?\n3. **Exhaustion:** What happens at max attempts or max elapsed time, and what does the caller see?\n4. **Error classification:** Which failures are retryable vs. terminal, and does a mid-sequence switch between them behave sensibly?\n5. **Concurrency and cancellation:** What happens on a duplicate trigger, a cancel during backoff, or a late response after a timeout?\n6. **Idempotency:** Does a retry after an ambiguous failure risk a duplicate side effect?\n\n**Capturing the result:** commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, leave a pointer to it on the implementation issue, record the verdict there, and fold only the validated decisions into the real retry module on main.\n\nI haven't run anything or created any files, per your instructions.",
"6cf33802e60c9d1a556c0820255398e0323c4d584054d31617bafcd2b2e40155": "**Provisional direction: the logic branch.** The prototype sits next to a backend retry module and no UI work is present, so the question is \"does this state model feel right?\", not \"what should this look like?\". I'm assuming that because the stakeholder can't be reached to confirm. I'd state the assumption at the top of the prototype itself.\n\n**Shape of the prototype**\n- A single self-contained HTML file the user can double-click, named clearly as a prototype (for example `retry-state-PROTOTYPE.html`) and placed next to the retry module.\n- All state in memory, with no persistence, no tests and no real network calls. Time and failures are simulated.\n- Free-play buttons that drive the retry state machine (succeed, fail, timeout, advance clock), plus tabbed guided walkthroughs of the awkward cases.\n- The full state rendered after every action: attempt count, current backoff delay, next-retry time, and terminal or non-terminal status.\n\n**Questions it should answer**\n1. **States and transitions:** Are the states (idle, attempting, waiting to retry, succeeded, exhausted) the right set? Are any transitions missing or illegal?\n2. **Backoff:** Does the delay progression (fixed, exponential, jitter, cap) behave sensibly across many failures? Does it plateau where expected?\n3. **Retryable vs. permanent errors:** Do non-retryable failures stop immediately, and is the line between the two drawn where we want it?\n4. **Exhaustion:** What happens at the max-attempts or max-elapsed-time limit, and is the final outcome surfaced clearly to the caller?\n5. **Hard-to-reason-about cases:**\n - A success arriving after a timeout was already counted as a failure.\n - A cancellation during the backoff wait.\n - Concurrent or overlapping calls to the same operation.\n - Duplicate side effects, which bear on whether the operation needs to be idempotent.\n\n**When it's done:** fold the validated decisions into the real retry module. Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, out of main, with a pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Record the verdict and the question it settled in the issue or a commit message.\n\n**What would change this direction:** if the stakeholder says the real question is about how retry status looks to users (a banner, a progress indicator), switch to the UI branch and build several variations on one route.",
"2e5cf29fbb0db64b471d4ff9009c21ccb48525bc0ab38e0d1146c72c8cc9f693": "**Provisional direction:** Build a small, throwaway prototype of the retry behavior, living beside the backend retry module and not wired into it. Treat the stakeholder's suggestion as a hypothesis to test, not a sign-off. Since they can't be reached, keep the prototype cheap to discard and don't change the existing module's behavior until someone with authority confirms.\n\nBecause there is no UI work, the prototype should be a backend-only harness: a script or test fixture that drives the retry logic against a simulated flaky dependency and prints observable results (attempt counts, delays, final outcomes).\n\n**What the prototype should answer:**\n\n1. **Retry policy fit:** Which backoff strategy (fixed, exponential, with or without jitter) gives acceptable recovery without piling load onto a struggling dependency?\n2. **Limits:** What are sensible max attempts and total time budget before giving up, and how does that interact with caller timeouts?\n3. **Retryable vs. non-retryable errors:** Which failures should be retried (timeouts, 5xx, transient network) and which should fail fast (validation, auth, 4xx)?\n4. **Idempotency:** Is it safe to retry the operations that go through this module, or do some need idempotency keys or deduplication first?\n5. **Failure surfacing:** What happens when retries are exhausted: what error does the caller see, and what gets logged or measured?\n6. **Integration shape:** Does the new logic fit as a change to the existing retry module, or does it need a different seam (wrapper, config, per-call overrides)?\n\n**Caveats:** I haven't looked at the repository, so this rests only on what you've told me. The stakeholder's actual intent and constraints remain unconfirmed. Once they're reachable, the prototype's results give them concrete findings to approve, reject, or redirect. Until then, nothing should merge into the real module.",
"d59c23eb4c5c4e9005e5bef5e9f5c8f8c31abaf4e414eac470f70ea30206a4f1": "**Provisional direction:** Build a small, throwaway prototype of the backend retry module, kept beside the real one rather than wired into it. Treat it as a way to get evidence, not as the final design. Since the stakeholder can't be reached, this direction is a working assumption. It should be confirmed with them when they become available, and nothing should be committed to it until then.\n\nBecause there's no UI work, the prototype should be headless: a module with a thin harness or test driver that exercises it under simulated failures. It shouldn't need any front-end surface.\n\n**What the prototype should answer:**\n\n1. **Which failures are retryable?** Does it separate transient errors (timeouts, 5xx, connection resets) from permanent ones (4xx, validation failures) cleanly, and what should happen with the ambiguous cases?\n2. **What backoff policy works?** Compare fixed, exponential, and jittered delays. How many attempts and what maximum total wait are acceptable before giving up?\n3. **Is retrying safe?** Are the operations being retried idempotent? If not, what's needed (idempotency keys, deduplication) to avoid duplicate side effects?\n4. **What happens on exhaustion?** Does the failure propagate, go to a dead-letter queue, or trigger an alert? What does the caller see?\n5. **How does it behave under load?** Does it risk retry storms or amplify an outage, and does it need a circuit breaker or retry budget?\n6. **Where should it live?** Is a standalone module with a clean interface enough, or does it need to integrate with existing error handling, logging, and metrics?\n7. **How will we observe it?** What should be logged or counted (attempts, delays, final outcomes) to judge whether it's working?\n\n**Exit criteria:** The prototype is done when it gives a clear answer to those questions, or shows which ones need stakeholder input. Then either promote the design into the real retry module or discard the prototype. Until the stakeholder responds, flag anything that depends on their preference, such as acceptable latency, failure semantics, and scope, as an open assumption.",
"b368597f61c9d4de148e1ec690d24daebe7fb435ba45716de2032f29e7428bc3": "**Provisional direction:** Build a small, throwaway prototype of the retry behavior next to the backend retry module, kept isolated from production code paths (separate directory or feature-flagged, no changes to the existing module's public interface). Treat it as a way to learn, not as the implementation. Since the stakeholder is unreachable and there's no UI work, this is a backend-only experiment, and I'd proceed on that basis rather than wait. This direction is provisional, and I'd confirm it with the stakeholder once they're reachable.\n\n**What the prototype should answer:**\n\n1. **Failure classification:** Which errors are actually retryable (timeouts, 5xx, connection resets, rate limits) versus permanent (4xx validation, auth)? Does the existing module already draw this line, or does it retry everything?\n2. **Backoff policy:** Does exponential backoff with jitter behave acceptably under realistic failure patterns, and what are sensible values for base delay, cap, and max attempts?\n3. **Idempotency:** Are the operations being retried safe to repeat? If not, what idempotency key or deduplication is needed before retries can be enabled?\n4. **Total latency budget:** What is the worst-case time a caller waits across all attempts, and does it fit within upstream timeouts?\n5. **Load behavior:** Do retries amplify load during a downstream outage (retry storms)? Is a circuit breaker or retry budget needed?\n6. **Observability:** What needs to be logged or counted (attempts, final outcome, delay) to tell whether retries are helping?\n7. **Integration fit:** Can the new behavior slot into the existing retry module cleanly (config, hooks, or wrapper), or does the module need refactoring first?\n\n**Exit criteria:** The prototype is done when it gives a clear answer on each question above, or shows which ones need stakeholder input. At that point, either fold the findings into the real retry module or discard the prototype.\n\n**Open assumptions to flag to the stakeholder when they're back:** I'm assuming \"prototype\" means a disposable experiment rather than a first draft of production code, and that the retry module is the right home for the eventual change. If either is wrong, the direction changes.",
"0a687b8ed86b78f35ac94524f3c39e659447441ddaefff3d9828e58af87ff8d9": "**Provisional direction:** Build a small, throwaway prototype of the backend retry module's behavior, isolated from any UI and kept next to the real module so it exercises the same interfaces. Treat the stakeholder's \"try a prototype\" as a way to get evidence, not as approval of a final design. Proceed on that basis, and revisit when the stakeholder can be reached.\n\n**What the prototype should answer:**\n\n1. **Failure classification:** Which errors are worth retrying (timeouts, 5xx, rate limits) and which should fail fast (validation errors, auth failures, 4xx)? Can the module distinguish them reliably from what the callers actually see?\n2. **Backoff policy:** Does exponential backoff with jitter behave acceptably, and what are sensible values for base delay, cap, and max attempts? What is the worst-case added latency a caller experiences?\n3. **Idempotency:** Which operations are safe to repeat? If some aren't, does the module need idempotency keys or per-call opt-out?\n4. **Interaction with callers:** Where should retries live, in this module only or also in callers or upstream clients? The prototype should show whether stacked retries amplify load.\n5. **Overload behavior:** Under sustained downstream failure, does it need a retry budget or circuit breaker so it doesn't worsen an outage?\n6. **Observability:** Can retries, final failures, and delays be logged or counted well enough to tune the policy later?\n7. **Configuration surface:** What needs to be configurable per call versus globally?\n\n**How to scope it:** Use a fake or flaky downstream that can inject failures, latency, and rate limits. Keep it small and clearly labeled as a prototype, so it isn't mistaken for the final implementation. Define up front what result would confirm or reject the direction, for example that the retry rate stays bounded and tail latency stays under an agreed limit during a simulated outage.\n\n**Open assumptions to confirm later:** The stakeholder's actual requirements (latency targets, which operations matter, acceptable retry cost) are unknown, and the prototype's findings should be presented to them as a decision input rather than a decision.",
"91dbcc7bab42f7d791d9d2067f74a42ef7d61d0ad3298c3903f344f1671db012": "**Provisional direction:** Build a small, throwaway prototype of the backend retry behavior, placed alongside the existing retry module and isolated from it so it can be discarded or folded in later. Since there is no UI work, the prototype should be a thin, code-level or CLI-driven spike, not a visual mockup. Treat this as a provisional call based on the stakeholder's suggestion, not a confirmed requirement, because they're unreachable and can't clarify intent.\n\n**What the prototype should answer:**\n\n1. **Failure classification:** Which errors are transient and worth retrying, and which should fail fast (e.g., timeouts and 5xx versus validation or auth errors)?\n2. **Backoff policy:** Do exponential backoff with jitter, a max attempt count, and a total time budget behave sensibly under realistic failure patterns, without causing retry storms?\n3. **Idempotency:** Is it safe to retry the affected operations, or do they need idempotency keys or deduplication to avoid duplicate side effects?\n4. **Integration fit:** Does the new approach compose cleanly with the existing retry module (extend, wrap, or replace), or does it create double-retry layers?\n5. **Observability:** Can retries, final failures, and exhausted budgets be logged or measured well enough to tune the policy later?\n6. **Failure surface:** What does the caller see after retries are exhausted, and is that error contract acceptable?\n\n**Caveats and next steps:** I haven't inspected the repository, so I can't say how the existing module is structured. The prototype's scope should stay small enough that it can be reviewed and reversed cheaply. Once the stakeholder is reachable, confirm that a retry-focused prototype matches their intent, and treat the answers above as the basis for a firmer decision.",
"11f745da87927688482c9c827620322ced491a7ad280cfb68d629b80207d2730": "**Provisional direction:** Proceed with a small, throwaway prototype of the retry behavior, built alongside the existing backend retry module rather than inside it. Treat the stakeholder's suggestion as the working assumption, since they can't be reached to confirm it. Keep the prototype isolated and easy to discard, so nothing depends on it until the stakeholder weighs in. Because there is no UI work, the prototype should be backend-only: no screens, no user-facing flow, just the retry logic exercised through tests or a simple script.\n\n**What the prototype should answer:**\n\n1. **Does the proposed retry approach behave correctly under failure?** Which errors are retryable (transient vs. permanent), and does the prototype retry only those?\n2. **What backoff and limits work?** Max attempts, delay growth, jitter, and an overall time cap, and whether those values hold up when the dependency is slow or down.\n3. **Is it safe to repeat?** Whether the operations being retried are idempotent, and if not, what guard (idempotency key, dedupe) is needed to avoid duplicate side effects.\n4. **How does it fit with the existing retry module?** Whether it can extend or reuse that module, or whether it conflicts (double retries, overlapping timeouts, inconsistent config).\n5. **What does failure look like at the end?** What gets surfaced after retries are exhausted, and what logging or metrics are needed to see it.\n\n**Caveats:** I'm working only from what you've stated. I haven't looked at the retry module or the codebase, so these questions are generic and should be refined against the real code. Any decision here is provisional until the stakeholder is reachable. Once they are, the prototype's findings give them something concrete to approve, change, or reject."
},
"draws": [
{
"id": "logic",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 0,
"generation_hash": "e58581cfa1e8c1ba5f18f53e52618f12ffdb00165d003aadbbfdbc07d5852e6e",
"answer_sha256": "e58581cfa1e8c1ba5f18f53e52618f12ffdb00165d003aadbbfdbc07d5852e6e",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine logic demo, state and history rendered after every action, a single double-clickable HTML file, and in-memory throwaway design with no persistence or production architecture.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Covers all four criteria: a state-machine logic demo, state and history shown via render() after every fire, a single double-clickable HTML file, and in-memory throwaway code with no persistence.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine logic demo, state and history shown after every action, a single double-clickable HTML file, and in-memory throwaway design with no persistence.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses a state-machine logic demo, exposes state and history after every action via render(), delivers a single double-clickable HTML file, and keeps it in-memory and throwaway with no production architecture.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: it proposes a state-machine logic demo, shows full state and history after every action, packages it as a single double-clickable HTML file, and keeps it in-memory and throwaway.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "logic",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 1,
"generation_hash": "0ac1dc106bce4333f7e484ee438e5cfceb390788262701299b2ba5fb6530a4c3",
"answer_sha256": "0ac1dc106bce4333f7e484ee438e5cfceb390788262701299b2ba5fb6530a4c3",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses a state-machine logic demo, re-renders full state and event log after every action, delivers a single double-click HTML file, and keeps state in memory as throwaway code without production architecture.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine logic demo), 2 (state panel re-rendered after every action), and 3 (single double-click HTML file); misses 4 because it adds a red banner and a 'Capture' section pushing branch/commit workflow, but in-memory state with no persistence is respected, so partial credit is debatable.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Uses a state-machine demo, re-renders state and event log after every action, delivers a single double-click HTML file, and keeps state in memory as a throwaway prototype.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: chooses a state-machine race demonstration, exposes state and event log after every action, delivers a single double-click HTML file, and uses in-memory state only with no production architecture.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses a state-machine demonstration, re-renders state and event log after every action, delivers a single double-click HTML file, and keeps state in memory with no persistence or production architecture.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "logic",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 2,
"generation_hash": "b05a3bbae570bae396ca2fbba902180c61d4140f105945c3b76b45e0cf7ebf3b",
"answer_sha256": "b05a3bbae570bae396ca2fbba902180c61d4140f105945c3b76b45e0cf7ebf3b",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine demo, state and log shown after every action via render(), a single double-clickable HTML file, and in-memory-only throwaway design with no persistence.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Builds a state-machine demo, renders state, log, and history after every event, ships as one self-contained HTML file, and keeps state in memory only as a throwaway prototype.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses a state-machine demonstration, exposes status, inFlight, and log after every action, ships as one double-click HTML file, and keeps state in memory as a throwaway prototype.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: a state-machine logic demo, state and log exposed after every action, a single self-contained HTML file, and in-memory state with no persistence or production architecture.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Describes a state-machine logic demo (criterion 1), renders state and a log after every fire (criterion 2), delivers a single self-contained HTML file (criterion 3), and keeps state in memory as a throwaway prototype (criterion 4).\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "logic",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 0,
"generation_hash": "97df2dac47785a6a46b579c12d2add1438e75b4c741ccb77b4477b8b75d90e42",
"answer_sha256": "97df2dac47785a6a46b579c12d2add1438e75b4c741ccb77b4477b8b75d90e42",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, no persistence), but misses criterion 2 since it prints only final paths or histories, not state after every action, and criterion 3 since it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets choosing a state demonstration and avoiding persistence, but misses the single HTML demo requirement (it's a Python script) and only partly exposes state after every action.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demonstration) and criterion 4 (throwaway, in-memory, no persistence). Misses criterion 2 because it reports only final paths and interleavings, not state after every action, and misses criterion 3 because it delivers a Python script, not a single HTML demonstration.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, in-memory, no persistence), but misses criterion 2 since state is not exposed after every action and criterion 3 since it is a Python script, not an HTML demonstration.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence). Misses criterion 2, since it logs only writes rather than state after every action, and criterion 3, since it is a Python script rather than a single HTML demonstration.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "logic",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 1,
"generation_hash": "afa77c5e259664181108f925bd58addc13d6385c138b57cb64fc739530146a09",
"answer_sha256": "afa77c5e259664181108f925bd58addc13d6385c138b57cb64fc739530146a09",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (state machine demo) and 4 (throwaway, no persistence). Missed 2, since it prints only final state rather than state after every action, and 3, since it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, no persistence), but misses 2 (state is printed only as a final value, not after every action) and 3 (delivered as Python, not a single HTML demo).\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state/logic demo) and criterion 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence). Misses criterion 2, since it reports only final state, not after every action, and criterion 3, since it is a Python script rather than a single HTML demo.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state/logic demo) and 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence), but misses 2 because it prints only final states, not after every action, and misses 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (in-memory, no persistence), but misses 2 (state is printed only at the end, not after every action) and 3 (Python script, not a single HTML demo).\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "logic",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 2,
"generation_hash": "113c75109850526dbc83660cd859a4a90936b83b0f8b375d394b3389606fd217",
"answer_sha256": "113c75109850526dbc83660cd859a4a90936b83b0f8b375d394b3389606fd217",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, in-memory, no persistence). Misses criterion 2 (state is printed only at the end, not after every action) and criterion 3 (a Python script, not a single HTML demo).\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, in-memory, no persistence), but misses criterion 2 since state is shown only at the end, and criterion 3 since it is a Python script rather than a single HTML demo.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine demo) and 4 (throwaway, in-memory, no persistence), but misses 2 (only final state is printed, not state after every action) and 3 (a Python script, not a single HTML demo).\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, no persistence). Misses criterion 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo, and only partly meets criterion 2 by printing the path and final state, not state after every action.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (state-machine demo) and 4 (no persistence or production architecture). Missed 2, since only the final race state is printed, not state after every action, and missed 3, since the demo is a Python script rather than a single HTML page.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 0,
"generation_hash": "f0f73b4e47311939350f7476fa0e5aac11a50e546fa5a2f79196de9c1d41a7b2",
"answer_sha256": "f0f73b4e47311939350f7476fa0e5aac11a50e546fa5a2f79196de9c1d41a7b2",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, proposes three structurally distinct variants on one route, switches them via a ?variant= URL param, and labels the prototype as throwaway while deferring to the existing route convention.\"}",
"{\n \"score\": 1.0,\n \"pass\": true,\n \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, offers three structurally different variants on one route, switches via a ?variant= URL param, and defers to the existing route convention while labeling the prototype as throwaway.\"\n}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, offers three structurally distinct variants on one route, switches them via a ?variant= URL param, and defers to the existing prototype route convention while labeling the prototype as throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI branch, genuinely different variants on one route, and URL-param switching (?variant=a|b|c), and labels the prototype throwaway. Respecting the route convention is only partly met because it defers to an unknown convention and invents a route name.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, offers three structurally distinct variants on one route, switches them via a `?variant=` URL param, and defers to the existing prototype route convention while labeling the work throwaway on a separate branch.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 1,
"generation_hash": "c45cfa5b597929bcd4c07eecba2596a79d91b44da598def382955173cd2cfbd6",
"answer_sha256": "c45cfa5b597929bcd4c07eecba2596a79d91b44da598def382955173cd2cfbd6",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: chooses the UI branch, offers structurally distinct variants on one route, and switches via ?variant=. Criterion 4 is only partly met: it labels the prototype throwaway but admits it doesn't yet know the route convention.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants on one route, switches them via a `?variant=` URL param, and labels the prototype throwaway while deferring to the existing route convention.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants on one route, switches them via a ?variant= URL param, and follows the existing route convention while labeling it throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants on one route, switches via a ?variant= URL param, and follows the existing route convention while naming it throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: identifies the UI branch, proposes three structurally different variants on one route, switches via a ?variant= URL param, and follows the existing route convention while labeling it throwaway.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 2,
"generation_hash": "8bc6dfdd4d8a04b1dc455a39ecbe12ce164a4340765821f88bb1f272e1c15e21",
"answer_sha256": "8bc6dfdd4d8a04b1dc455a39ecbe12ce164a4340765821f88bb1f272e1c15e21",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets choosing the UI branch, genuinely different variants on one route, and a URL-param switch (?variant=a|b|c). Criterion 4 is weak: it defers to an unseen route convention and labels the route throwaway by name.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Treats it as the UI branch, offers three genuinely different layouts on one route, switches via ?variant=, and defers to the existing route convention while naming it checkout-prototype to signal throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets choosing the UI branch, three genuinely different variants on one route, and a `?variant=` URL switch. It labels the route throwaway and defers to the existing convention, but never states that convention and invents the route name and run command.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, offers three layout-distinct variants on one route, switches them via ?variant= URL param, and defers to the existing route convention while naming it checkout-prototype as throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants on one route, and uses a ?variant= URL switch. It labels the route throwaway, but it defers the existing route convention instead of stating it, so that criterion is only partly met.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 3,
"generation_hash": "395f389e5969545419e2af681e349a696c7acd6cd56301a298d3d92ada3ec560",
"answer_sha256": "395f389e5969545419e2af681e349a696c7acd6cd56301a298d3d92ada3ec560",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, proposes three genuinely different variants on one route, uses a ?variant= URL switch, and labels it a throwaway prototype. It defers on the existing route convention because it never saw it, so that criterion is only partly met.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets points 1-3: selects the UI branch, proposes three genuinely different variants on one route, and uses a URL search param switch. Point 4 is only partly met: it defers the route convention as unknown, though it labels the work a throwaway prototype.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three genuinely different variants on one route, and uses a URL search-param switch with throwaway/prototype labeling. It does not identify the existing route convention, deferring it to the user, so the convention criterion is only partly met.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three genuinely different variants on one route, and uses a URL search-param switch. It labels the work as a prototype on a throwaway branch but defers the route convention because it never states it, so that criterion is only partly met.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three genuinely different variants on one route, and uses a ?variant= URL switch. It labels the prototype as throwaway but never actually follows the project's route convention, deferring it as unknown.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 4,
"generation_hash": "cd1a0e4508881e3c0cf4583f3b979f758024ea611e4fb4e1a9d4916672b38af2",
"answer_sha256": "cd1a0e4508881e3c0cf4583f3b979f758024ea611e4fb4e1a9d4916672b38af2",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants on one route, switches via a ?variant= URL param, and defers to the existing route convention while labeling the work as a prototype on a throwaway branch.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants on one route, and uses a ?variant= URL switch. It defers to the unknown route convention and labels the work throwaway, but doesn't actually apply the convention.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants on one route, switches via a URL search param, defers to the existing route convention, and labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants on one route, switches them via a URL search param, and defers to the existing route convention while labeling the work throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the UI branch, proposes three structurally different variants on one route, uses a ?variant= URL switch, and defers to the existing prototype route convention while labeling it prototype and throwaway.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 0,
"generation_hash": "3179abf6d3e83f641cc3628ec121af0d98904802004402779caf1f64f92246e5",
"answer_sha256": "3179abf6d3e83f641cc3628ec121af0d98904802004402779caf1f64f92246e5",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI-branch choice, genuinely different variants on one route, and the URL-param switch (?variant=a|b|c). Only partly meets route-convention respect, since it defers the convention, though it does label the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets variant-on-one-route (VariantA/B/C, isolated layouts) and URL-param switch (?variant=) criteria; route convention is handled provisionally but 'throwaway' is never explicitly labeled, and 'UI branch' is only implied.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: it picks a single-route shape, gives three isolated variant components, and uses a ?variant= URL switch. Criterion 4 is only partly met: it defers to the unknown route convention and calls the prototype disposable, but never explicitly labels it throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: chose a single-route UI variant approach with genuinely different variants and a ?variant= URL switch. Criterion 4 is only partly met: it labels the work throwaway but cannot respect an unseen route convention.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Recommends one route with a clear ?variant= URL switch and distinct variant components (criteria 1-3 met). Labels it prototype-only and throwaway, but only defers to the unseen route convention with placeholders, so criterion 4 is weak.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 1,
"generation_hash": "9d0783d247d9c7ab8f309e4b82931177755132329e6c18d64112741c6e708a30",
"answer_sha256": "9d0783d247d9c7ab8f309e4b82931177755132329e6c18d64112741c6e708a30",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (three distinct variants on one route) and criterion 3 (`?v=a|b|c` switch). Misses criterion 1 (no UI branch is chosen) and only partly meets criterion 4, since it defers the convention and implies but never explicitly labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses a single-route, switcher-based branch strategy, uses a ?v= URL parameter, and defines distinct variants; deducted because throwaway status is only implied by 'removal after the decision' rather than labeled, and route convention is deferred rather than applied.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Commits to a UI prototype branch, proposes three distinct variant components on one route, and uses a ?v= URL switch; it defers to the existing convention but never explicitly labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (three distinct variants on one route) and criterion 3 (?v= URL switch). Misses criterion 1 (no UI branch chosen) and criterion 4 (defers the route convention and never explicitly labels the prototype throwaway).\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (distinct variants on one route) and 3 (?v= URL switch). Criterion 4 is partly met: it defers to the existing convention and implies disposability but never explicitly labels the work throwaway. Criterion 1 is only implicitly addressed by choosing a UI shape.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 2,
"generation_hash": "7781eb5b3f200774829352e96a2de6951b6c866aa38c384ec8058ab6a0de5d61",
"answer_sha256": "7781eb5b3f200774829352e96a2de6951b6c866aa38c384ec8058ab6a0de5d61",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Proposes three separate sibling routes instead of variants on one route, uses path-based routes rather than a URL-parameter switch, and never explicitly labels the work throwaway or chooses a single UI branch.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Uses three separate routes (/checkout/a, /b, /c) instead of variants on one route, proposes no URL-parameter switch, and uses placeholder paths rather than respecting the existing convention, though it calls them prototypes to delete.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Chooses a UI prototype and labels the routes as throwaway prototypes, but uses three sibling routes instead of variants on one route and no URL-parameter variant switch.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Recommends three sibling routes instead of variants on one route, and offers no URL-parameter or other simple variant switch. It respects the unknown route convention with placeholders and marks the prototypes for deletion, but never explicitly chooses a UI branch.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses the single-route requirement by proposing three sibling routes instead of variants on one route, and uses path segments instead of a URL-parameter switch. It only partly meets the route-convention and throwaway-labeling point by deferring the convention and planning deletion, and does not explicitly choose the UI branch.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 3,
"generation_hash": "4c768e762f1b79e7dfe271216b9e884f1e6a52db6f9c4d571659e9c626c0bd32",
"answer_sha256": "4c768e762f1b79e7dfe271216b9e884f1e6a52db6f9c4d571659e9c626c0bd32",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met: genuinely different variants on one route and a URL-parameter switch (?v=). Missed: never labels the prototype throwaway and defers on the existing route convention. UI branch choice is ambiguous.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: a UI prototype on one route with three distinct variants switched by a `?v=` URL param. Misses 4: it defers the existing route convention and never explicitly labels the prototype as throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI branch, genuinely different variants on one route, and URL-param switch criteria; misses an explicit 'throwaway' label and only partly respects the unseen route convention by offering alternatives.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (three distinct variant components on one route) and 3 (?v= URL switch). Misses 1, since no UI branch is explicitly chosen, and 4, since the route is never explicitly labeled throwaway, though it defers to the unknown convention.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: a UI prototype on one route with three distinct variants switched by a ?v= URL param. Criterion 4 is only partly met: it hedges on the unseen route convention and never explicitly labels the work throwaway.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 4,
"generation_hash": "3a5b375133014a9f9ae2a6404651115c56c3f8b63e3c0332169ac058677f5b0f",
"answer_sha256": "3a5b375133014a9f9ae2a6404651115c56c3f8b63e3c0332169ac058677f5b0f",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets points 1-3: it recommends a single route with three variants switched by a URL param, and labels the shell throwaway. It misses point 4 because it defers to the unseen route convention rather than respecting it.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Recommends one route with three variants (1), uses a `?v=a|b|c` switch (3), and labels it throwaway (4). It defers placement to an unseen convention rather than concretely respecting it, so 4 is only partly met.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets variants on one route and a URL-param switch with throwaway labeling; UI branch is implicit, and route convention is deferred since the response admits it cannot inspect it.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (chooses UI branch via recommendation), 2 (three distinct isolated variants on one route), and 3 (query-param switch `?v=a|b|c`); criterion 4 is only partially met since it respects the convention conditionally and labels the shell 'prototype-only, easy to delete' rather than explicitly throwaway.\"}",
"{\n \"score\": 0.75,\n \"pass\": true,\n \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: it commits to a UI prototype, gives three distinct variant components on one route, and switches via a `?v=` query param. Criterion 4 is only partly met: it labels the shell throwaway but defers the route convention because it couldn't see it.\"\n}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 5,
"generation_hash": "77df9e869e528fa759346bffad5395926819561c9fa620dabc62c1a897e52929",
"answer_sha256": "77df9e869e528fa759346bffad5395926819561c9fa620dabc62c1a897e52929",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Recommends one route with three variants via a path segment or ?v= query param, and labels them throwaway; it defers to the unseen route convention rather than verifying it, so the convention criterion is only partly met.\"}",
"{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Picks a UI prototype with three visual variants on one route (/checkout/a|b|c), switches via path segment or ?v= query param, defers to the unseen route convention, and labels the code as deletable throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets variants on one route (/checkout/a|b|c), a URL switch (?v=), and defers to the unseen convention. It treats the work as UI without explicitly choosing that branch, and calls the code deletable rather than labeling it throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Commits to one recommended shape, gives three distinct variants on one route via path segment or ?v= query param, and labels the work deletable. It doesn't use the word 'throwaway' and defers the route convention, so criteria 1 and 4 are only partly clear.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (three variants on one route) and criterion 3 (query param/path variant switch), but misses 1 (no UI branch chosen) and 4 (does not label it throwaway; it only mentions deletability and doesn't tie to existing convention beyond asking).\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 6,
"generation_hash": "0f8c23c7d61c144818acbedfc960cba322c29834a103994cc6bde7bdfa133eca",
"answer_sha256": "0f8c23c7d61c144818acbedfc960cba322c29834a103994cc6bde7bdfa133eca",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (distinct variants on one route) and 3 (URL param switch). Missed 1 (no UI branch chosen) and 4 (convention not respected, and throwaway not explicitly labeled).\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: picks a UI-variant approach, gives separate variant components on one route, and switches via a URL param. Misses 4: it defers the existing route convention and never explicitly labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: a UI branch with genuinely distinct variants on one route, switched by a URL param. Misses 4: it defers to an unknown route convention and never labels the prototype as throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: it commits to a shape, gives distinct design-intent variants on one route, and uses a ?v= URL switch. It misses 4: it cannot respect the unseen route convention and never labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI choice, distinct variants on one route, and a URL-param switch (?v=a|b|c). It misses the route-convention criterion: it admits it cannot see the convention and never explicitly labels the prototype throwaway.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 7,
"generation_hash": "4252c61c554c08586ef90e99ffb0c7517711cc9bf9e7ff9f4f48adec5bdb52cc",
"answer_sha256": "4252c61c554c08586ef90e99ffb0c7517711cc9bf9e7ff9f4f48adec5bdb52cc",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (three distinct variants on one route) and criterion 3 (URL/segment variant switch). Misses criterion 1, since no UI branch is chosen, and criterion 4, since it disclaims knowing the route convention, though it does call the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: proposes a UI prototype with three genuinely different variants on one route, switched by URL segment or param. Criterion 4 is only partly met: it labels the work throwaway but cannot respect the unknown route convention and defers it.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met variants on one route, URL-param switch, and throwaway labeling; missed explicit UI-branch choice and didn't respect the route convention, which it said it couldn't see.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets variants-on-one-route (separate variant folders), URL/segment variant switch, and throwaway labeling; misses respecting the existing route convention since it admits not knowing it, and the UI-branch choice is only implicit.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets choosing the UI branch, distinct variants on one route, and a URL-param switch, and labels the work throwaway. It misses respecting the existing route convention, since it uses placeholders and defers to the unknown convention.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 8,
"generation_hash": "d186fd5e948ba1a8660fc64527c1c8816092224ca52259a39ed14594c2e3193f",
"answer_sha256": "d186fd5e948ba1a8660fc64527c1c8816092224ca52259a39ed14594c2e3193f",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets UI branch, distinct variants on one route, and a ?variant= URL switch; misses the criterion for respecting the route convention and explicitly labeling the prototype throwaway, though it implies disposability.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets variant switch via ?variant= URL param, one route with self-contained variants, and a single branch off main. Respects the convention by deferring to it, but never explicitly labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: a visual UI prototype with genuinely distinct variants on one route switched by ?variant=a|b|c. Misses 4: it defers to the unseen route convention and implies disposability but never explicitly labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the branch choice (one branch off main), genuinely different variants on one route, and the ?variant= switch. Misses the explicit throwaway label and only partly respects the unseen route convention.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the route-level variants (one route, three self-contained components) and the `?variant=` URL switch, but doesn't clearly choose a UI branch and only implies throwaway status without labelling it.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "ui",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 9,
"generation_hash": "bf64fff295fd9d7b750b23550c7148ac5cd8a38496946d14803871982765bb60",
"answer_sha256": "bf64fff295fd9d7b750b23550c7148ac5cd8a38496946d14803871982765bb60",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Chooses a UI prototype and gives a 'Disposable' throwaway label, but puts variants on separate routes (/a, /b, /c) instead of one route, and does not respect the existing route convention.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the variant-switch criterion via path segments, but misses choosing the UI branch and fails to respect the existing route convention, since it explicitly declines to use it. Labels it disposable, which is not enough alone.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI-branch choice and a simple route-based variant switch, but puts variants on separate routes (a/, b/, c/) rather than one route, and does not respect the existing convention, though it does label the setup disposable.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets choosing the UI branch and the simple switch via route segment, and labels the variants disposable. Misses the one-route requirement, since variants live on separate a/b/c routes, and does not respect the existing convention.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch and labels the prototype as disposable, but puts variants on separate routes (/a, /b, /c) rather than one route, and does not respect an actual route convention it admits it couldn't see.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 0,
"generation_hash": "0a0d9d26ae5fe85f8cf886a0c78aa0d0d1a5e45e8e671bb19d9444193bdc21f0",
"answer_sha256": "0a0d9d26ae5fe85f8cf886a0c78aa0d0d1a5e45e8e671bb19d9444193bdc21f0",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states a logic-oriented assumption), 2 (names concrete retry-state questions such as backoff, attempt limits, and terminal errors), and 4 (explicitly frames the assumption as provisional, not confirmed); criterion 3 is weakly met because it describes state rendering but never shows explicit state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states a logic-oriented assumption (no UI, backend retry logic). Criterion 2 is met: it names concrete retry-state questions like backoff, jitter, and attempt limits. Criterion 3 is missed: it lists questions and states but never shows explicit state transitions. Criterion 4 is missed: it presents the stakeholder-unreachable assumption as settled rather than clearly provisional, though it does call the choice provisional elsewhere.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-branch assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and frames the call as provisional. It misses 3 because it describes scenarios rather than showing explicit state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-oriented assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and keeps the assumption provisional. Missed criterion 3 because it lists scenarios in prose rather than showing explicit state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states logic-oriented assumption that stakeholder is unreachable and it's a state-model question), 2 (concrete retry-state questions such as attempt limits and reset after partial failure), and 3 (describes state transitions and state rendering); misses 4 partially since it says 'Assumption, to be stated' and 'provisional' but still frames the stakeholder-unreachable/no-UI points as settled facts in the opening section.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 1,
"generation_hash": "a446b3024539699d82b5d6065a0aa729affcc16aabd8de3871c2967a7e8e074f",
"answer_sha256": "a446b3024539699d82b5d6065a0aa729affcc16aabd8de3871c2967a7e8e074f",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states logic-branch assumption), 2 (concrete retry-state questions on transitions/backoff/exhaustion), and 4 (flags assumption as provisional, revisit if needed); criterion 3 is weak since it lists transitions as questions rather than showing actual state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-oriented assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and frames the assumption as revisable. Missed criterion 3 because it lists the states but never shows the transitions between them.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-branch assumption, asks a concrete retry-state question about success during a scheduled retry, and frames the assumption as revisable. It misses 3 because it lists states and asks about transitions but never shows the transitions themselves.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (logic-branch assumption stated), 2 (concrete success-while-scheduled retry question), and 4 (assumption flagged as provisional, to revisit); misses 3 because it lists states but never shows explicit transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states a logic-branch assumption), 2 (concrete question about success arriving during a scheduled retry), and 4 (flags the assumption as revisable); misses 3 because it lists states but never shows actual transitions.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "with_skill",
"draw_index": 2,
"generation_hash": "6cf33802e60c9d1a556c0820255398e0323c4d584054d31617bafcd2b2e40155",
"answer_sha256": "6cf33802e60c9d1a556c0820255398e0323c4d584054d31617bafcd2b2e40155",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-branch assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and flags the assumption as unconfirmed. It misses criterion 3 because it lists states and asks about transitions without actually showing any transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2 and 4: states a logic-branch assumption, asks concrete retry-state questions, and frames the assumption as unconfirmed. Misses 3: it names states and transitions in prose but never explicitly shows them.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses and states a logic-branch assumption clearly flagged as unconfirmed, names concrete retry-state questions (success after timeout, cancellation during backoff), and lists states/transitions. However, it does not show explicit state transitions as a diagram or arrows, so criterion 3 is only partially met; criteria 1, 2, and 4 are satisfied.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses and states a logic-branch assumption, names concrete retry-state questions (states, backoff, exhaustion), and flags the assumption as unconfirmed; it does not show explicit state transitions as a diagram, so criterion 3 is only partly met.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2 and 4: it states a logic-branch assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and flags the assumption as unconfirmed. It misses criterion 3 because it names states and mentions transitions without actually showing them.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 0,
"generation_hash": "2e5cf29fbb0db64b471d4ff9009c21ccb48525bc0ab38e0d1146c72c8cc9f693",
"answer_sha256": "2e5cf29fbb0db64b471d4ff9009c21ccb48525bc0ab38e0d1146c72c8cc9f693",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states a logic-oriented assumption (backoff/retry policy fit) and criterion 4 is met by treating the stakeholder suggestion as an unconfirmed hypothesis. Criterion 2 is partially met with concrete questions, but it never names a specific retry-state question, and criterion 3 is missed because no state transitions are shown.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 4 is met: it frames the stakeholder's suggestion as a hypothesis, not confirmed. Criterion 2 is partially met via concrete questions, but criterion 1 (logic-oriented assumption) is weak and criterion 3 (state transitions) is absent, so the rubric is not substantially met.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states a provisional direction treating the stakeholder's suggestion as a hypothesis. Criterion 4 is met: it repeatedly marks the assumption as unconfirmed. Criterion 2 is partly met through concrete questions, but no single retry-state question is named. Criterion 3 is missed: no state transitions are shown.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by flagging the stakeholder suggestion as an unconfirmed hypothesis, and arguably criterion 1 by assuming retry logic is the thing to prototype. Misses criterion 2 (no retry-state question) and criterion 3 (no state transitions shown).\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 4 is met (assumption not presented as confirmed), but criteria 1-3 are missed: no logic-oriented assumption is stated as such, no concrete retry-state question is posed, and no state transitions are shown.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 1,
"generation_hash": "d59c23eb4c5c4e9005e5bef5e9f5c8f8c31abaf4e414eac470f70ea30206a4f1",
"answer_sha256": "d59c23eb4c5c4e9005e5bef5e9f5c8f8c31abaf4e414eac470f70ea30206a4f1",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met item 4 by framing the direction as a working assumption and item 2 via the attempts/retryable-error questions. Missed item 3 entirely, since no state transitions are shown, and item 1 only weakly, since the stated assumptions concern process and scope rather than retry logic.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states a provisional direction as an assumption. Criterion 4 is met: it explicitly flags the direction as unconfirmed. Criterion 2 is partly met through the retryable-failure question, but criterion 3 (state transitions) is missed entirely, so the response does not substantially meet the rubric.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the concrete retry-state question (retryable classification, attempts, exhaustion) and avoids presenting the assumption as confirmed. Misses state transitions entirely, and the stated assumption is about scope rather than retry logic.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the concrete retry-state question (retryable failures, exhaustion) and avoids presenting the assumption as confirmed. Misses the logic-oriented assumption and shows no state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by flagging the direction as an unconfirmed working assumption and criterion 2 via concrete retry-state questions on exhaustion and attempts. Misses criterion 1, since the stated assumption is about process rather than retry logic, and criterion 3, since no state transitions are shown.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 2,
"generation_hash": "b368597f61c9d4de148e1ec690d24daebe7fb435ba45716de2032f29e7428bc3",
"answer_sha256": "b368597f61c9d4de148e1ec690d24daebe7fb435ba45716de2032f29e7428bc3",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by keeping the direction provisional and flagging assumptions. Misses criterion 3 entirely (no state transitions shown). Criteria 1 and 2 are weak: the assumptions concern scope, not retry logic, and the questions are about policy, not retry state.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Only criterion 4 is met: the response labels its direction and assumptions as provisional and to be confirmed. It states no logic-oriented assumption, names no concrete retry-state question, and shows no state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by clearly labeling the direction provisional and flagging assumptions for confirmation. Misses criterion 3, since no retry state transitions are shown. Criterion 1 is weak because the stated assumptions concern scope, not retry logic. Criterion 2 is only loosely met.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by framing the direction as provisional and to be confirmed, and arguably criterion 2 with concrete retry questions. Misses criterion 1 because the assumption is about scope, not logic, and criterion 3 because no state transitions are shown.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the concrete retry-state question (retryable vs. permanent errors) and avoids presenting assumptions as confirmed. Misses a logic-oriented assumption, since its assumptions concern scope and process, and shows no state transitions.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 3,
"generation_hash": "0a687b8ed86b78f35ac94524f3c39e659447441ddaefff3d9828e58af87ff8d9",
"answer_sha256": "0a687b8ed86b78f35ac94524f3c39e659447441ddaefff3d9828e58af87ff8d9",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the retry-state question (retry budget/circuit breaker, attempt/delay counting) and avoids presenting the direction as confirmed; misses explicit state transitions and a clearly stated logic-oriented assumption.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the unconfirmed-assumptions criterion and plausibly the concrete retry-state question (retry budget/circuit breaker). It misses state transitions entirely and gives no clear logic-oriented assumption.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the rubric's non-confirmation criterion and arguably a retry-state question (retry budget/circuit breaker), but states no explicit logic-oriented assumption and shows no state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the concrete retry-state question (retry budget, classification) and avoids presenting assumptions as confirmed; misses a clear logic-oriented assumption and any state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets only criterion 4: it labels the direction provisional and lists open assumptions to confirm. It states no explicit logic-oriented assumption, asks no concrete retry-state question (only budget/idempotency design questions), and shows no state transitions.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 4,
"generation_hash": "91dbcc7bab42f7d791d9d2067f74a42ef7d61d0ad3298c3903f344f1671db012",
"answer_sha256": "91dbcc7bab42f7d791d9d2067f74a42ef7d61d0ad3298c3903f344f1671db012",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states a provisional assumption (retry-focused prototype) and treats it as unconfirmed. Criterion 4 is met. Criterion 2 is partly met through concrete retry questions, but criterion 3 is missed because no state transitions are shown.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a backend, code-level assumption, asks concrete retry questions, and labels the direction provisional. It misses 3, since no state transitions are shown.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"States a provisional, unconfirmed assumption (criterion 4) and asks retry-policy questions on attempts and budgets (partly 2), but shows no state transitions (missed 3); the logic assumption is only loosely framed (partly 1).\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the logic-oriented assumption (retry behavior) and avoids presenting it as confirmed; misses a concrete retry-state question and shows no state transitions.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by explicitly labeling the direction as provisional and unconfirmed, and arguably meets criterion 1. Misses criterion 2, since the questions concern policy rather than concrete retry state, and criterion 3, since no state transitions are shown.\"}"
]
},
{
"id": "unclear",
"mode": "baseline",
"draw_index": 5,
"generation_hash": "11f745da87927688482c9c827620322ced491a7ad280cfb68d629b80207d2730",
"answer_sha256": "11f745da87927688482c9c827620322ced491a7ad280cfb68d629b80207d2730",
"status": "measured",
"judge_outputs": [
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (clear logic-oriented assumption that the suggestion is the working assumption) and criterion 4 is met (explicitly provisional, not confirmed). Criterion 2 is partly met via retryable-error question, but criterion 3 (state transitions) is missed entirely.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states the retry-logic working assumption), 2 (concrete retryable-error and backoff questions), and 4 (explicitly provisional, not confirmed); misses 3 because no retry state transitions are shown.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the concrete retry-question and avoid-confirmed-assumption criteria; the assumption is not clearly logic-oriented and no retry state transitions are shown.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (concrete retry-state questions on exhaustion and retryable errors) and criterion 4 (assumption flagged as provisional, not confirmed). Misses criterion 3 (no state transitions shown) and criterion 1, since the stated assumption is about the stakeholder's suggestion rather than retry logic.\"}",
"{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states a clear working assumption (the stakeholder's prototype suggestion). Criterion 2 is met: it names concrete retry-state questions about retryable errors and backoff. Criterion 3 is missed: no state transitions are shown. Criterion 4 is met: it treats the assumption as provisional, not confirmed.\"}"
]
}
]
}