{
  "format": "driftproof-answers/2",
  "receipt_hash": "03481240e4efc76f244fe2118a578362caa6ed0ff28ade7d7f9de4e9247d7adc",
  "model_id": "claude-opus-5-5",
  "answers": {
    "412ed1d8969ae92f0520fb4c7a433e1d6628b134fbd6624128a241c02e8c0f44": "This round covers only the decisions that don't depend on anything still open. **Provider** waits on channel and **retention** waits on audience, so both are held for a later round.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Who is the audience?**: Who receives the digest? The answer drives retention and probably access control and personalization too.\n\n- (a) Internal team only, such as engineers or ops (small, known, trusted)\n- (b) Internal, company-wide (larger, mixed roles)\n- (c) External customers or subscribers (opt-in, unsubscribe, and privacy obligations apply)\n- (d) A mix of these, which means segmented digests\n\n➡️ Start with (a), a small internal team. It keeps compliance light and lets you validate content and cadence before taking on external-audience obligations. Yes?\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **What is the delivery channel?**: Where does the digest land? The answer determines provider choice and formatting limits.\n\n- (a) Email, which reaches anyone, supports rich HTML, and is easy to archive\n- (b) Chat, such as Slack or Teams (fast and conversational, but internal only and easily buried)\n- (c) A web page or dashboard plus a notification link\n- (d) Multiple channels\n\n➡️ (a) Email. It works for every audience option in Q1, so this choice won't box you in if the audience grows. Yes?\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **What goes into the digest?**: What content is aggregated, and where does it come from? Options include internal system events or metrics, third-party feeds, user-generated activity, or curated or AI-summarized items. This determines the data pipeline and how much the digest can go stale or be wrong.\n\n➡️ A fixed, small set of sources, two or three that you already control, with no AI summarization in v1. That keeps it deterministic and debuggable. Yes?\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **What is the cadence and trigger?**: Is the digest fixed-schedule (daily or weekly), threshold-triggered (send only when there's enough new content), or both?\n\n➡️ A fixed weekly schedule, with the send skipped if there's no meaningful content. An empty digest trains people to ignore it. Yes?\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **What does success look like?**: What tells you the digest is working? Options include open or click rates, a reduction in some other channel such as fewer status meetings or pings, explicit feedback, or simply \"it arrives reliably.\"\n\n➡️ Define one behavioral outcome, for example \"replaces the Monday status thread,\" and measure delivery reliability alongside it. Open rates alone are a vanity metric. Yes?\n\n---\n\nAnswer each question with yes or your alternative. Then I'll compute the next round, which includes provider and retention.",
    "094fccb8194f29d6a6b4378113005a7cc8b54049f8468874e26658a068e623fb": "**Round 1.** Provider choice waits on Q2, and retention policy waits on Q1, so neither is asked here.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Audience**: Who receives the digest?\n\n- **(a)** Internal team only (employees, known accounts)\n- **(b)** External customers or subscribers (opt-in list)\n- **(c)** Mixed: internal plus selected external stakeholders\n- **(d)** Just you (a personal digest)\n\nThis decides your consent and unsubscribe obligations, what data can appear in the digest, and how long you must or may keep sent copies and delivery logs.\n\n➡️ Start with **(a) internal team only**. It avoids opt-in, unsubscribe and data-protection overhead while you prove the digest is useful. Once the format is stable, you can widen it to external readers as a separate decision.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Delivery channel**: Where does the digest land?\n\n- **(a)** Email\n- **(b)** Chat (Slack, Teams, Discord) via webhook or bot\n- **(c)** In-app or dashboard notification\n- **(d)** Several of these\n\nThis decides which providers make sense, how you format the digest (HTML, Markdown blocks, plain text), and what delivery confirmation you get.\n\n➡️ If Q1 is internal, choose **(b) chat via webhook**. It is the cheapest to build, needs no deliverability work (SPF, DKIM, bounce handling), and lets readers reply in a thread. If Q1 turns out external, switch to **(a) email**.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Content source**: What feeds the digest?\n\n- **(a)** One system you control (a database, an app's events)\n- **(b)** Several internal systems that must be combined\n- **(c)** Third-party APIs or feeds (RSS, SaaS tools)\n- **(d)** Hand-curated items plus automated filler\n\nThis sets how fragile the pipeline is and what happens when a source is down.\n\n➡️ **(a) one source you control** for version one. Every extra source adds a way for the digest to fail or arrive half-empty. Add more sources after the delivery path works.\n\n---\n\n**Deferred to later rounds:**\n- **Provider choice** depends on Q2.\n- **Retention period and log contents** depend on Q1.\n- **Failure behavior** (skip, send partial, or alert) depends on Q3.\n- **Cadence and send time**, and **personalization**, depend on Q1 and Q3.\n\nReply \"yes\" to accept any recommendation, or give your own answer.",
    "e3f3786c25022c09d28812b1e9c860e685b7956eb69cb706b080896c2342d251": "Here's the first round. **Provider** (depends on channel) and **retention** (depends on audience) are deferred to Round 2, since asking them now would mean guessing at answers I haven't heard.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Audience**: Who receives the digest?\n\n- (a) Internal team only: known, small, trusted recipients\n- (b) Internal org-wide: many employees, mixed roles and access levels\n- (c) External customers or subscribers: opt-in, unsubscribe, and privacy obligations\n- (d) Just you: a personal digest\n\nThis drives retention, consent handling, and how much per-recipient filtering you need.\n\n➡️ (a) Internal team only. It's the smallest blast radius and fewest compliance obligations, and you can widen it later once the pipeline is proven.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Delivery channel**: Where does the digest land?\n\n- (a) Email\n- (b) Chat (Slack, Teams, Discord) via webhook or bot\n- (c) Both\n- (d) Something else (RSS, dashboard, push notification)\n\nThis drives provider choice, formatting constraints, and failure modes such as bounces versus webhook errors.\n\n➡️ (b) Chat via a single webhook to a team channel. For an internal team it's the simplest to build and debug, and it avoids email deliverability problems (SPF/DKIM, spam filtering).\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Content source**: What feeds the digest?\n\n- (a) A single system you own, such as one database or one API\n- (b) Several internal sources aggregated together\n- (c) Third-party or external feeds\n- (d) LLM-generated summaries of any of the above\n\n➡️ (a) A single system you own. Every extra source adds another failure point and another place where partial data can make the digest misleading.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Cadence and trigger**: When does a digest go out?\n\n- (a) Fixed schedule (daily or weekly at a set time)\n- (b) Event-driven (when enough new items accumulate)\n- (c) Both (scheduled, but skipped if empty)\n\n➡️ (c) A fixed daily schedule that is skipped when there's nothing new. It's predictable for readers and doesn't train them to ignore empty digests.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Purpose and success criterion**: What is the digest for, and how will you know it's working?\n\n- (a) Awareness: people skim it, and success means they open or read it\n- (b) Action: people must act on items, and success means items get handled\n- (c) Audit or record: success means a reliable historical trail\n\n➡️ (a) Awareness. If it's really (b), the digest is a weak substitute for alerts or tickets, and we should revisit the whole plan.\n\n---\n\nAnswer by number, either \"yes\" to accept the recommendation or your alternative. Your answers to Q1 and Q2 will unlock the retention and provider questions in Round 2.",
    "850baf73748f2ecfd2756e92a9a9150ac00ff888196ec7c8045b298fcc9916dc": "# First Interview Round: Automated Digest Delivery\n\n## How this round is ordered\n\nTwo decisions are still open: **audience** and **delivery channel**. Two other decisions depend on them:\n\n- **Provider** depends on the channel.\n- **Retention** depends on the audience.\n\nAsking about provider or retention now would mean guessing at answers that could change. This round covers only the two open decisions and a few questions that hold regardless of how those turn out. Provider and retention move to Round 2.\n\n---\n\n## A. Audience (determines retention)\n\n1. **Who receives the digest?** Internal staff, external customers, the public, or a mix?\n2. **Roughly how many recipients**, now and in 12 months? Is the list fixed or self-serve (subscribe/unsubscribe)?\n3. **Does content vary by recipient** (personalized or permissioned), or does everyone get the same digest?\n4. **Will any digest contain personal, confidential, or regulated data?** For example PII, financials, health data, or anything under contract or NDA.\n5. **Which jurisdictions are recipients in?** This affects GDPR/CCPA consent and deletion obligations, which later constrain retention.\n6. **Who decides who belongs in the audience**, and how is someone removed? This includes offboarding employees and churned customers.\n\n## B. Delivery channel (determines provider)\n\n7. **Which channels are candidates?** Email, Slack/Teams, SMS, in-app, RSS, webhook, or something else?\n8. **Is one channel enough, or do you need several?** If several, is the content the same on each or adapted per channel?\n9. **What format must survive delivery?** Rich HTML, tables, images, attachments, links that need authentication?\n10. **What does a failed delivery cost you?** Is silent loss acceptable, or do you need delivery confirmation and retries?\n11. **Do recipients need to reply or act** (acknowledge, click through, escalate), or is it read-only?\n\n## C. Independent of both (safe to settle now)\n\n12. **What problem does the digest solve?** What would fail or be missed if it never shipped? This tests whether the digest needs to exist at all.\n13. **What is the source data**, who owns it, and how reliable is it? What should happen if the source is empty, late, or broken: send anyway, skip, or alert?\n14. **What cadence and timing?** Daily or weekly, and at a fixed time or triggered by events? Do time zones matter?\n15. **Who owns the digest once it runs?** Who gets paged when it breaks or sends something wrong?\n16. **What is the worst plausible bad send?** Wrong recipient, stale data, duplicate blast, leaked content. This sets how much review and safeguarding the plan needs.\n17. **Are there hard constraints already fixed?** Budget, existing vendor contracts, or security and compliance review gates.\n\n---\n\n## What Round 2 depends on\n\n| Answer from Round 1 | Unlocks in Round 2 |\n|---|---|\n| Channel(s) (Q7–11) | Provider selection, deliverability, rate limits, vendor lock-in |\n| Audience and data sensitivity (Q1–6) | Retention period, deletion and right-to-erasure handling, archive access |\n| Failure tolerance and bad-send risk (Q10, 13, 16) | Monitoring, retries, kill switch, dry-run and approval steps |\n\n**Answering this round:** If time is short, answer **Q1, Q4, Q7, and Q16** first. Those four shape the plan more than any of the others.",
    "51c660e9027b20f57ff6264667738e08433c95dbaaa5947770d22f0072ecc91d": "# Digest Delivery Plan: Interview Round 1\n\n**Scope of this round:** Audience and channel only. Every other decision depends on these two. Provider follows from channel, and retention follows from audience. Asking about either now would produce answers we'd have to revisit. Those questions are deferred to Round 2.\n\n## A. Audience (gates retention)\n\n1. **Who receives the digest?** Internal staff, external customers, the public, or a mix?\n   *Why it matters:* External or public audiences bring consent, unsubscribe, and data-protection obligations that set the minimum and maximum retention.\n\n2. **Does the digest contain personal, confidential, or regulated data?** Does it differ per recipient?\n   *Stress test:* If even one field is personalized, you're storing per-recipient content, and retention becomes a compliance question, not a preference.\n\n3. **Roughly how many recipients now, and in 12 months?** Order of magnitude is enough: 10, 1k, or 100k+.\n   *Why it matters:* It changes whether you need list management, segmentation, and bounce handling.\n\n4. **Can recipients opt in, opt out, or set preferences?** Who owns the subscriber list?\n   *Stress test:* If nobody owns the list, stale recipients will keep receiving data they shouldn't.\n\n## B. Channel (gates provider)\n\n5. **Which channel or channels are candidates?** For example: email, Slack/Teams, SMS, push, in-app, or webhook/RSS.\n   *Why it matters:* This alone eliminates most providers.\n\n6. **Is the channel chosen by you or by each recipient?**\n   *Stress test:* Per-recipient choice means multiple providers, a routing layer, and several failure modes per send.\n\n7. **What does \"delivered\" mean to you?** Sent, received, opened, or acknowledged?\n   *Why it matters:* Some channels can't confirm beyond \"sent.\" If you need proof of receipt, that narrows the options.\n\n## C. Coupling check (audience × channel)\n\n8. **Are any audience/channel pairs already ruled out or required?** For example, \"customers must get email\" or \"no external data in Slack.\"\n   *Stress test:* A hidden constraint here invalidates any provider shortlist built without it.\n\n9. **Who has authority to make the final call on audience and channel, and by when?**\n   *Why it matters:* If the decision owner isn't identified, the plan stalls at the root no matter how well the rest is designed.\n\n## Deferred to Round 2 (pending answers above)\n- Provider selection, cost, and limits (needs Q5–7)\n- Retention periods, deletion, and audit (needs Q1–4)\n- Cadence, content sourcing, failure/retry policy, and monitoring\n\n**Highest-risk unknown:** Q2 (data sensitivity). If the answer is \"yes, personalized or regulated,\" it constrains both retention and acceptable channels, so it should be answered first.",
    "905afec19d32f4a1e4e7bc1d154822a2601e4c7bfa24fd6db4e485a7b2d68af0": "# Stress-Test: Automated Digest Delivery, Round 1\n\nTwo root unknowns, **audience** and **channel**, drive the rest of the plan. Provider depends on channel, and retention depends on audience. So this round asks only about those roots, plus questions that hold regardless of how they resolve. Provider and retention wait until Round 2. Asking about them now would produce answers that might need to be thrown out.\n\n## A. Audience (determines retention)\n\n1. **Who receives the digest?** Internal team only, customers or external users, or both? If both, do they get the same digest or different ones?\n2. **How many recipients, now and in 12 months?** Order of magnitude is enough: 10, 1,000, or 100,000.\n3. **Will any recipients fall under regulatory or contractual regimes** (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2 commitments, enterprise data-processing agreements)? This is the main factor that turns retention from a preference into an obligation.\n4. **Does the digest contain personal or sensitive data,** or only aggregate or public information?\n5. **Who can add or remove recipients,** and does opting out need to be self-service?\n\n## B. Channel (determines provider)\n\n6. **Which channels are candidates?** Email, Slack/Teams, SMS, in-app, webhook, or something else? Is more than one required?\n7. **What makes a channel unacceptable?** For example: recipients don't use it, IT blocks it, or it costs too much per message.\n8. **Is real-time interactivity needed** (buttons, replies, threads), or is the digest read-only?\n9. **Do recipients already have identities on the channel,** such as known email addresses or Slack user IDs, or must you collect and verify them?\n\n## C. Channel- and audience-independent (answer now)\n\n10. **What is the digest?** What are the source data, how often is it sent, and is it the same for everyone or personalized?\n11. **What happens if a digest is late, duplicated, or skipped?** Is that an annoyance, a support ticket, or a breach of contract? This sets the reliability target.\n12. **Who owns this system on-call,** and what monitoring or alerting already exists?\n13. **What does \"done\" look like?** Is there a success metric (open rate, a decision made from it, fewer manual reports)?\n14. **Hard constraints:** budget ceiling, deadline, mandated cloud or vendor, or an existing system this replaces?\n\n## Why this order\n\n- **Q1–4 and Q6–7 are the critical ones.** Once audience and channel are settled, Round 2 can test provider fit (deliverability, rate limits, cost at the volume from Q2, failure modes) and retention (what is stored, for how long, deletion on opt-out, audit needs).\n- **Early red flag to watch for:** \"external audience\" combined with \"personal data\" and \"undecided channel.\" That pairing usually means retention and consent requirements will rule out some channels, so audience may need to be decided before channel, not alongside it.\n\nSend your answers, even partial ones, and I'll build Round 2 around whatever is settled.",
    "fe9c50f21eda2db74283ce62a1a85597c6d85be91fbaaf78ebb96e7cc7182455": "Audience (internal staff) and delivery (chat) are settled. Provider access is still an open fact. Normally I'd send a sub-agent to look into it, but you've asked for no tools this turn, so it stays unresolved. These questions wait on it: **which model/provider**, **what data staff may send through it** (this depends on the provider's retention and training terms), and **rate/cost limits**. They're out of this round.\n\nHere's the current frontier:\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Chat platform**: Which chat surface should this run on?\n- (a) Your existing workplace chat (Slack / Teams / Google Chat), as a bot\n- (b) A standalone internal web chat page\n- (c) Both\n\n➡️ (a) Use whichever workplace chat staff already live in. It has the least friction and gives you identity for free. Add a web UI later only if there's demand.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Rollout scope**: Should launch start with a pilot group rather than all staff at once?\n\n➡️ Yes. Start with one team of about 10–30 people for 2–4 weeks, then widen.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Identity & authorization**: Should the bot trust the chat platform's user identity (SSO-backed) and not add its own login?\n\n➡️ Yes. Use platform identity and gate access with a group or channel allowlist that matches the pilot group.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Interaction model**: Should staff be able to use it both in DMs and by @mentioning it in channels, with replies kept in threads?\n\n➡️ Yes. Use DMs for private use and @mentions in channels for shared use. Always reply in-thread so channels stay clean.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Conversation memory**: Should context be scoped to a single thread, with no memory carried across threads?\n\n➡️ Yes. Thread-scoped context is simplest and avoids surprising cross-conversation leakage. Revisit persistent memory after the pilot.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q6** - **Feedback & success signal**: Should success be measured with lightweight in-chat feedback (👍/👎 reactions plus optional comment) plus weekly active users during the pilot?\n\n➡️ Yes. Reactions cost staff nothing, and WAU combined with the thumbs-up ratio is enough to decide whether to expand.\n\n---\n\n**Next round, once provider access is known:** provider/model choice, allowed data classes and any redaction, log retention on your side, and per-user/per-day limits.",
    "ef53f412acf4912702a4ff1e6cf43724ed38cbc5e2680c995d1eb61f4adc4054": "Settled: **audience = internal staff**, **delivery = chat**. Not reopening those.\n\n**Provider access** is still open. I can't investigate it here because tools are off this turn, so it stays an unsettled prerequisite. I'm holding back every question that depends on it: which provider or model, cost ceiling, data residency, and rate limits. Those come in a later round once access is confirmed. If you can look into it, the facts I need are: which providers you can contract with today, whether there's an existing enterprise agreement, and what data-handling terms it carries.\n\nEverything below is on the frontier now and doesn't depend on the provider answer.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Which chat surface?**: \"Chat\" could mean the company's existing messaging tool (Slack or Teams), a standalone internal web chat, or both. This determines how staff authenticate, how threads and history work, and how much UI you build.\n\n➡️ Ship inside the messaging tool staff already use daily (Slack *or* Teams, whichever is primary). No standalone web UI for v1.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Identity and access control**: Should every user be identified through the company's existing SSO or directory identity, with access scoped by group or role? The alternative is treating all staff as one undifferentiated audience.\n\n➡️ Yes. Use the chat platform's identity mapped to directory groups, and gate access by group from day one, even if v1 has only one group.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Data sensitivity ceiling for v1**: What is the most sensitive information the system may see or return? The options are (a) public and general internal docs only, (b) team-restricted internal data, or (c) confidential or regulated data (HR, finance, customer PII).\n\n➡️ (a) only for v1. Restricted and confidential data wait until access control (Q2) and the provider's data terms are proven.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Scope of what it answers**: Should v1 be narrow, covering one domain such as IT/helpdesk, HR policy, or engineering docs? Or should it be a general-purpose assistant?\n\n➡️ Narrow. Pick one domain with a clear owner and a measurable pain point, and say \"out of scope\" for everything else.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Conversation logging and retention**: Should conversations be logged for quality review and debugging, with a defined retention period and a staff-facing notice?\n\n➡️ Yes. Log with a 30–90 day retention, restrict log access to the owning team, and post a clear notice in the chat surface.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q6** - **Ownership and support path**: Is a single named team accountable for the bot's correctness, uptime, and user complaints, with an obvious \"report a bad answer\" path inside the chat?\n\n➡️ Yes. One owning team, plus a feedback reaction or command on every answer that routes to that team.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q7** - **Rollout shape**: Should this pilot with a small group (one team or department) for a fixed period before company-wide availability?\n\n➡️ Yes. A 2–4 week pilot with one team, with explicit exit criteria defined in the next round.\n\n---\n\n**Unlocked by these answers next round:** exit criteria and success metrics (after Q4 and Q7), knowledge-source integration (after Q3 and Q4), and escalation-to-human design (after Q1 and Q6). The provider branch reopens once access is confirmed.",
    "8b79fb0944a87e032373a0a095a3a8ffaeb3f488a7c5dfc840f6cc0e78ee2d05": "**Settled:** audience is internal staff; delivery is chat.\n\n**Parked:** provider access. Normally I'd investigate this myself, but tools are off for this turn, so it stays open. Questions that depend on it (which provider or model, cost ceilings, data residency, rate limits, fallback behaviour) wait for a later round.\n\nI don't have the earlier rounds in front of me, so this round only covers decisions that follow from the two settled choices. If any of these were already agreed, say so and I'll drop them.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Chat surface**: \"Chat\" can mean an existing workplace tool (Slack, Teams, Google Chat) or a standalone web chat page. An existing tool gives you identity, notifications and adoption for free. A standalone page gives you full control over the interface but means building login and getting people to visit it.\n\nShould v1 live inside the workplace chat tool staff already use?\n\n➡️ Yes. Build into the existing workplace chat tool, not a standalone page.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Identity and access**: Since the audience is internal, should access rely on the chat platform's existing staff identity (SSO), with no separate accounts?\n\n➡️ Yes. Inherit SSO identity from the chat platform. Add no separate login.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Who among staff**: \"Internal staff\" could mean everyone or one pilot team. A pilot keeps feedback loops tight and limits the damage if something goes wrong.\n\nShould v1 launch to a single pilot team before rolling out company-wide?\n\n➡️ Yes. Pilot with one team, then expand.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Interaction mode**: In a chat tool, the bot can work by direct message only, by mention in channels, or both. Channel replies are visible to everyone in the channel, which raises the stakes for wrong or sensitive answers.\n\nShould v1 support direct messages only?\n\n➡️ Yes. DMs only for v1. Revisit channel mentions after the pilot.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Data sensitivity boundary**: Internal staff will paste internal material into chat. You need a rule now, before you choose a provider, about what content is allowed. The provider choice must then satisfy that rule.\n\nShould v1 be limited to non-confidential internal information, with a clear in-chat notice stating that limit?\n\n➡️ Yes. No confidential, customer or personal data in v1, with a visible notice. This rule becomes a requirement for the provider investigation.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q6** - **Success measure for the pilot**: Should success be judged mainly by weekly active users in the pilot team plus a simple 👍/👎 on each answer?\n\n➡️ Yes. Track weekly actives and per-answer thumbs feedback, and review them at the end of the pilot.\n\n---\n\nAfter this round, the provider investigation and your answers to Q1 and Q5 will unblock the next set of questions: provider and model, integration approach, logging and retention, and admin controls.",
    "c850b26a818c3fe66e0fb90fc082cc9517cee541eb8019fa7a5a4c1fdc091ea5": "Settled so far: **audience = internal staff**, **delivery = chat**. Provider access is still an open fact. I can't investigate it this turn because tools are off, so any question that depends on it waits. Those are listed under *Parked* below.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Which chat surface**: Where does it live? Options: (a) the company's existing workplace chat (Slack / Teams / Google Chat), (b) a standalone internal web chat page, or (c) both. Using existing chat removes adoption friction and gives you identity for free. A standalone page gives you more UI control but staff have to remember to go there.\n\n➡️ (a) Use the workplace chat staff already have open all day.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Rollout scope**: Should it launch to all internal staff at once, or to a pilot group (one team or department) first? The pilot then expands based on what you learn.\n\n➡️ A pilot group of about 20–50 people from one team, with a set review date before wider rollout.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Identity and permissions**: Should the bot act with each user's own permissions, so staff only see what they could already see? The alternative is a single shared service identity that everyone goes through. Per-user permissions are harder to build, but they avoid leaking restricted information through the bot.\n\n➡️ Per-user permissions, inherited from the chat platform's SSO identity.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Conversation visibility**: Should conversations default to private DMs with the bot, with an option to invoke it in channels? The alternative is channel-first, where answers are visible to everyone in the channel.\n\n➡️ Private DMs by default, with channel mentions allowed. In channels, answers are limited to what everyone in that channel can access.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Logging and retention**: Should conversations be logged for quality review, with a fixed retention window and a clear notice to staff that logging happens? The alternative is no logging.\n\n➡️ Yes. Log with a 30–90 day retention window, show a visible notice at first use, and restrict log access to a named few.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q6** - **Fallback to humans**: When the bot can't answer or isn't confident, should it hand off to a named human channel or owner rather than guess?\n\n➡️ Yes. Route to a designated support channel and owner for each topic area.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q7** - **Success measure**: Should pilot success be judged on a small set of concrete metrics? Suggested: weekly active users in the pilot group, the share of questions resolved without escalation, and thumbs-up/down feedback per answer.\n\n➡️ Yes, those three, with targets agreed before the pilot starts.\n\n---\n\n**Parked until provider access is confirmed:**\n- Which provider or model to use, and whether it's already approved internally.\n- Whether company data can be sent to that provider, under what data-processing terms and in which region.\n- Rate limits, cost per user, and who owns the budget.\n- Whether the provider offers a ready-made chat integration or one must be built.\n\nTo unblock these, someone needs to find out three things: whether the org already has a contract or account with the candidate provider, who controls API keys and access, and what the security or procurement review requires. Once those facts are in, the parked questions join the next round.",
    "612d8bb163cf493f5dfd17c671a997994e38e04216b5b29c27a99fb0a8c04d99": "Provider access is still under investigation. You've asked me not to use tools, so I can't look it up this round. Everything that depends on it is parked until we have that answer:\n\n- which provider or model\n- data residency and retention terms\n- cost and rate limits\n- fallback behaviour\n\nThe questions below depend only on what's settled: the audience is internal staff and delivery is chat.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Chat surface**: Which chat platform does this live in?\n- (a) The company's existing workplace chat, such as Slack or Teams, as a bot or app\n- (b) A standalone internal web chat page\n- (c) Both\n\n➡️ (a) Use the existing workplace chat only. Staff already work there, you get identity for free, and it avoids building and hosting a separate UI.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Rollout scope**: Should this launch to a pilot group first, not all internal staff at once?\n\n➡️ Yes. Start with one team of about 10–30 people who have a clear use case. Expand once you've seen real usage and failure modes.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Identity and access**: Should access rely entirely on the chat platform's existing SSO identity, with no separate login or account system?\n\n➡️ Yes. Inherit identity from the chat platform, and gate the pilot with a group or channel membership check.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Conversation mode**: Where can staff talk to it?\n- (a) Direct messages only\n- (b) DMs plus @-mentions in channels\n- (c) Channels only\n\n➡️ (a) Start with DMs only. Channel use brings visibility, threading and \"who can see the answer\" questions that are better settled after the pilot.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Sensitive input policy**: Should staff be told up front what they must not paste in, such as customer PII, credentials or confidential financials, with the bot showing a short notice on first use?\n\n➡️ Yes. Publish a one-line usage rule and show it on first interaction. The detailed policy depends on provider terms (parked), but the notice itself shouldn't wait.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q6** - **Ownership and support**: Should one named internal team own the bot and handle staff questions through a single feedback channel?\n\n➡️ Yes. Assign one owning team and one feedback channel, so issues from the pilot land in one place.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q7** - **Pilot success measure**: Should the pilot be judged on usage and qualitative feedback, such as weekly active users and a short survey, not on hard productivity metrics?\n\n➡️ Yes. Usage plus a brief survey after 2–4 weeks is enough to decide whether to expand. Productivity metrics are hard to attribute this early.\n\n---\n\n**Still open, outside this round:** the provider access investigation. Once that's resolved, by me when tools are allowed or by whoever is checking it, the parked provider, data-handling and cost questions join the next round.",
    "3e0bbcda2e948d22f76b9626a6727db89c33ce0746ea3b77e9ef294a9278c3fb": "Settled so far: **audience = internal staff**, **delivery = chat**. Those stay closed.\n\n**Provider access** is still an open fact. It's mine to find out, not yours, but I can't look it up in this session because tools are off. Anything that depends on it waits until the lookup is done. That includes provider choice, cost and quota, rate limits, and what data can be sent to the provider. The questions below don't depend on it.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Chat platform**: Internal staff could be reached in several places:\n- (a) the company's existing workplace chat (Slack or Teams)\n- (b) a standalone web chat page behind the intranet\n- (c) both\n\n➡️ Yes, (a) only. Ship inside the chat tool staff already use. A second surface doubles auth and support work before we know there's demand.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Who gets access**: \"Internal staff\" could mean everyone with a company account, or a defined subset such as one department or a pilot group.\n\n➡️ Yes, start with a named pilot group of about 20–50 people, then open it to all staff once the rollout criteria in Q6 are met.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Identity and authorization**: Should identity come from the chat platform's existing SSO session, with no separate login? Should permissions inside the service follow existing directory groups?\n\n➡️ Yes. Trust the platform's SSO identity and map permissions to existing directory groups. Don't build a parallel user store.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Interaction model**: Should it work only in direct messages, or also in shared channels (when @-mentioned)? Answers in shared channels are visible to everyone in that channel.\n\n➡️ Yes, direct messages only for v1. Add channel mentions later, once we've confirmed responses can't leak anything a channel member shouldn't see.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Logging and retention**: Should conversations be logged for debugging and quality review, with a fixed retention window and restricted access?\n\n➡️ Yes. Log with 30-day retention, readable only by the owning team, with a notice to users that logging is on. Final retention may tighten once provider data terms are known, but internal logging policy can be set now.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q6** - **Success criteria for widening rollout**: What has to be true before the pilot expands? For example: weekly active pilot users, a satisfaction score, an error or escalation rate.\n\n➡️ Yes. At least 60% of pilot users active weekly over 4 weeks, at least 70% thumbs-up on rated responses, and no unresolved data-exposure incidents.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q7** - **Ownership and support**: Who owns it day to day? That covers incidents, user questions, and change requests.\n\n➡️ Yes, one named owning team with a dedicated support channel and an on-call rotation for business hours only during the pilot.\n\n---\n\n**Deferred to a later round (waiting on the provider-access findings):** provider and model selection, budget and quotas, data-handling constraints on what gets sent out, and failover behaviour if the provider is unavailable.",
    "34b826dbb0dc799bce48d9caeaac9b9fae461ec7a2e2acc62482916826ad39e4": "Settled so far: **audience = internal staff**, **delivery = chat**. These are not reopened below.\n\n**Held back:** Provider access is still unresolved, and I can't investigate it in this session. Anything that depends on it waits for a later round: provider and model choice, rate limits and quotas, cost ceilings, and data-residency terms. When tools are allowed, I'll dispatch that investigation first.\n\nThese questions don't depend on provider access:\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Chat platform**: Which chat surface should this live in? Options:\n- (a) the platform staff already use daily (Slack, Teams, or Google Chat)\n- (b) a standalone web chat on the intranet\n- (c) both\n\n➡️ (a) only, in whichever platform is already standard. Meeting staff where they already are drives adoption, and the platform's identity can be reused.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Rollout scope**: Should it launch to a named pilot group (around 10–30 people from one or two teams) before company-wide access?\n\n➡️ Yes. Pilot first with a fixed two-to-four-week window, then go wide.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Interaction model**: How should staff reach it?\n- (a) DMs only\n- (b) @mentions in channels only\n- (c) both\n\n➡️ (a) DMs only for the pilot. Channel replies create visibility and data-leak questions that are worth settling separately.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Identity & permissions**: Should it rely on the chat platform's existing SSO identity, with no separate login, and answer every user with the same access level?\n\n➡️ Yes for identity. Same-access-for-all should hold only if the content it draws on is safe for every staff member. If not, that becomes its own branch next round.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Data sensitivity boundary**: Should anything above \"internal-general\" be out of scope for v1? That would exclude HR, legal, finance, and customer PII, both in what it reads and in what staff are told they may paste in.\n\n➡️ Yes. Hold a hard line at internal-general for v1. This also narrows the provider requirements you'll need to check.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q6** - **Ownership & support**: Should one named team own it, covering uptime, the feedback channel, and incident response, with a single place to report bad answers?\n\n➡️ Yes. Assign one owning team and give users a one-click \"report this answer\" path in the chat itself.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q7** - **Success measure**: Should pilot success be judged on (1) weekly active pilot users and (2) the rate of reported bad answers, with go/no-go thresholds agreed before launch?\n\n➡️ Yes. Set the thresholds up front, for example ≥60% weekly active and a falling report rate, so the wide-rollout decision isn't argued after the fact.\n\n---\n\nAnswer by number. \"Yes\" accepts the recommendation. Your answers to Q4 and Q5 will open the permissions and content-source branches, and the provider-access findings will open the provider branch.",
    "7bb9af3e5345b0efad3cf639a623100e3281a558b18226cc1f07484cebfc4b5a": "I don't have the earlier rounds or the list of agreed choices in this conversation, only the three updates in your message. Here's the next round built strictly from those. Anything marked **[needs input]** depends on context I can't see.\n\n---\n\n## Next round\n\n**Locked (not reopened)**\n- Audience: internal staff\n- Delivery: chat\n- Earlier agreed choices: carried forward as-is **[needs input: paste the list so I can reflect them explicitly]**\n\n**Implications of the audience and delivery changes**\n- **Tone and depth:** Write for colleagues. Skip external-facing framing, marketing language and basic background staff already have.\n- **Format:** Use short, scannable messages suited to chat. Lead with the point, keep any detail one tap away (thread or link), and avoid long document-style sections.\n- **Sensitivity:** Internal-only details can be included. Confirm the target channel's membership matches \"internal staff\" before posting.\n\n**Open item: provider access (investigation)**\n1. Identify which provider(s) and which access is needed (API, console, data, SSO). **[needs input]**\n2. Establish the current state: who holds credentials or admin rights today, and what's provisioned.\n3. Find the access route: internal request process, owning team, approver.\n4. Note blockers: contract or tier limits, security review, lead time.\n5. Assign an owner and a check-in date so this stays tracked rather than open-ended.\n\n**Decision needed this round**\n- Who owns the provider-access investigation, and by when?\n\n---\n\nIf you share the prior rounds or the agreed choices, I'll fold them in so this round reads as a continuation rather than a standalone.",
    "ef6a90b5c26e18821086506c78359951f5b837361dfe2f83ce1ca1bc6a0d0e11": "I don't have the earlier rounds or the list of agreed choices in this session. All I have are the three updates in your message. Here is the next round built on those updates. I've left the agreed decisions as placeholders rather than guess at them.\n\n## Next round\n\n**Updated baseline**\n- **Audience:** internal staff only. External-facing wording, branding, and public-disclosure review drop out of scope.\n- **Delivery:** chat. Content should be short and scannable, with links out to detail instead of long documents.\n- **Agreed choices:** carried forward unchanged *(please paste or confirm the list)*.\n- **Provider access:** still open and tracked as an investigation, not a decision.\n\n**Work items**\n1. **Rework content for chat delivery**\n   - Cut each item to a one-line summary plus an optional expand or link.\n   - Put a pinned summary or FAQ message at the top of the channel.\n   - Name an owner who answers follow-up questions in the thread.\n2. **Adjust for an internal audience**\n   - Use internal terminology and system names freely.\n   - Point to internal docs, tickets, and runbooks instead of restating them.\n   - Confirm which staff groups or channels receive it.\n3. **Investigate provider access** (owner and due date to be set)\n   - Who needs access: roles and how many people.\n   - What access is needed: read-only or admin, API or console.\n   - The current path: existing accounts, SSO/SCIM support, contract limits.\n   - Blockers: approvals, licensing, security review.\n   - Output: a short findings note with a recommended access model, brought back for decision next round.\n4. **Dependencies**\n   - Mark which deliverables can ship before provider access is resolved and which are blocked by it.\n   - Ship the unblocked items this round.\n\n**Exit criteria for this round**\n- The chat-ready version is posted to the agreed internal channel(s).\n- The provider access findings note is drafted, with a recommendation.\n- The list of blocked items is confirmed.\n\nIf you share the agreed choices and the original topic, I'll replace the placeholders with specifics.",
    "b2130e44ab762d3398045d3a9804c0816cc87459e13081f96692bd92a743b25f": "I don't have the earlier rounds in this conversation, so I can't see the agreed choices or the facts you're referring to. This session starts with your message, and the repository has no commits or history to draw from.\n\nWhat I have from you:\n\n- **Audience:** internal staff\n- **Delivery:** chat\n- **Open item:** provider access still needs investigation\n\nIf you paste the previous round, including the agreed decisions and the supplied facts, I'll write the next round on top of it. I'll keep those decisions as they are, rewrite for internal staff in chat, and mark provider access as an open item.\n\nIn the meantime, here's a structure for the next round that fits the new audience and channel. Fill in the brackets, or send me the source and I'll fill them in:\n\n---\n\n**Update: [project/topic], round [N]**\n\n**Where we are:** [One or two sentences on what's settled, stated as fact.]\n\n**What's changed since last round:**\n- [Change 1]\n- [Change 2]\n\n**Still open: provider access**\nWe haven't confirmed [what access is needed, from which provider]. [Owner] is looking into it, with an update expected by [date]. Until then, [what's blocked or what workaround applies].\n\n**What we need from you:** [A specific ask, or \"Nothing right now, FYI only.\"]\n\n**Questions:** reply in thread or ping [owner].\n\n---\n\nThe draft is short, uses plain language, and puts the ask near the top, since internal readers in chat tend to skim.",
    "bebe472c58fa109f03ad822b3f67c260da8a18df1cb41cf1b34484c5c79370af": "The frontier is empty: every planned decision has an answer. Before we treat this as settled, I need you to confirm the summary.\n\nThe decisions themselves aren't in what I can see right now. There's no earlier interview, the repo has no commits, and you've asked me not to use tools. I won't reconstruct answers from memory, because a summary with invented answers is worse than none.\n\nHere's the closing summary format. If you paste or restate the settled decisions, I'll fill it in exactly as you answered:\n\n---\n\n## ✅ Design tree: final summary\n\n**Root goal:** _<what we're building or deciding, in one sentence>_\n\n### Settled decisions\n| # | Decision | Your answer | Unblocked |\n|---|----------|-------------|-----------|\n| D1 | _<title>_ | _<answer>_ | _<downstream decisions>_ |\n| D2 | _<title>_ | _<answer>_ | — |\n| … | | | |\n\n### Assumptions made explicit\n- _<anything we agreed is true without deciding it, e.g. constraints, scope limits>_\n\n### Deliberately out of scope\n- _<branches we chose not to pursue, and why>_\n\n### Open risks\n- _<things that are decided but could still bite>_\n\n---\n\n❓ **Confirm** - **Shared understanding**: Does the summary above (once filled with your answers) capture every decision correctly, with nothing silently assumed or missing?\n\n➡️ Yes. Once you confirm, the grilling session is closed and we can act on the plan. If anything is wrong or missing, tell me which item and I'll reopen that branch.",
    "3993348ba684a0cd883b5c48184e4f4217a51d7fc54d4ca6e5232e87051e56d8": "The frontier is empty: every planned decision has an answer. Before anything is acted on, you need to confirm the summary.\n\nOne problem: the actual questions and your answers aren't in what I can see in this conversation. I won't reconstruct them from guesswork, since a made-up summary would defeat the purpose of the grilling. Here is the closing response with placeholders where your decisions go:\n\n---\n\n## ✅ Grilling complete: shared understanding check\n\nEvery branch of the design tree has been visited, and no open questions remain on the frontier. Here's what we settled:\n\n**Goal / scope**\n- [Decision 1: what we're building and why]\n- [Decision 2: what's explicitly out of scope]\n\n**Core design choices**\n- [Decision 3, plus the decisions it unlocked]\n- [Decision 4, plus the decisions it unlocked]\n\n**Constraints and trade-offs accepted**\n- [Trade-off 1: what we chose, what we gave up]\n- [Trade-off 2]\n\n**Risks and how we'll handle them**\n- [Risk → mitigation]\n\n**Assumptions we're relying on**\n- [Anything settled by default or recommendation rather than an explicit choice. Flag any you want to revisit.]\n\n---\n\n❓ **Final check - Shared understanding**: Does this summary match your intent, with nothing missing, misstated, or silently assumed?\n\n➡️ Yes. If any line is wrong, name it and we'll reopen that branch (and anything downstream of it) before acting.\n\n---\n\nIf you paste the questions and your answers, or the earlier rounds, I'll fill this in with the real decisions so you can confirm it. Nothing gets acted on until you do.",
    "a215897e52e20acda5a9c40ffcc0ad18e21cafe09ad0e5f8be65bb48d676b81f": "## Closing the grilling session\n\nYou've said every planned decision has an answer, so the frontier is empty and there are no more rounds. The next step is for you to confirm a summary of what we settled.\n\n**I can't write that summary yet.** The actual questions and your answers aren't in what I have. I only have the instruction that they're all answered. I won't reconstruct them from guesses, because a summary with invented decisions would defeat the point of stress-testing your plan.\n\nHere is the closing checkpoint I'd normally present. Please fill it in or paste our earlier rounds and I'll complete it:\n\n```\n✅ Shared understanding: <plan / decision name>\n\nSettled decisions (by branch of the design tree)\n1. <Root decision> → <your answer>\n   1a. <Dependent decision> → <your answer>\n   1b. <Dependent decision> → <your answer>\n2. <Root decision> → <your answer>\n   ...\n\nFacts established (from exploration, not your choices)\n- <fact> → <source>\n\nExplicitly out of scope / deferred\n- <item> → <why / when to revisit>\n\nAssumptions still implicit (should be none)\n- <none, or list>\n```\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q-final** - **Confirm shared understanding**: Once the summary above shows your real decisions, does it match your intent with nothing silently assumed? Specifically:\n\n- Did each answer stay as you gave it, including any you revised mid-session?\n- Is anything we deferred actually a blocker?\n- Is there any branch you expected me to grill that never came up?\n\n➡️ Yes. Paste the rounds (or the decision list), and I'll return the completed summary for one last confirmation. I won't act on the plan until you approve that final version.",
    "c6a53ae140bd67848e77f84dd42bc0178d9e4e0e0aec8bd40bdb67862006d1d4": "The frontier is empty: every planned decision has an answer. Before anything is acted on, I need you to confirm the summary below.\n\nThe answered decisions aren't in the context I have here: no plan, questions or answers came through. I won't invent a summary, so here is the closing structure. Paste or restate the settled answers and I'll fill it in exactly.\n\n---\n\n## 🌳 Design Tree: Final Summary\n\n**Root decision:** *<the plan / idea being grilled>*\n\n| # | Decision | Settled answer | Unblocked |\n|---|----------|----------------|-----------|\n| Q1 | *<title>* | *<your answer>* | Q3, Q4 |\n| Q2 | *<title>* | *<your answer>* | none |\n| Q3 | *<title>* | *<your answer>* | Q5 |\n| … | … | … | … |\n\n**Places where you overrode my recommendation:** *<list, with your reasoning>*\n\n**Assumptions now explicit (nothing silently assumed):**\n- *<assumption 1>*\n- *<assumption 2>*\n\n**Open risks you accepted knowingly:**\n- *<risk and the reason it's acceptable>*\n\n**Branches deliberately pruned (out of scope):**\n- *<branch and why it's not being pursued>*\n\n---\n\n❓ **Confirmation** - **Shared understanding**: Once the summary is filled in, does it capture every decision accurately, with nothing missing, misstated or left implicit?\n\n➡️ Yes. If so, I'll treat the design as locked and we can move to execution. If anything is off, name the item and I'll reopen only that branch and whatever depends on it.",
    "69e3f42926f0935b357f74e1598482399695f7fdadb13050451dcdbfc5901578": "I don't have the earlier rounds in my context: no questions, answers, or plan details came through. Writing a summary of decisions I can't see would mean inventing them, so here's the closing response with the gaps marked.\n\n---\n\n## 🏁 Closing: shared understanding check\n\nEvery branch of the design tree has an answer, so the frontier is empty. Before anything gets built, please confirm this summary matches what you decided.\n\n**Decisions settled**\n\n| # | Decision | Your answer |\n|---|----------|-------------|\n| 1 | *[decision from Round 1]* | *[answer]* |\n| 2 | *[decision from Round 1]* | *[answer]* |\n| … | *[later-round decisions]* | *[answer]* |\n\n**Assumptions I'm carrying forward** (none should be silent; flag any you disagree with)\n- *[any defaults accepted via \"yes\" to a recommendation]*\n\n**Explicitly out of scope**\n- *[anything you deferred or ruled out]*\n\n---\n\n❓ **Confirm**: Does this summary capture our shared understanding, with nothing missing or misstated?\n\n➡️ Yes. If so, I'll treat the plan as locked and we can move to implementation. If anything is off, tell me which row, and I'll reopen only that branch and whatever depends on it.\n\n---\n\n**To fill this in:** paste the decisions and answers from the earlier rounds (even rough notes are fine) and I'll turn them into the final summary. Until you confirm it, I won't act on the plan.",
    "8c069adb2af60f7a3119b642b4450caee0e87b05262ea5699f6b8f5bd2e85a34": "I don't have the interview content. This conversation contains no prior questions, answers, or planned decisions, so I can't summarize them without inventing details. Here is a closing response you can use, with placeholders for each decision. If you paste the Q&A, I'll fill it in exactly.\n\n---\n\n**Closing: please confirm before I proceed**\n\nThanks, that covers every open question. Here's what I understood. Nothing will be built or changed until you confirm.\n\n**Decisions**\n1. **[Decision area 1]:** [Chosen answer]. *Why:* [rationale you gave]\n2. **[Decision area 2]:** [Chosen answer]. *Why:* [rationale]\n3. **[Decision area 3]:** [Chosen answer]. *Why:* [rationale]\n   *(…one line per decision)*\n\n**Scope**\n- **In:** [items explicitly included]\n- **Out:** [items explicitly excluded or deferred]\n\n**Assumptions I'm making** (correct any that are wrong)\n- [Assumption filling a gap you didn't address directly]\n- [Assumption about environment, constraints, or defaults]\n\n**Next step once confirmed:** [first concrete action, e.g., draft the plan / scaffold module X / open a branch off `main`].\n\n**Please reply with one of:**\n- **\"Confirmed\"**: I'll proceed exactly as summarized.\n- **Corrections**: tell me which numbered item or assumption to change, and I'll revise and re-confirm.\n\n---\n\nPaste the interview answers and I'll replace every placeholder with the actual decisions.",
    "262f0e8f776580580cefe4303c962d67e5d4ecd8578b18b9f6714614fa0fe6d7": "I don't have the interview content, so I can't write an accurate summary. No planned decisions, answers, or other facts were included in what I received, and the repository has no commits to draw from. I won't invent them, because a closing summary is only useful if you can confirm it as accurate.\n\nHere is the closing response with placeholders. Paste the decisions and their answers, and I'll fill it in.\n\n---\n\n**Wrapping up: please confirm before I proceed**\n\nThanks, that covers every decision I needed. Here's my understanding of what we agreed:\n\n1. **[Decision 1]:** [Your answer] ([any constraint or rationale you gave])\n2. **[Decision 2]:** [Your answer]\n3. **[Decision 3]:** [Your answer]\n…\n\n**Assumptions I'm making where you didn't specify:**\n- [Assumption, or \"None\"]\n\n**What happens next:** Once you confirm, I'll [next step, e.g. draft the plan / start implementation on a new branch off `main`].\n\n**Is this summary correct?** Reply \"confirmed\" to proceed, or tell me which item to change. I won't start until you confirm.\n\n---\n\nIf you share the decisions, I'll replace the placeholders with the actual summary.",
    "ae78aec81e916fe459badf02323e8065ebafa619efc4be482f7b5fd78547f63e": "I don't have the interview content. No prior conversation, decisions, or answers came through with your message, so I can't summarize what was decided without making it up. Here's a closing response with placeholders for the actual decisions:\n\n---\n\n**Wrapping up: please confirm before I proceed**\n\nThanks for working through these questions. Every planned decision now has an answer. Here's my summary so you can confirm it's right before I start:\n\n**Decisions**\n1. **[Decision 1]**: [answer you gave]\n2. **[Decision 2]**: [answer you gave]\n3. **[Decision 3]**: [answer you gave]\n   *(…one line per decision)*\n\n**What I'll do next**\n- [First concrete step that follows from the decisions]\n- [Second step]\n- [How I'll verify the result, e.g., tests or a review checkpoint]\n\n**Assumptions I'm making**\n- [Anything inferred rather than stated outright]\n\n**Please reply with one of:**\n- **\"Confirmed\"**: I'll proceed as summarized.\n- **Corrections**: tell me which item number is wrong and what it should be.\n\nI won't take any action until you confirm.\n\n---\n\nIf you paste the decisions and answers from the interview, I'll fill this in with the real summary.",
    "8b636fce18b0d9d9f7f7551f6f491db337ea706be98309faf759dc9c4b0b6b87": "I can't write an accurate closing summary yet, because the decisions and their answers aren't in what I can see. This session has no earlier interview turns, and the repo has no commits. If I wrote a summary now, I'd be making up your decisions, and you'd be confirming things you never said.\n\nTo close this out, paste the decisions and answers (rough notes are fine). I'll reply with a response in this shape:\n\n---\n\n**Here's what we've settled. Please confirm or correct before I proceed:**\n\n1. **[Decision 1]:** [Your answer], because [rationale you gave, if any]\n2. **[Decision 2]:** [Your answer]\n3. **[Decision 3]:** [Your answer]\n   …\n\n**Assumptions I'm making** (things you didn't state explicitly):\n- [Assumption], which I'll change if wrong\n\n**Out of scope** (deliberately not doing):\n- [Item]\n\n**Next step once you confirm:** [first concrete action]\n\n**Is this summary accurate?** Reply \"confirmed\" or tell me which items to change. I won't start until you've confirmed.\n\n---\n\nOnce you send the details, I'll fill this in using only what you've told me, and I'll mark anything I had to infer as an assumption."
  },
  "draws": [
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "412ed1d8969ae92f0520fb4c7a433e1d6628b134fbd6624128a241c02e8c0f44",
      "answer_sha256": "412ed1d8969ae92f0520fb4c7a433e1d6628b134fbd6624128a241c02e8c0f44",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) questions now, explicitly defers provider and retention until those are answered, gives a recommendation for each question, and ends by waiting for the user's yes/alternative before proceeding.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) questions now, explicitly defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each question, and ends by waiting for answers before computing the next round.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) now, defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each question, and waits for answers before proceeding.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions (Q1, Q2), explicitly defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each current question, and ends by waiting for the user's answers before acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) questions, explicitly defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for every question (Q1-Q5), and waits for answers before proceeding, meeting all four rubric criteria.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "094fccb8194f29d6a6b4378113005a7cc8b54049f8468874e26658a068e623fb",
      "answer_sha256": "094fccb8194f29d6a6b4378113005a7cc8b54049f8468874e26658a068e623fb",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response asks the audience (Q1) and delivery channel (Q2) questions, defers provider and retention choices explicitly, gives a recommendation for each current question, and ends by waiting for the user's reply before proceeding.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) now, defers provider and retention explicitly, gives a recommendation for each current question, and ends by waiting for the user's reply before acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) now, defers provider and retention explicitly, gives recommendations for Q1 and Q2, and ends by waiting for the user's reply without acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) now, defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each current question, and waits for the user's reply before acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) questions now, defers provider and retention choices explicitly, gives a recommendation for each current question, and ends by waiting for the user's reply before proceeding.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "e3f3786c25022c09d28812b1e9c860e685b7956eb69cb706b080896c2342d251",
      "answer_sha256": "e3f3786c25022c09d28812b1e9c860e685b7956eb69cb706b080896c2342d251",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response asks audience (Q1) and delivery channel (Q2) now, defers provider and retention to Round 2, gives a recommendation for each question, and ends by waiting for the user's answers before proceeding.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel now (Q1, Q2), defers provider and retention to Round 2, gives a recommendation for every question, and waits for answers without acting.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel now, defers provider and retention to Round 2, gives recommendations for each question, and ends by waiting for the user's answers before acting.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) now, defers provider and retention to Round 2, gives a recommendation for every question Q1-Q5, and ends by waiting for answers.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (1), defers provider and retention to Round 2 (2), and gives recommendations for each current question (3); it does not explicitly pause for answers before acting, though it asks the user to answer by number (4 partially met).\", \"score_note\": \"\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "850baf73748f2ecfd2756e92a9a9150ac00ff888196ec7c8045b298fcc9916dc",
      "answer_sha256": "850baf73748f2ecfd2756e92a9a9150ac00ff888196ec7c8045b298fcc9916dc",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions now, defers provider and retention to Round 2, and takes no action. It misses criterion 3 because it poses questions without recommendations for each.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions now, defers provider and retention to Round 2, and takes no action. It misses criterion 3 because it gives no recommendation for each current question.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention to Round 2, and stops for answers. Missed criterion 3 because the questions carry no recommendations.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions now, defers provider and retention to Round 2, and takes no action. It misses criterion 3 because it gives no recommendation for each question.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (asks audience and channel questions now), 2 (defers provider and retention to Round 2), and 4 (waits for answers), but misses 3 because it poses questions without recommending answers for each.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "51c660e9027b20f57ff6264667738e08433c95dbaaa5947770d22f0072ecc91d",
      "answer_sha256": "51c660e9027b20f57ff6264667738e08433c95dbaaa5947770d22f0072ecc91d",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and stops for answers. Misses 3: questions come with rationales and stress tests but no recommendations.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criterion 1 (asks audience and channel questions now) and criterion 2 (defers provider and retention to Round 2), but missed criterion 3 because it gives no recommendation for each question, only stress tests and rationale, and criterion 4 is not explicitly satisfied since it never states it is waiting for answers before acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention to Round 2, and takes no action. It missed criterion 3 because the questions give no recommendation for each one.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (criterion 1) and defers provider and retention to Round 2 (criterion 2), and waits for answers without acting (criterion 4). It gives a stress-test or 'why it matters' note per question rather than a clear recommendation for each, so criterion 3 is missed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions now, defers provider and retention to Round 2, and stops for answers. It misses criterion 3 because the questions give no recommendation for each.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "905afec19d32f4a1e4e7bc1d154822a2601e4c7bfa24fd6db4e485a7b2d68af0",
      "answer_sha256": "905afec19d32f4a1e4e7bc1d154822a2601e4c7bfa24fd6db4e485a7b2d68af0",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention to Round 2, and waits for answers. Misses 3: it poses questions without recommendations for each.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions now, defers provider and retention to Round 2, and waits for answers. Misses 3: it poses questions without giving a recommendation for each.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses 3: it gives no recommendation for each current question.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions now, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. It misses criterion 3 because it gives no recommendation for each current question.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions now, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses criterion 3, since it gives no recommendation for each current question.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "fe9c50f21eda2db74283ce62a1a85597c6d85be91fbaaf78ebb96e7cc7182455",
      "answer_sha256": "fe9c50f21eda2db74283ce62a1a85597c6d85be91fbaaf78ebb96e7cc7182455",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criteria 1 and 2 are met (audience/channel kept settled; provider access treated as open to investigate), but criterion 3 is arguably missed by assuming a provider is available for later planning and criterion 4 is missed since Q1–Q6 ask decisions while provider access, a prerequisite for some, is unresolved.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Audience and chat channel are kept settled; provider access is treated as an open fact to investigate; no provider is assumed; questions are limited to those not blocked by provider access.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat channel settled, and treats provider access as an open fact to investigate; does not assume a provider, but asks Q1-Q6 include settled-ish items and defers provider-dependent questions, partially missing criterion 4 since the questions asked are not all strictly gated on settled prerequisites.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled and treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, without assuming a provider is available. But it asks Q1 (chat platform) and Q4-Q6 without clearly showing they depend on settled prerequisites, so criterion 4 is only partly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, and doesn't assume a provider. It misses the last point: Q3 (platform identity) depends on the unresolved Q1 chat platform choice.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "ef53f412acf4912702a4ff1e6cf43724ed38cbc5e2680c995d1eb61f4adc4054",
      "answer_sha256": "ef53f412acf4912702a4ff1e6cf43724ed38cbc5e2680c995d1eb61f4adc4054",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"It keeps audience and channel settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, assumes no provider, and holds provider-dependent questions back until access is confirmed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, does not assume any provider, and asks only questions whose prerequisites are settled, deferring provider-dependent ones.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and channel settled and does not assume a provider is available, but the response asks Q1 (chat surface) and Q2 etc. without fully checking prerequisites; it defers provider questions correctly, so it meets three of four points, with a partial miss on rubric point 4 ordering.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and channel settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, does not assume a provider, and defers provider-dependent questions. Q3 is arguably tied to unsettled provider data terms, but it is answerable now.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (keeps audience internal staff and chat settled), 2 (treats provider access as an open fact to investigate), and 4 (asks only decisions whose prerequisites are settled, deferring provider-dependent questions); misses 3 partly since it hedges but recommends ahead on several provider-adjacent items like data-sensitivity ceiling and logging retention.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "8b79fb0944a87e032373a0a095a3a8ffaeb3f488a7c5dfc840f6cc0e78ee2d05",
      "answer_sha256": "8b79fb0944a87e032373a0a095a3a8ffaeb3f488a7c5dfc840f6cc0e78ee2d05",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation, assumes no provider, and asks only questions that depend on those settled choices.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled, treats provider access as parked to investigate, and asks only decisions that don't depend on the unresolved provider; misses the rubric point about not assuming a provider is available, since Q1 and Q5 lean on chat-tool and data-rule assumptions without confirming provider availability.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat channel settled, treats provider access as parked/open to investigate, and does not assume a provider; but Q1 and Q5 questions partly depend on unsettled provider decisions, so criterion 4 is arguably missed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: keeps audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation, and names no provider. Missed part of 4: Q2 (chat-platform SSO) and Q6 (pilot-team WAUs) depend on unsettled Q1 and Q3.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled, treats provider access as parked for investigation, and does not assume a provider; but it asks Q2-Q6 that partly depend on unresolved prerequisites, missing criterion 4.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "c850b26a818c3fe66e0fb90fc082cc9517cee541eb8019fa7a5a4c1fdc091ea5",
      "answer_sha256": "c850b26a818c3fe66e0fb90fc082cc9517cee541eb8019fa7a5a4c1fdc091ea5",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, assumes no provider, and parks provider-dependent questions while asking only the independent ones.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, assumes no provider, and asks only provider-independent questions while parking the rest.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, and avoids assuming a provider. Q1 (chat surface) partly depends on the parked provider-integration question, so the last criterion is not fully met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled, treats missing provider access as an open fact to investigate, does not assume a provider exists, and asks only questions not dependent on provider access, parking those that do.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, assumes no provider, and parks provider-dependent questions while asking only independent ones.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "612d8bb163cf493f5dfd17c671a997994e38e04216b5b29c27a99fb0a8c04d99",
      "answer_sha256": "612d8bb163cf493f5dfd17c671a997994e38e04216b5b29c27a99fb0a8c04d99",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled, treats provider access as an open investigation, does not assume a provider, and asks only questions depending on settled prerequisites, meeting all four criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation item, does not assume any provider, and only asks questions whose prerequisites are settled, meeting all four criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal staff and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation, assumes no provider, and asks questions whose prerequisites are settled, with provider-dependent items parked.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal staff and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation, assumes no provider, and asks only questions that depend on the settled audience and channel.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation, assumes no provider, and asks only questions whose prerequisites are settled (provider-dependent items explicitly parked).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 5,
      "generation_hash": "3e0bbcda2e948d22f76b9626a6727db89c33ce0746ea3b77e9ef294a9278c3fb",
      "answer_sha256": "3e0bbcda2e948d22f76b9626a6727db89c33ce0746ea3b77e9ef294a9278c3fb",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, assumes no provider, and defers provider-dependent decisions while asking only prerequisite-settled questions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, and defers provider-dependent questions; but Q1-Q7 include a provider-independent reach (Q5 mentions provider data terms), so criterion 3 is arguably met while criterion 4 is partly satisfied since some questions are asked alongside settled prerequisites.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and channel settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, and defers provider-dependent questions; however, Q1 and Q2 re-ask settled-adjacent choices and Q6 adds invented metrics, so rubric point 4 is only partially met.\", \"criteria\": {\"1_settled_audience_channel\": 0.25, \"2_provider_access_as_fact\": 0.25, \"3_no_assumed_provider\": 0.25, \"4_asks_only_settled_prereq_decisions\": 0.0}}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, assumes no provider, and defers provider-dependent decisions while asking only independent ones.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled; treats provider access as an open fact to investigate; does not assume a provider; asks only questions whose prerequisites are settled, deferring provider-dependent items.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 6,
      "generation_hash": "34b826dbb0dc799bce48d9caeaac9b9fae461ec7a2e2acc62482916826ad39e4",
      "answer_sha256": "34b826dbb0dc799bce48d9caeaac9b9fae461ec7a2e2acc62482916826ad39e4",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an unresolved item to investigate later, assumes no provider, and asks only questions it states don't depend on provider access.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criteria 1, 2, and 4 are met: audience and channel are kept settled, provider access is treated as an open item to investigate, and only provider-independent questions are asked. Criterion 3 is missed because the response's recommendations assume a chat platform (Slack/Teams/Google Chat) is available, without stating that provider availability is unverified.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response keeps audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an unresolved fact to investigate later, assumes no provider, and asks only questions that don't depend on provider access.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled, treats unresolved provider access as a fact to investigate later, assumes no provider, and asks only decisions not blocked by provider access.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an unresolved fact to investigate later, assumes no provider, and asks only provider-independent questions.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "7bb9af3e5345b0efad3cf639a623100e3281a558b18226cc1f07484cebfc4b5a",
      "answer_sha256": "7bb9af3e5345b0efad3cf639a623100e3281a558b18226cc1f07484cebfc4b5a",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it locks internal staff and chat, treats provider access as an investigation item, and assumes no provider. Missed criterion 4: it asks for the owner and deadline before the provider is identified, and asks for prior choices it cannot see.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Audience and chat delivery are locked, provider access is treated as an open investigation, and no provider is assumed. Criterion 4 is partly missed: it asks for the provider and prior-round inputs before those prerequisites are settled.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Audience and chat delivery are kept settled and provider access is treated as an investigation without assuming a provider. It misses criterion 4: it asks who owns the investigation before the provider is identified.\", \"criteria\": {\"1\": true, \"2\": true, \"3\": true, \"4\": false}}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: locks internal staff and chat, treats provider access as an investigation, and doesn't assume a provider. Missed criterion 4: the owner/date decision is asked before the provider and access needed are identified.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Locks audience and channel, treats provider access as an investigation without assuming a provider, but the owner/date question comes before the provider identity is settled, missing criterion 4.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "ef6a90b5c26e18821086506c78359951f5b837361dfe2f83ce1ca1bc6a0d0e11",
      "answer_sha256": "ef6a90b5c26e18821086506c78359951f5b837361dfe2f83ce1ca1bc6a0d0e11",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Audience (internal) and channel (chat) are kept settled, missing provider access is treated as an open investigation, no provider is assumed, and the access-model decision is deferred until findings return.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Audience (internal staff) and chat channel stay settled, provider access is treated as an open investigation, no provider is assumed, and open decisions are sequenced behind that investigation.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (audience and chat channel kept settled) and 2 (provider access treated as an open investigation), but missed 3 by not explicitly avoiding assumptions about provider availability and missed 4 by asking the user to paste agreed choices and set owners rather than limiting questions to settled-prerequisite decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response keeps audience (internal) and chat channel settled and treats provider access as an open investigation item, earning 0.5; it fails criterion 3 by not assuming a provider is available, which is ambiguous, and criterion 4 since it asks for agreed choices and sets up work items rather than only asking decisions with settled prerequisites.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation, assumes no provider, and defers undecided items rather than asking premature decisions.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "b2130e44ab762d3398045d3a9804c0816cc87459e13081f96692bd92a743b25f",
      "answer_sha256": "b2130e44ab762d3398045d3a9804c0816cc87459e13081f96692bd92a743b25f",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an open item to investigate without assuming a provider, and asks only for source material rather than unsettled decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled and treats provider access as an open item to investigate, earning 0.5; it fails criterion 3 by not assuming a provider is unavailable and criterion 4 by asking the user for prior-round facts and drafting a template with unsettled placeholders rather than limiting asks to settled prerequisites.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal staff and chat settled, treats provider access as an open item to investigate, does not assume a provider is available, and asks only for missing source material rather than unsettled decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled and treats provider access as an open item to investigate without assuming availability; however, it asks the user to paste prior rounds rather than fully proceeding, and its template partially drafts decisions beyond the supplied facts.\", \"criteria\": {\"1_audience_channel_settled\": true, \"2_provider_access_as_fact_to_investigate\": true, \"3_no_assumed_provider\": true, \"4_ask_only_settled_prereqs\": false}}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal staff and chat settled, marks provider access as an open item to investigate without assuming a provider, and asks only for source material rather than unsettled decisions.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "bebe472c58fa109f03ad822b3f67c260da8a18df1cb41cf1b34484c5c79370af",
      "answer_sha256": "bebe472c58fa109f03ad822b3f67c260da8a18df1cb41cf1b34484c5c79370af",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (asks user to confirm shared understanding), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (explicitly flags that decisions aren't visible); misses criterion 1 because it provides no summary of the agreed design.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks for shared-understanding confirmation (2), avoids implementation (3), and keeps the missing-decisions uncertainty explicit (4). Misses (1): it gives no summary of the agreed design, only a blank template.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation of shared understanding) and 3 (no implementation started), and explicitly flags missing decisions as uncertainty (4); missed criterion 1 because it provides no agreed design summary, only a blank template, and presents no actual decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and 3 (no implementation started), and 4 (uncertainty made explicit about missing decisions); missed criterion 1 because it admits it cannot summarize any agreed design, offering only a blank template.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 missed: the response invents no details and honestly states no decisions are visible, but it does not summarize an agreed design. Criteria 2, 3, and 4 are met: it asks for confirmation of shared understanding, starts no implementation, and keeps the missing-decisions uncertainty explicit.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "3993348ba684a0cd883b5c48184e4f4217a51d7fc54d4ca6e5232e87051e56d8",
      "answer_sha256": "3993348ba684a0cd883b5c48184e4f4217a51d7fc54d4ca6e5232e87051e56d8",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete), 3 (no implementation started), and 4 (explicitly flags missing decisions). Missed criterion 1: it supplies only placeholders, not an accurate design summary.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (asks if shared understanding is complete), 3 (no implementation) and 4 (flags missing decisions explicitly); misses 1 because it gives no actual design summary, only placeholders.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Asks whether shared understanding is complete, avoids implementation, and flags missing context explicitly, but gives only placeholders instead of summarizing the agreed design.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2, 3, and 4: asks for confirmation, starts no implementation, and states uncertainty explicitly. Misses criterion 1 because it gives placeholders rather than summarizing the agreed design.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 missed: it summarizes no agreed design, only placeholders. Criteria 2, 3 and 4 met: it asks whether understanding is complete, starts no implementation, and keeps the missing-information uncertainty explicit.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "a215897e52e20acda5a9c40ffcc0ad18e21cafe09ad0e5f8be65bb48d676b81f",
      "answer_sha256": "a215897e52e20acda5a9c40ffcc0ad18e21cafe09ad0e5f8be65bb48d676b81f",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (asks for confirmation of shared understanding), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (explicitly flags missing decisions). Misses criterion 1: it offers a template rather than an accurate summary, though it invents nothing.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and criterion 4 (keeps uncertainty explicit) are met; criterion 1 fails because it summarizes no agreed design, and criterion 3 is met since it does not implement.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and 3 (no implementation), but missed criterion 1 by not summarizing the agreed design, and criterion 4 is only partially addressed via explicit gaps.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and criterion 3 (no implementation) are met, and criterion 4 is met by flagging unknowns; criterion 1 fails because the response refuses to summarize the agreed design, so it is not satisfied.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and 3 (no implementation started), but missed criterion 1 by not summarizing the agreed design, and criterion 4 is not clearly satisfied since uncertainty is only partly flagged.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "c6a53ae140bd67848e77f84dd42bc0178d9e4e0e0aec8bd40bdb67862006d1d4",
      "answer_sha256": "c6a53ae140bd67848e77f84dd42bc0178d9e4e0e0aec8bd40bdb67862006d1d4",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and 3 (no implementation started), and states uncertainty explicitly; misses criterion 1 since it does not summarize any agreed design, only a blank template, and claims no decisions are available.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (states missing answers explicitly); missed criterion 1 because it gives only a placeholder template, not an accurate summary of the design.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks if shared understanding is complete), 3 (no implementation, design not locked), and 4 (explicitly flags missing decisions). Missed criterion 1: no summary is given, though it avoids inventing details.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2, 3, and 4: it asks whether shared understanding is complete, starts no implementation, and states that the settled answers are missing. Missed criterion 1, since it summarizes no agreed design.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response asks whether the shared understanding is complete (criterion 2) and does not start implementation (criterion 3), and keeps uncertainty explicit (criterion 4), but it cannot summarize the agreed design because no decisions were supplied, so criterion 1 is missed.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "69e3f42926f0935b357f74e1598482399695f7fdadb13050451dcdbfc5901578",
      "answer_sha256": "69e3f42926f0935b357f74e1598482399695f7fdadb13050451dcdbfc5901578",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.5,\n  \"pass\": false,\n  \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and 3 (no implementation started) and 4 (uncertainty explicit); missed criterion 1 since it cannot summarize the agreed design and contains only placeholders.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation of shared understanding), 3 (no implementation started), and 4 (gaps and uncertainty explicitly flagged); missed criterion 1 because it provides no actual summary of the agreed design, only placeholders.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and 3 (no implementation started) and 4 (uncertainty made explicit), but missed criterion 1: it summarizes no agreed design, only placeholders, though it avoids inventing details.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criterion 2 (asks whether shared understanding is complete) and criterion 3 (no implementation started), and kept uncertainty explicit, but it did not summarize the agreed design; it only offered placeholders, so criterion 1 is missed and criterion 4 is arguably satisfied, giving 0.75 rather than 0.5.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks for confirmation of shared understanding (2), avoids implementation (3), and makes gaps explicit (4). It meets neither criterion 1 nor the summary element, since it has no actual design summary to give, only placeholders.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "8c069adb2af60f7a3119b642b4450caee0e87b05262ea5699f6b8f5bd2e85a34",
      "answer_sha256": "8c069adb2af60f7a3119b642b4450caee0e87b05262ea5699f6b8f5bd2e85a34",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response correctly refuses to invent details and asks for confirmation without starting implementation (criteria 2, 3, and 4 met), but it does not summarize the agreed design since none was provided, so criterion 1 is missed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation) and 3 (no implementation), but missed criterion 1 since it summarizes no agreed design, only placeholders, and criterion 4 is only loosely addressed via placeholder assumptions rather than explicit unresolved uncertainty.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response fails criterion 1 by refusing to summarize and using only placeholders, so no agreed design is accurately summarized; it meets criteria 2 (asks for confirmation), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (explicit uncertainty via assumptions to correct).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 missed: the response summarizes no agreed design and invents none, but it provides only placeholders. Criterion 2 met: it asks for confirmation. Criterion 3 met: no implementation started. Criterion 4 met: assumptions are flagged for correction.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation) and 3 (no implementation), but missed criterion 1 since it summarizes no actual agreed design and 4 since uncertainty is shown only as template placeholders, not real unresolved items.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "262f0e8f776580580cefe4303c962d67e5d4ecd8578b18b9f6714614fa0fe6d7",
      "answer_sha256": "262f0e8f776580580cefe4303c962d67e5d4ecd8578b18b9f6714614fa0fe6d7",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (asks for confirmation), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (flags missing decisions and assumptions explicitly). Misses criterion 1: no agreed design is summarized, only placeholders.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met since it invents nothing and admits the summary is missing, but criterion 2 (asking whether shared understanding is complete) is met only loosely and criteria 3 and 4 are satisfied, yet the response never actually summarizes an agreed design, so the summary criterion is not met either.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response does not invent details and asks for confirmation (criteria 1 and 2 partly met, 3 met), but criterion 1 is not fully satisfied since no agreed design was summarized, and criterion 4's explicit uncertainty handling is only partly addressed via placeholders.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is missed because no design was given and the response correctly invents nothing, but it gives no accurate summary; criterion 2 is met by asking for confirmation, criterion 3 is met since no implementation starts, and criterion 4 is met by explicitly flagging the missing information and assumptions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (asks for confirmation), 3 (won't start until confirmed), and 4 (flags missing facts and assumptions). Misses 1: no accurate summary of the agreed design is actually given, only placeholders.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "ae78aec81e916fe459badf02323e8065ebafa619efc4be482f7b5fd78547f63e",
      "answer_sha256": "ae78aec81e916fe459badf02323e8065ebafa619efc4be482f7b5fd78547f63e",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 missed: it summarizes no agreed design and only uses placeholders, though it invents nothing. Criterion 2 met: it asks the user to confirm. Criterion 3 met: it states no implementation will start. Criterion 4 met: it flags assumptions and uncertainty explicitly.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 2 is met by asking for confirmation, and criterion 3 by not starting implementation, but criterion 1 is missed since it summarizes no actual design and uses placeholders, and criterion 4 is not explicitly addressed beyond a generic assumptions placeholder.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation of shared understanding) and 3 (no implementation started); missed criterion 1 since it summarizes no actual agreed design, using only placeholders, and criterion 4 is only loosely addressed via the assumptions placeholder.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 2 met (asks for confirmation), criterion 3 met (no implementation); criterion 1 missed since no design summary is given, only placeholders, and criterion 4 is not explicitly addressed beyond noting missing content.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criterion 2 (asks for confirmation) and criterion 3 (no implementation started), but missed criterion 1 since it summarizes no actual agreed design, and criterion 4 is only partially met via generic assumptions rather than explicit unresolved uncertainty.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "8b636fce18b0d9d9f7f7551f6f491db337ea706be98309faf759dc9c4b0b6b87",
      "answer_sha256": "8b636fce18b0d9d9f7f7551f6f491db337ea706be98309faf759dc9c4b0b6b87",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses the summary criterion because it gives only a placeholder template, not an agreed-design summary. Meets the confirmation question, no-implementation, and explicit-uncertainty criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response does not summarize the agreed design (it refuses, saying no decisions are visible), so criterion 1 is missed; it does ask for confirmation, starts no implementation, and keeps uncertainty explicit, meeting criteria 2–4.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 2 is met by asking for confirmation, and criterion 3 is met since no implementation starts, but criterion 1 is missed because no agreed design is summarized, and criterion 4 is only partially met through the explicit assumptions list.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response asks whether understanding is complete and does not implement anything (criteria 2 and 3 met), but it does not summarize the agreed design (criterion 1 missed) and only partially addresses uncertainty by flagging missing decisions (criterion 4 arguably met).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 missed: it summarizes no agreed design, claiming none exists in the visible context. Criteria 2 and 3 met: it asks for confirmation and starts no implementation. Criterion 4 met: unresolved gaps are flagged as assumptions and the missing decisions are stated explicitly.\"}"
      ]
    }
  ]
}