{
  "format": "driftproof-answers/2",
  "receipt_hash": "c16d64823a745011f11b6bff2417d4ade5eb92345a7b1ae121579ceea5b18b06",
  "model_id": "claude-opus-5-5",
  "answers": {
    "057c0aabbc025cadec9d15a288deb8c9d4eedb29e6799e3b654500d82bd7b1ff": "Since you asked for no tool use, I'll run this inline instead of loading the grilling and domain-modeling skills.\n\n## First, the naming problem\n\n\"Booking\" means two different things today, and that will cause bugs. Here's a starting vocabulary to argue with:\n\n| Term | Proposed meaning |\n|---|---|\n| **Hold** | A temporary claim on inventory. It lasts 10 minutes and no money is captured. |\n| **Reservation** | A confirmed claim on inventory. Payment has been captured. |\n| **Confirmation** | The single transition from Hold to Reservation. Capture happens here and nowhere else. |\n| **Expiry** | A Hold reaching 10 minutes without Confirmation. |\n| **Booking** | *Retired*, or kept only as an umbrella term in UI copy. It is never used in code, schemas or APIs. |\n\n## Interview: question 1\n\n**Is \"booking\" a parent concept or a word to delete?**\n\n- **Option A:** Hold and Reservation are two separate entities. A Hold may produce a Reservation.\n- **Option B:** There is one entity with a status field (`held → confirmed`), and \"Booking\" is its name.\n\nMy recommendation is **A**. Your facts already give the two concepts different rules: a time limit on one, money on the other. Separate entities make the 10-minute rule and the capture rule impossible to apply to the wrong one. Option B is cheaper if they share almost all their fields, so the deciding question is this: **does a Hold carry the same data as a Reservation (guest details, price, line items), or only an inventory claim plus an amount?**\n\n## Questions queued after that (I'll take them one at a time)\n\n2. **Payment before capture:** What happens to payment during the Hold? Is there an authorization, or no payment contact at all until Confirmation? If there's an authorization, it can expire on the processor's own schedule, separate from your 10-minute window.\n3. **Where the 10 minutes is measured:** Is it enforced server-side from Hold creation, or from the moment the user sees it? Can it be extended, for example when the user is on a 3-D Secure challenge at minute 9:50?\n4. **Confirmation racing Expiry:** If Confirmation arrives at 10:00.2 and capture succeeds, who wins? My recommendation is that the server decides at the moment Confirmation starts and holds a lock through capture.\n5. **Capture fails:** If capture fails at Confirmation, does the Hold survive for a retry, go back to inventory, or get a short grace period?\n6. **Idempotency:** Can a double-submitted Confirmation capture twice? What key makes it safe to retry?\n7. **Expiry mechanism:** Is a Hold released by a sweeper job, or evaluated lazily on read? Either way, inventory reads must not count expired Holds that haven't been cleaned up yet.\n\n## Proposed documentation, drafted now and updated as we answer\n\n**`docs/glossary.md`:** the table above, plus a \"Retired terms\" section explaining why \"booking\" was dropped.\n\n**`docs/adr/0001-separate-hold-and-reservation.md`** (status: *proposed*, pending your answer to Q1)\n- *Context:* \"Booking\" referred to both an unpaid temporary claim and a paid confirmed one.\n- *Decision:* Model Hold and Reservation as distinct concepts and retire \"booking\" from code.\n- *Consequences:* The two concepts can't be confused at the type level. Confirmation becomes an explicit conversion step. Existing code and schema that use \"booking\" need renaming.\n\n**`docs/adr/0002-hold-duration-10-minutes.md`** (status: *accepted*, from your facts)\n- *Decision:* A Hold expires 10 minutes after it is created. *Open items:* the measurement point (Q3) and whether it can be extended.\n\n**`docs/adr/0003-capture-only-at-confirmation.md`** (status: *accepted*, from your facts)\n- *Decision:* No funds are captured before Confirmation. *Open items:* authorization behaviour (Q2) and capture failure (Q5).\n\nAs we go, Q4, Q6 and Q7 will probably each become their own ADR.\n\n**Your answer to Q1?** Also tell me whether a Hold carries the full reservation details or just an inventory claim.",
    "fe3bcee90ded07cad23431e1040f5f3f38ac14372ea998bc3e845f4e08d21721": "Since you asked for no tools, I'm running this grilling and domain-modeling session in text only. Nothing gets written to disk; the docs below are drafts you can paste in later.\n\n---\n\n## First, the naming problem\n\n\"Booking\" currently means two things with different lifecycles, money states and guarantees. That ambiguity causes bugs, such as \"cancel booking\" refunding a charge that was never captured. My recommendation is to retire \"booking\" as a domain term and split it:\n\n- **Hold**: temporary, unpaid, expires.\n- **Reservation**: confirmed, payment captured.\n\n**Q1. Do you accept retiring \"booking,\" or must it survive?** For example, it might be customer-facing copy or an existing API field. If it must survive, I'd keep it only as a UI or umbrella word and never use it in code or domain logic.\n\n---\n\n## The interview\n\nI'll give my recommended answer for each question so you can just confirm or override.\n\n**Q2. When does the 10-minute clock start, and can it be extended?**\n- My recommendation: it starts at hold creation, on server time, with no extensions.\n- If extensions are allowed, does each one reset to 10 minutes, or is there a hard ceiling? Extensions make inventory hoarding possible.\n\n**Q3. What exactly does a hold lock?**\n- Is it a specific unit, such as seat 14C or room 302, or a quantity from a pool, such as \"1 of 20 standard rooms\"? This decision shapes your concurrency model.\n\n**Q4. Is anything done with payment at hold time?**\n- Capture only happens at confirmation. But do you **authorize** at hold time, or collect nothing until confirm?\n- My recommendation: no authorization at hold time. That keeps holds cheap and makes expiry a pure inventory event. The tradeoff is that the capture at confirmation can fail.\n\n**Q5. What happens when confirmation and expiry race?**\n- Say a user clicks Confirm at 9:59 and the capture finishes at 10:03. Which wins?\n- My recommendation: confirmation is valid if it *starts* before expiry. Hold the inventory until the capture resolves, and set a hard cap on capture time, such as 60 seconds.\n\n**Q6. What happens if capture fails at confirmation?**\n- Does the hold survive so the user can retry within the remaining time, or is it released immediately?\n- My recommendation: the hold survives until its original expiry, and retries are allowed.\n\n**Q7. Is expiry active or lazy?**\n- A sweeper job can release expired holds, or holds can be treated as expired whenever they're read past their TTL.\n- My recommendation: make the read-time check authoritative and use the sweeper only for cleanup. Correctness should never depend on a job running on time.\n\n**Q8. How many holds can one user have at a time?**\n- Can one user hold the same inventory twice, or hold across many listings at once?\n\n**Q9. Cancellation and refunds for reservations.**\n- These are out of scope for holds, which have no money to refund. Should they get their own ADR now or later?\n\n---\n\n## Proposed glossary (draft `docs/glossary.md`)\n\n| Term | Definition | Not to be confused with |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Hold** | A temporary, unpaid claim on inventory that lasts 10 minutes from creation and then expires automatically. | Reservation |\n| **Reservation** | A confirmed claim on inventory, created when a Hold is confirmed and payment is captured. | Hold |\n| **Confirmation** | The act that turns a Hold into a Reservation. It is the only point where payment capture occurs. | — |\n| **Capture** | Taking the customer's funds. Happens only at Confirmation. | Authorization (*TBD per Q4*) |\n| **Expiry** | The end of a Hold's 10-minute life, after which its inventory is released. | Cancellation |\n| ~~Booking~~ | **Deprecated.** Ambiguous. Use Hold or Reservation. | — |\n\n---\n\n## Proposed ADRs (drafts)\n\n**ADR-001: Separate \"Hold\" and \"Reservation\" as distinct domain concepts**\n- *Status:* Proposed\n- *Context:* \"Booking\" is used for both temporary and confirmed states, which hides different lifecycles and payment states.\n- *Decision:* Model Hold and Reservation as distinct concepts and retire \"booking\" from code and domain language.\n- *Consequences:* This requires renaming existing references. Each lifecycle can then be reasoned about and tested on its own. The open item is Q1, whether \"booking\" survives in UI copy.\n\n**ADR-002: Holds expire after 10 minutes**\n- *Status:* Accepted (duration). The clock source and extension rules are pending Q2 and Q7.\n- *Decision:* A Hold lasts 10 minutes from creation. After that, its inventory becomes available again.\n- *Consequences:* This bounds how long inventory can be blocked by abandoned sessions. Expiry and confirmation must be handled together (Q5).\n\n**ADR-003: Payment is captured only at Confirmation**\n- *Status:* Accepted. The authorization question is pending Q4.\n- *Decision:* No funds are captured while a Hold exists. Capture happens only during Confirmation.\n- *Consequences:* An expired Hold never needs a refund. Confirmation can fail if capture fails, and that failure path is defined by Q6.\n\n---\n\n**Next step:** answer Q1. Once the naming question is settled, I'll work through Q2–Q9 one at a time and update the drafts as each decision is made.",
    "841b704baa009c3f7ecc98ca03d694542aed9f3a28ee1d985f79c708d11786e5": "The grill-with-docs skill would normally load two helper skills. You asked for no tools, so I'll run the interview and draft the docs here in text.\n\n## What's already settled (from your facts)\n\n- A **hold** lasts 10 minutes.\n- Payment **capture** happens only at confirmation.\n- **\"Booking\"** currently means both a hold and a confirmed reservation. This is the first thing to fix.\n\n## Proposed glossary (draft v0)\n\n| Term | Definition | Status |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Hold** | A temporary claim on inventory that expires 10 minutes after creation unless confirmed. No funds captured. | Proposed |\n| **Reservation** | A confirmed claim on inventory, created when a hold is confirmed and payment is captured. | Proposed |\n| **Confirmation** | The act that turns a hold into a reservation. Payment capture happens at this point and only at this point. | Proposed |\n| **Capture** | Collecting funds from the payment method. | Proposed |\n| **Expiry** | A hold reaching 10 minutes without confirmation, which releases its inventory. | Proposed |\n| ~~**Booking**~~ | **Deprecated.** Ambiguous. Use *Hold* or *Reservation*. | Proposed deprecation |\n\n## Proposed ADRs\n\n**ADR-001: Separate \"Hold\" and \"Reservation\"; retire \"Booking\"**\n- *Context:* \"Booking\" refers to two states with different guarantees: a hold is temporary and unpaid, while a reservation is durable and paid.\n- *Decision:* Use distinct terms (and, pending your answers below, distinct entities or states) in code, APIs, UI, and docs.\n- *Consequences:* Renaming work. Possible API versioning. Support and UI copy must be updated.\n\n**ADR-002: Holds expire after 10 minutes**\n- *Context / Decision:* Fixed 10-minute TTL from creation.\n- *Open:* How expiry is triggered and whether the TTL is configurable (see questions).\n\n**ADR-003: Capture only at confirmation**\n- *Decision:* No capture at hold time.\n- *Open:* Whether you authorize at hold time, and what happens when capture fails (see questions).\n\n## The grilling\n\nEach question has my recommended answer. Accept it, reject it, or modify it.\n\n**Q1. Are a hold and a reservation one entity with a status field, or two separate entities?**\n*Recommendation:* One entity with a state machine (`held → confirmed`, `held → expired`, `held → released`). This keeps one ID and an audit trail. Two entities make sense only if reservations have very different lifecycles or owners.\n\n**Q2. What does the 10 minutes measure from: hold creation, or the user's last activity? Can it be extended?**\n*Recommendation:* From creation, with no extensions. Extensions invite \"hold-squatting\" and complicate inventory guarantees.\n\n**Q3. What happens if confirmation starts at 9:59 and capture finishes at 10:03?**\n*Recommendation:* The hold is valid if confirmation *began* before expiry. Lock the hold during capture so the expiry process can't release it mid-flight. This is the race most likely to cause double-selling or charging for released inventory.\n\n**Q4. Do you authorize (pre-auth) the card at hold time, or touch payment only at confirmation?**\n*Recommendation:* Do nothing at hold time. A 10-minute window doesn't justify the cost of an auth and void. Revisit this if declines at confirmation become common.\n\n**Q5. If capture fails at confirmation, what state does the hold end in?**\n*Recommendation:* It stays `held` until its original expiry, so the user can retry with another card. It never becomes a reservation without a successful capture.\n\n**Q6. How is expiry enforced: a scheduled job, lazy checks on read, or both?**\n*Recommendation:* Both. A lazy check means no stale hold is ever treated as valid. A sweeper job releases the inventory promptly.\n\n**Q7. Can one user hold multiple items or slots at once? Is there a cap?**\n*Recommendation:* Cap active holds per user or session to limit inventory hoarding.\n\n**Q8. Where does the word \"booking\" appear today (DB tables, API fields, UI, analytics events, partner integrations)?**\n*Recommendation:* List these before deciding on the migration. Rename internally first, then keep `booking` as a deprecated alias in external APIs for one version.\n\nStart with **Q1**, since the answer shapes the glossary, ADR-001, and the data model. Once you answer, I'll update the drafts and move on to the next question.",
    "9220b8903b2b243a3cc460447c82db899dfa94d1c31c0942aaacafaf3579bde7": "The skill would normally load the \"grilling\" and \"domain-modeling\" helpers through tools. You asked for no tools, so I'll run the interview and draft the docs directly here.\n\n## Where I'm starting from\n\nThere are three facts:\n1. A hold lasts 10 minutes.\n2. Capture happens only at confirmation.\n3. \"Booking\" currently means both a hold and a confirmed reservation.\n\nFact 3 is the biggest risk. If one word covers two states, people will misread rules like \"a booking expires after 10 minutes\" or \"refund the booking.\" I'd fix the terminology first, because every later decision depends on it.\n\n## The grilling\n\nI've ordered these by how much they block other decisions. Each has my recommended answer, so you can just confirm or correct.\n\n**Q1. Should \"booking\" be retired, or kept as an umbrella term?**\n*Recommendation:* Retire it in code and docs. Use **Hold** for the temporary claim and **Reservation** for the confirmed result. Keeping \"booking\" as a parent term tends to bring the ambiguity back.\n\n**Q2. Does a hold touch payment at all, such as a card authorization, or is it purely an inventory lock?**\n\"Capture only at confirmation\" leaves this open. If you authorize at hold time and capture at confirmation, auth expiry and voiding become part of the design. If nothing happens at hold time, capture at confirmation can fail on a declined card.\n*Recommendation:* Decide explicitly. Either answer is fine, but it needs its own ADR.\n\n**Q3. What happens if capture fails at confirmation?**\nPossible outcomes: the hold stays alive for a retry, the hold is released, or it moves to a \"payment pending\" state.\n*Recommendation:* Keep the hold until its original 10-minute deadline so the user can retry, and never extend it because of the failure.\n\n**Q4. Can a hold be extended or renewed?**\n*Recommendation:* No. A fixed 10 minutes from creation is simpler to reason about and harder to abuse.\n\n**Q5. What decides whether a hold has expired, and how are near-deadline confirmations handled?**\nIf a confirmation arrives at 9:59 and capture finishes at 10:02, which wins?\n*Recommendation:* The server clock is authoritative. A confirmation is valid if it is *accepted* before expiry, and capture can finish afterward. Write this rule down.\n\n**Q6. Is expiry enforced actively or lazily?**\nActive means a sweeper job releases inventory. Lazy means a hold counts as expired once `now > expires_at` when it's read.\n*Recommendation:* Lazy as the source of truth, plus a sweeper for cleanup. Inventory correctness should not depend on a background job running on time.\n\n**Q7. What exactly is held: a specific unit, or a quantity from a pool?**\nThis determines how contention and overselling are prevented.\n\n**Q8. How many concurrent holds can one customer have, and for the same item?**\n\n**Q9. Is confirmation idempotent?**\nA retried or double-clicked confirm should never capture twice.\n*Recommendation:* Yes. Use an idempotency key tied to the hold ID.\n\n**Q10. What states can a Reservation pass through after confirmation, such as cancelled or refunded?**\nAnd what is a cancelled reservation called? It is not a Hold, so it needs a separate state rather than a reused word.\n\n## Proposed documentation\n\n### `docs/glossary.md` (draft)\n\n| Term | Definition | Not to be confused with |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Hold** | A temporary, exclusive claim on inventory. Expires 10 minutes after creation unless confirmed. No payment is captured. | Reservation |\n| **Reservation** | The confirmed result of a Hold, created at confirmation once capture succeeds. | Hold |\n| **Confirmation** | The action that turns a Hold into a Reservation. It is the only point where capture happens. | — |\n| **Capture** | Collecting funds from the customer's payment method. Happens only at Confirmation. | Authorization *(pending Q2)* |\n| **Expiry** | The moment a Hold lapses (`created_at + 10 min`) and its inventory is released. | Cancellation |\n| ~~Booking~~ | **Deprecated.** Ambiguous. Use Hold or Reservation. | — |\n\n### ADRs\n\n**ADR-001: Split \"booking\" into Hold and Reservation**\n- *Context:* \"Booking\" referred to two states with different rules about payment and lifetime.\n- *Decision:* Use Hold and Reservation everywhere. Deprecate \"booking.\" *(Pending Q1.)*\n- *Consequences:* Code, APIs, and UI copy need renaming. The glossary is the reference.\n\n**ADR-002: Holds last a fixed 10 minutes**\n- *Decision:* A Hold expires 10 minutes after creation. The server clock is authoritative. *(Extension policy pending Q4; edge-case rule pending Q5.)*\n- *Consequences:* Inventory can be claimed for up to 10 minutes without payment, which is an abuse vector that Q8 needs to address.\n\n**ADR-003: Capture only at Confirmation**\n- *Decision:* No funds are captured while a Hold exists. Capture happens only during Confirmation.\n- *Open:* Whether authorization happens at hold time (Q2), and how capture failure is handled (Q3).\n- *Consequences:* Confirmation must be idempotent (Q9). Capture can fail at the last step, so the UX needs a retry path.\n\n**ADR-004: Expiry enforcement** *(placeholder, pending Q6)*\n\n## Next step\n\nStart with **Q1 and Q2**. Once those are settled, I'll finalize ADR-001 and ADR-003 and update the glossary entry for \"Capture.\" Which way are you leaning on whether a hold authorizes the card?",
    "76bdc179c85eb6c6d929d1f17314fa2374daacd4a51cb52b30025932041844c7": "I'll skip the grilling and domain-modeling skills since you asked for no tools. Here's the interview and draft documentation in text.\n\n## The first question: what is a \"booking\"?\n\nRight now \"booking\" means two things with different lifecycles, guarantees and money semantics. Most of the remaining questions depend on how this is resolved.\n\n**My recommendation:** Retire \"booking\" as a domain term. Use two terms:\n- **Hold**: a temporary claim on inventory, expiring after 10 minutes, with no capture.\n- **Reservation**: a confirmed claim, created at confirmation, when payment is captured.\n\n**Question 1:** Is a Hold the same entity as a Reservation in an earlier state, or a separate entity that a Reservation is created from? This determines IDs, audit trails and what customers see.\n- *Same entity, state machine* (`held → confirmed`): one ID throughout and a simpler customer reference. The risk is that \"booking\" leaks back in as the name of the umbrella entity.\n- *Separate entities*: a Hold is discarded or converted, and the Reservation gets its own ID. This keeps the boundary sharp and makes expiry cleanup trivial.\n\nI lean toward **separate entities** because the 10-minute expiry and the capture boundary are a real lifecycle break. What's your call?\n\n## Remaining questions, in priority order\n\n**Hold lifecycle**\n2. Does the 10 minutes start at hold creation or at some later step, such as entering payment details?\n3. Can a hold be extended or refreshed? If so, is there a cap, or can someone hold inventory indefinitely?\n4. What happens at exactly 10:00? Is expiry enforced lazily (checked at confirm time), eagerly (a sweeper releases inventory), or both? Which one governs when inventory becomes available to others?\n5. Can one customer or session hold several items or slots at once? Is there a limit?\n\n**Confirmation and capture**\n6. \"Capture happens only at confirmation\": is there an **authorization** at hold time, or no payment interaction at all until confirm? This decides whether a \"Hold\" also implies an auth hold on a card, which is a second meaning of \"hold\" to deal with.\n7. If confirmation starts at 9:59 and capture finishes at 10:03, does it succeed? Is the deadline measured at confirm request or at capture completion?\n8. If capture fails, does the hold survive (with its remaining time) so the user can retry, or does it die?\n9. If capture succeeds but writing the reservation fails, what is the compensation: refund, retry, or manual reconciliation?\n\n**Domain boundaries**\n10. After a Reservation is cancelled, what is it called? Is cancellation a state or a separate concept, such as a Refund?\n11. Do any external parties (partners, the UI, emails, the accounting system) already say \"booking\"? If so, do we keep \"booking\" at the edges and translate, or rename everywhere?\n\n## Proposed documentation\n\n### Glossary (`docs/glossary.md`)\n\n| Term | Definition | Not to be confused with |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Hold** | A temporary, exclusive claim on inventory lasting 10 minutes. No payment is captured. | A card *authorization hold* (pending Q6) |\n| **Hold expiry** | The moment a Hold lapses and its inventory is released. | |\n| **Confirmation** | The act of converting a valid Hold into a Reservation, which triggers capture. | |\n| **Capture** | Collecting payment. Happens only at Confirmation. | Authorization |\n| **Reservation** | A confirmed claim on inventory with captured payment. | Hold |\n| ~~Booking~~ | **Deprecated.** Ambiguous: it was used for both Hold and Reservation. Do not use in code, APIs or docs. | |\n\n### ADR-001: Split \"booking\" into Hold and Reservation\n\n- **Status:** Proposed\n- **Context:** \"Booking\" refers to both a temporary hold and a confirmed reservation. The two differ in duration, inventory guarantee and payment state, which causes ambiguity in code, analytics and conversations.\n- **Decision:** Introduce *Hold* and *Reservation* as distinct terms and deprecate *booking*. [Pending Q1: Hold and Reservation are separate entities / states of one entity.]\n- **Consequences:** Renames are needed across code and APIs. External-facing \"booking\" is either kept with translation at the boundary or migrated (pending Q11). Metrics such as \"bookings per day\" must be redefined explicitly.\n\n### ADR-002: Holds expire after 10 minutes\n\n- **Status:** Accepted (from the supplied facts); details pending\n- **Decision:** A Hold is valid for 10 minutes from [creation, pending Q2]. Extension: [pending Q3]. Expiry is enforced by [pending Q4].\n- **Consequences:** Inventory availability must account for active Holds. The confirmation deadline semantics (Q7) need to be explicit.\n\n### ADR-003: Payment is captured only at Confirmation\n\n- **Status:** Accepted (from the supplied facts); details pending\n- **Decision:** No capture occurs while a Hold exists. Capture happens as part of Confirmation. [Pending Q6: authorization at Hold time yes/no.]\n- **Consequences:** Abandoned Holds create no payment liability. Confirmation must handle capture failure (Q8) and partial failure (Q9).\n\nAnswer Q1 first, and I'll update ADR-001 and move on to Q2.",
    "44c1e978ca0b2e7eb13781fbacafdcc2a6424d39c493da2a563736b0d54ef9ec": "# Reservation Design Interview\n\nYou've given me three facts. I'll treat them as fixed decisions and ask about what they leave open. Answer whichever questions you can. Unanswered ones become open items in the docs below.\n\n**Established facts**\n- F1: A hold lasts 10 minutes.\n- F2: Payment is captured only at confirmation.\n- F3: \"Booking\" currently means both a hold and a confirmed reservation. This is a problem to fix, not a decision to keep.\n\n## Interview questions\n\n### A. Terminology (most urgent, because of F3)\n1. Which name do you want for each concept? My suggestion is **Hold** for the temporary claim and **Reservation** for the confirmed result. \"Booking\" would then be retired, or used only as an informal umbrella term.\n2. Where does \"booking\" appear today: UI copy, API paths, database tables, events, analytics, support scripts? Do you rename everywhere, or only in new code and docs?\n3. Is a Reservation a new record created from a Hold, or the same record with its state changed?\n\n### B. Hold lifecycle (F1)\n4. When does the 10 minutes start: hold creation, first payment attempt, or something else? Which clock is authoritative, server or database?\n5. Can a hold be extended or renewed? Can a user hold more than one item, or hold the same item twice?\n6. When a hold expires, how is inventory released: an eager background job, lazy checks on read, or both? What delay is acceptable?\n7. Is 10 minutes a fixed constant or configurable per product, channel, or tenant?\n\n### C. Confirmation and payment (F2)\n8. Does anything happen to payment during the hold, such as card authorization or tokenization? Or is the payment method first touched at confirmation?\n9. If a user confirms at 9:59 and capture takes 5 seconds, does the hold win? In other words, is expiry checked at the start of confirmation or at its end?\n10. If capture fails, does the hold stay alive for a retry, or is it released immediately?\n11. If capture succeeds but persisting the Reservation fails, what happens? Do you refund automatically, run a reconciliation job, or alert someone manually?\n12. Is confirmation idempotent? For example, does a client retry with the same key return the same Reservation without capturing twice?\n\n### D. Concurrency and inventory\n13. Does a Hold reduce available inventory? Can two holds overlap on the last unit?\n14. What guarantees there's no double-sell: row lock, conditional update, or unique constraint?\n\n### E. After confirmation\n15. What are the cancellation and refund rules for a Reservation? Is there a state between \"confirmed\" and \"cancelled\", such as \"modified\"?\n16. Who needs to see expired holds afterward, if anyone: analytics, fraud, support? How long are they retained?\n\n## Proposed documentation\n\nI'd use three artifacts: a glossary, a short set of decision records, and a state model. Facts you gave are filled in. Everything else is marked **OPEN** until you answer.\n\n### 1. `docs/glossary.md`\n| Term | Definition | Notes |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Hold** | Temporary claim on inventory, valid for 10 minutes. No payment captured. | Replaces \"booking\" in its temporary sense |\n| **Reservation** | Confirmed claim created at confirmation, after successful capture. | Replaces \"booking\" in its confirmed sense |\n| **Confirmation** | The action that turns a Hold into a Reservation and triggers capture. | |\n| **Capture** | Collecting funds from the customer. Happens only at Confirmation. | |\n| ~~Booking~~ | **Deprecated.** Ambiguous: meant both Hold and Reservation. | Migration scope: OPEN (Q2) |\n\n### 2. `docs/decisions/` (one short record per decision)\nEach record uses the same template: **Context**, **Decision**, **Consequences**, **Status**, **Date**.\n\n- **ADR-001: Separate the terms Hold and Reservation.**\n  - Context: \"booking\" was overloaded, which causes bugs and confusion for support.\n  - Decision: use the glossary terms above.\n  - Status: Proposed, pending Q1–Q3.\n- **ADR-002: Hold duration is 10 minutes.**\n  - Status: Accepted.\n  - OPEN: when the timer starts, the authoritative clock, extension rules, configurability (Q4, Q5, Q7).\n- **ADR-003: Capture only at Confirmation.**\n  - Status: Accepted.\n  - Consequence: no funds move for holds that expire.\n  - OPEN: authorization during the hold (Q8), and the failure and partial-failure handling (Q10, Q11).\n- **ADR-004: Expiry boundary during Confirmation.**\n  - OPEN (Q9). This is the most likely source of edge-case bugs, so it deserves its own record.\n- **ADR-005: Idempotency and double-sell prevention.**\n  - OPEN (Q12–Q14).\n\n### 3. `docs/reservation-lifecycle.md`\nA state model the code and tests can be checked against:\n\n```\nHold:        ACTIVE ──(10 min elapsed)──▶ EXPIRED\n               │\n               └─(confirm + capture OK)──▶ CONVERTED ─▶ Reservation: CONFIRMED\n               └─(capture fails)─────────▶ OPEN (Q10)\n\nReservation: CONFIRMED ─▶ CANCELLED / other states: OPEN (Q15)\n```\n\n### Keeping the docs useful\n- Each OPEN item links to its question number. When you answer one, the matching ADR goes from Proposed to Accepted.\n- A decision is changed by writing a new ADR that supersedes the old one, never by editing the accepted one. That keeps the reasoning history.\n- Optional: add a review checklist item that new code, API fields, and UI copy use \"Hold\" or \"Reservation\", never \"booking\".\n\nIf you'd like to start with the highest-impact questions, I'd pick **Q1, Q9, and Q11**: naming, the expiry race at confirmation, and capture succeeding while persistence fails.",
    "7ea45e209e162f31caa5c7544896d2f88464166568a45374e13b3e626beb8f36": "# Reservation Design: Interview and Documentation Proposal\n\nFrom your facts, the most urgent issue is that **\"booking\" means two different things**. A hold is temporary, unpaid and expires. A confirmed reservation is durable and paid. Using one word for both is how bugs like \"we charged an expired booking\" or \"the report double-counted inventory\" happen. I'll treat fixing that as decision #1 and interview around the rest.\n\n## What I'm treating as settled\n\n| # | Fact | Source |\n|---|------|--------|\n| F1 | A hold lasts 10 minutes. | You |\n| F2 | Payment is captured only at confirmation. | You |\n| F3 | \"Booking\" currently refers to both holds and confirmed reservations. | You |\n\nEverything else below is a question, not an assumption.\n\n## Interview\n\nI've ordered these so earlier answers unblock later ones. Short answers are fine. \"Don't know yet\" is also useful, because I'll record it as an open question.\n\n### A. Vocabulary (blocks everything else)\n1. Can we retire \"booking\" as a technical term? My proposal is **Hold** for the 10-minute provisional claim and **Reservation** for the confirmed, captured commitment. Do you prefer other words, for example because your domain or customers already use one?\n2. Where does \"booking\" appear today: UI copy, API fields, database tables, analytics events, support scripts? This tells us whether a rename is cheap or needs a migration plan.\n3. If customer-facing copy keeps saying \"booking,\" is that acceptable as long as code and docs use the precise terms?\n\n### B. The 10-minute hold\n4. When does the clock start: when the hold is created, or when the user reaches checkout?\n5. Is it a fixed 10 minutes or a configurable default? Can it ever be extended, for example while a 3-D Secure challenge is in progress?\n6. Can one user hold several items or slots at once? Can they hold the same one twice?\n7. Is expiry exact (a hold is invalid at 10:00.001) or eventual (a sweeper releases it within N seconds)? Which side has to be strict: inventory or the confirm call?\n8. What does the user see at expiry? Silent release, a warning at T-minus-something, or nothing?\n\n### C. Payment and confirmation\n9. Before capture, do you **authorize** anything (an auth-then-capture flow), or is there no payment interaction at all until confirmation?\n10. If confirmation starts at 9:58 and capture finishes at 10:03, who wins? Is the hold frozen once confirmation begins?\n11. If capture fails, does the hold survive so the user can retry? Does it survive until the original deadline or for some grace period?\n12. If capture succeeds but writing the reservation fails, what is the recovery: automatic refund, retry with an idempotency key, or manual reconciliation?\n13. Does confirmation need to be idempotent? For example, can a double-click or a client retry happen?\n\n### D. Inventory and concurrency\n14. Does a hold decrement available inventory? I assume yes, otherwise it isn't really a hold, but please confirm.\n15. What is the oversell policy: never, or tolerated within a buffer?\n16. Is there a per-user or per-session limit on active holds, to prevent hoarding?\n\n### E. Lifecycle after confirmation\n17. Can a reservation be cancelled? Is it refunded, partially refunded, or neither?\n18. Can a reservation be modified, and does a modification create a new hold?\n19. Are there other states I should know about, such as no-show, completed, or disputed?\n\n### F. Ownership and change\n20. Who owns these rules: product, payments, or ops? Who has to approve a change to the 10-minute value?\n21. Are there regulatory or contractual reasons behind any of this? For example, does the payment processor require capture within some window?\n\n## Proposed documentation\n\nI suggest three small artifacts. Each one guards against a different way decisions get lost.\n\n### 1. Glossary (`docs/glossary.md`)\nThis stops the \"booking\" ambiguity from coming back.\n\n```markdown\n# Reservation Glossary\n\n**Hold** — A provisional, unpaid claim on inventory. Expires 10 minutes\nafter creation (see ADR-002). Never involves payment capture.\n\n**Reservation** — A confirmed commitment. Exists only after successful\npayment capture (see ADR-003).\n\n**Confirmation** — The act that converts a Hold into a Reservation.\nThe only point at which capture occurs.\n\n**Booking** — DEPRECATED as a technical term. Ambiguous between Hold and\nReservation. Do not use in code, schemas, events, or docs. Customer-facing\ncopy: <decision pending, Q3>.\n```\n\n### 2. Architecture Decision Records (`docs/adr/`)\nThese keep the *why*, so nobody quietly changes 10 minutes to 15 without knowing what depended on it.\n\n- **ADR-001: Separate Hold and Reservation terminology.** Status: Proposed.\n- **ADR-002: Hold duration is 10 minutes.** Status: Accepted (fact F1). Rationale: *pending, ask Q20/Q21*. Open questions: Q4, Q5, Q7.\n- **ADR-003: Capture only at confirmation.** Status: Accepted (fact F2). Open questions: Q9–Q13.\n\nTemplate:\n```markdown\n# ADR-NNN: <title>\nStatus: Proposed | Accepted | Superseded by ADR-XXX\nDate: YYYY-MM-DD\nOwner: <name/team>\n\n## Context\n## Decision\n## Consequences (what this makes easy / hard / forbidden)\n## Open questions\n## Alternatives considered\n```\n\n### 3. State model (`docs/reservation-lifecycle.md`)\nA single diagram that every team points to:\n\n```\n          create                confirm + capture OK\n (none) ────────► HOLD ──────────────────────────────► RESERVATION\n                   │                                        │\n         10 min    │  capture failed → <Q11: retry? release?>│ cancel → <Q17>\n                   ▼                                        ▼\n                EXPIRED                                 CANCELLED\n```\n\nEach transition should list who triggers it, its preconditions, and whether it is idempotent.\n\n### Keeping it alive\n- Put the glossary and ADRs in the repo next to the code, not in a wiki, so changes go through review.\n- Add a lint or CI check that flags new uses of `booking` in identifiers. This is cheap and enforces ADR-001.\n- Make the hold duration a single named constant (`HOLD_TTL`) and link ADR-002 in a comment where it's defined.\n\n**Where to start:** please answer Section A (Q1–Q3) and Q9–Q11. Those are the answers that most change what the documents will say. Once I have them, I'll fill in the ADRs and the diagram.",
    "aa8cc56953c5c8ef8dab3d58f67ccde5285c9c6226cf20c4093a2d5e50ecbc2e": "# Reservation Design Interview\n\n## What's already settled\n\n- **A hold lasts 10 minutes.**\n- **Payment capture happens only at confirmation.**\n- **\"Booking\" is ambiguous.** It currently means both a hold and a confirmed reservation.\n\nThe ambiguity is the biggest risk. It will leak into code, APIs, analytics (\"bookings per day\" could double-count), and support conversations. I suggest fixing it first.\n\n---\n\n## Round 1: Terminology (please answer these first)\n\n1. **Naming.** I propose these terms:\n   - **Hold**: temporary, unpaid, expires after 10 minutes.\n   - **Reservation**: confirmed and captured.\n   - **Booking**: retired, or kept only as a user-facing umbrella word.\n\n   Do you accept these, or do you want different names?\n2. **External use of \"booking.\"** Is \"booking\" already in public APIs, database tables, emails, or reporting? That decides whether we rename everything or keep a documented alias.\n3. **Customer-facing language.** Do customers see a hold? If so, what do they call it (\"your seat is held,\" \"pending\")?\n\n## Round 2: Hold lifecycle\n\n4. **Clock start.** Does the 10 minutes start when inventory is reserved, or when the customer reaches checkout?\n5. **Extensions.** Can a hold be extended or refreshed (for example, while a payment page is open, or on 3-D Secure delays)? If yes, by whom, how many times, and is there a cap?\n6. **Expiry mechanism.** When does inventory actually return to the pool: at exactly 10:00, lazily on next read, or via a background sweeper? What grace window is acceptable?\n7. **Concurrent holds.** Can one customer hold multiple items or slots at once? Is there a per-customer limit to prevent inventory hoarding?\n8. **Release.** Can a customer release a hold explicitly, or does it only expire?\n\n## Round 3: Confirmation and capture\n\n9. **Race at the boundary.** If confirmation arrives at 9:59 but capture completes at 10:02, is the reservation valid? Which timestamp is authoritative?\n10. **Authorization vs. capture.** \"Capture only at confirmation\" suggests nothing is charged during the hold. Is there an authorization during the hold, or no payment interaction at all until confirm?\n11. **Capture failure.** If capture fails at confirmation:\n    - Does the hold survive so the customer can retry?\n    - Is it released immediately?\n    - Does it keep its original expiry?\n12. **Atomicity.** Is \"confirmed\" defined as *capture succeeded*, or can a reservation exist in a confirmed-but-capture-pending state (for example, with async payment providers)?\n13. **Idempotency.** How do we prevent double capture if the confirm request is retried?\n\n## Round 4: After confirmation\n\n14. **Cancellation and refunds.** Are cancellation and refunds in scope for this design, or documented separately?\n15. **Modification.** Does changing a reservation (date, quantity) create a new hold?\n\n## Round 5: Ownership and constraints\n\n16. **Decision owners.** Who owns these decisions, and who approves changes (for example, changing 10 minutes to 15)?\n17. **Configurability.** Should the 10-minute duration be configurable per product, tenant, or environment, or fixed by policy?\n18. **Compliance.** Are there regulatory or payment-provider constraints, such as authorization validity windows or SCA requirements, that drove the 10-minute choice?\n\n---\n\n## Proposed documentation\n\nI'd keep it to three artifacts plus a lightweight change process.\n\n### 1. Glossary (`docs/glossary.md`)\nThis is the single source of truth for terms. It should be short and normative.\n\n| Term | Definition | Notes |\n|---|---|---|\n| Hold | Temporary claim on inventory, no payment captured, expires 10 min after creation *(start point TBD, Q4)* | Not a reservation |\n| Reservation | Confirmed claim; payment captured at confirmation | — |\n| Booking | **Deprecated** internally. *(Usage TBD, Q1–2)* | Don't use in new code or docs |\n| Confirmation | Transition from Hold to Reservation; the moment capture occurs | — |\n\n### 2. Architecture Decision Records (`docs/adr/`)\nUse one decision per file, in the format: Context → Decision → Consequences → Status → Date → Owner. Starting set:\n\n- **ADR-001: Separate the terms Hold and Reservation.** Retires the overloaded \"booking.\"\n- **ADR-002: Hold duration is 10 minutes.** Records the reason for 10 minutes (pending Q18), the extension policy (Q5), and configurability (Q17).\n- **ADR-003: Capture occurs only at confirmation.** Records whether there's a prior authorization (Q10), the failure behavior (Q11), and the definition of \"confirmed\" (Q12).\n- **ADR-004: Expiry and boundary semantics.** Covers the authoritative timestamp, the race handling, and the release mechanism (Q6, Q9).\n\nSuperseded ADRs are kept and marked \"Superseded by ADR-00N,\" never edited away. That history is what preserves decisions.\n\n### 3. Lifecycle state diagram (`docs/reservation-lifecycle.md`)\nThis is one diagram plus a transition table. A provisional draft from the known facts:\n\n```\n[Hold] --confirm + capture succeeds--> [Reservation]\n[Hold] --10 min elapses-------------> [Expired]\n[Hold] --capture fails--------------> ??? (Q11)\n[Hold] --customer releases----------> [Released]  (if Q8 = yes)\n```\n\nEach transition lists its trigger, guard conditions, side effects (inventory, payment), and the ADR that justifies it.\n\n### 4. Change rule (in the README or CONTRIBUTING)\n> Any change to hold duration, capture timing, or state transitions requires a new or superseding ADR and a glossary/lifecycle update in the same change.\n\n---\n\n**Next step:** answer Round 1 (Q1–3) and Q9–12 first. Those determine ADR-001 and ADR-003 and unblock the state diagram. I'll then draft the full text of each document from your answers.",
    "b2a9022b402a3b5c0da5310d6f802d7458c9ecb5a48c9ee32ff1f8c1f43269cf": "# Reservation Design: Interview + Documentation Proposal\n\n## What's established\n\n1. **A hold lasts 10 minutes.**\n2. **Payment capture happens only at confirmation.**\n3. **\"Booking\" currently means both a hold and a confirmed reservation.** This ambiguity is the most urgent issue. Any question below about a \"booking\" is unanswerable until we know which one it means.\n\nMy working proposal is to retire \"booking\" as a technical term and use **Hold** (temporary, uncaptured) and **Reservation** (confirmed, captured). I'll use those terms below. Push back if you prefer others.\n\n---\n\n## Interview\n\nI've ordered the questions by how much they block the rest of the design. Answer in any order. \"Undecided\" is a useful answer because it tells us what to record as open.\n\n### A. Terminology (blocking)\n1. Do you accept *Hold* and *Reservation* as the two terms? If not, what do you want to call them?\n2. Is \"booking\" used anywhere you can't change, such as the public API, the database schema, customer-facing UI, or partner contracts? If so, should it stay as a **user-facing umbrella word only** and be banned in code and docs?\n3. Is there a third state people informally call a \"booking\", such as a cancelled or expired record, or a waitlist entry?\n\n### B. Hold lifecycle\n4. When does the 10-minute clock start: when inventory is reserved, when the user reaches checkout, or at some other point?\n5. Is 10 minutes fixed, or configurable per product, channel, or partner?\n6. Can a hold be **extended**, for example while the user is in a 3-D Secure challenge? If so, how many times and by how much?\n7. At minute 10, is expiry **enforced by a job, checked lazily on read, or both**? What is the acceptable lag before inventory is released?\n8. Can one user hold multiple items or slots at once? Is there a per-user or per-session cap to prevent inventory hoarding?\n9. Can a hold be released early, either explicitly by the user or by abandoning the session?\n\n### C. Payment\n10. Since capture happens only at confirmation, is there an **authorization** during the hold, or is no payment instrument touched until confirmation?\n11. If there is an authorization, what happens to it when the hold expires: void it immediately or let it lapse? Who owns that cleanup?\n12. If capture fails at confirmation, does the hold survive for a retry? Does the 10-minute clock keep running during the retry?\n13. Is confirmation plus capture **atomic** from the user's perspective? What happens if capture succeeds but the confirmation write fails, or the reverse?\n\n### D. The expiry/confirmation race\n14. A user clicks \"confirm\" at 9:59 and capture finishes at 10:03. Does the reservation stand? What is the rule: is the hold judged by when confirmation was *requested* or when it *completed*?\n15. Is there a grace window, and is it visible to users?\n16. What guarantees there's no double-sell if expiry releases inventory while a confirmation is in flight?\n\n### E. After confirmation\n17. Can reservations be cancelled or modified? Do refunds follow?\n18. Does modifying a reservation create a new hold, for example when changing dates?\n\n### F. Ownership and evidence\n19. Who decides these rules: product, finance, legal? Who needs to sign off on changes?\n20. Were there incidents or rejected alternatives behind \"capture only at confirmation\" or \"10 minutes\"? Recording *why* matters as much as recording *what*.\n\n---\n\n## Proposed documentation\n\nKeep it small, living in the repo next to the code, and reviewed in PRs.\n\n### 1. `docs/glossary.md` (write first)\n| Term | Definition | Not to be confused with |\n|---|---|---|\n| Hold | Temporary claim on inventory, max 10 min, no captured payment | Reservation |\n| Reservation | Confirmed claim; payment captured at confirmation | Hold |\n| Booking | *Deprecated in code/docs.* User-facing umbrella only (pending Q2) | — |\n\nIt should also include a short rule: *\"New code, tables, events, and docs must say Hold or Reservation.\"*\n\n### 2. `docs/reservation-lifecycle.md`\nThis holds the state machine, the single source of truth for transitions:\n\n```\n          create            confirm + capture OK\n  (none) ───────► HOLD ───────────────────────► RESERVATION\n                   │  │                              │\n          10 min   │  │ release / capture fail*      │ cancel\n                   ▼  ▼                              ▼\n                EXPIRED / RELEASED              CANCELLED\n```\n`*` Pending Q12.\n\nFor each transition, list the trigger, preconditions, side effects (inventory and payment), and idempotency key.\n\n### 3. `docs/adr/` (Architecture Decision Records)\nWrite one short record per decision, using **Context → Decision → Consequences → Alternatives rejected → Status**. These are seeded from what we know:\n- **ADR-001: Hold duration is 10 minutes.** Open: start point, configurability, extensions (Q4–6).\n- **ADR-002: Payment is captured only at confirmation.** Open: authorization during hold, failure handling (Q10–13).\n- **ADR-003: Split \"booking\" into Hold and Reservation.** Status: *Proposed*, pending Q1–3.\n- **ADR-004: Expiry vs. confirmation race rule.** Status: *Open* (Q14–16). This is the one most likely to cause real bugs.\n\nADRs are append-only. When a decision changes, write a new ADR that supersedes the old one rather than editing it.\n\n### 4. `docs/open-questions.md`\nThis tracks every \"undecided\" answer from the interview with an owner and a target date. Items graduate into ADRs once they're decided.\n\n### Keeping it from drifting\n- Put the 10-minute value in **one named constant or config key** and have the ADR cite it.\n- Add a test asserting the hold TTL and a test for the race rule, each referencing its ADR number.\n- Optionally, add a lint or grep check that flags the word `booking` in new code.\n\n---\n\n**Next step:** answer section A (terminology) first. Once those three answers are settled I can turn ADR-003 and the glossary into final text, and the remaining sections will be much easier to answer unambiguously.",
    "24f55fce99d7b1c1e62297df5b225c352c2b4f80f250a2a2006921cd1701a01d": "# Reservation Design Interview\n\nThe ambiguity worth fixing first is that **\"booking\" names two different things**: a temporary hold and a confirmed reservation. They differ in lifetime, money movement, and failure modes, so the shared name will cause bugs and confused conversations. Below are the questions I'd ask, a proposed vocabulary, and the documents to record your answers.\n\n## Proposed vocabulary (to confirm or reject)\n\n| Term | Meaning | Money |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Hold** | Temporary claim on inventory, expires after 10 minutes | Not captured. Is it authorized? (Q4) |\n| **Reservation** | Confirmed, durable commitment | Captured at confirmation |\n| **Confirmation** | The transition from Hold to Reservation | Capture happens here |\n| **Booking** | Retired, or kept only as a user-facing umbrella term (Q1) | n/a |\n\n## Interview questions\n\nAnswer whichever you can. \"Undecided\" is a useful answer because it marks an open decision.\n\n**Terminology**\n1. Should \"booking\" be retired from code and APIs, or kept as a customer-facing word only? If kept, what does it mean to a customer?\n2. Do \"Hold\" and \"Reservation\" work for you, or do existing names (e.g. \"pending\", \"cart\", \"order\") already have a foothold?\n\n**Hold lifecycle**\n3. Does the 10 minutes start at hold creation, or at some later point such as entering payment details? Is it fixed, or configurable per product, channel, or tenant?\n4. During a hold, is anything done with the payment method: nothing, a card authorization, or tokenization only?\n5. Can a hold be extended or refreshed (e.g. user activity, a payment step in progress)? If so, is there a maximum?\n6. Can one user or session hold several items at once? Is there a cap on concurrent holds?\n7. What happens at expiry? Is inventory released immediately, or by a sweep job? Is the user notified?\n\n**Confirmation and capture**\n8. What triggers confirmation: user action, payment-provider callback, or both?\n9. If capture succeeds but confirmation fails (or the reverse), what is the recovery path? Which one is the source of truth?\n10. What happens if confirmation arrives after expiry, for example a slow payment callback at 10:05? Reject and refund, honor it if inventory is still free, or honor it unconditionally?\n11. Is capture idempotent? What key prevents double capture on retries?\n\n**Inventory and concurrency**\n12. Does a hold make inventory unavailable to others, or is inventory only decremented at confirmation?\n13. When two users race for the last unit, who wins, and where is that enforced (database constraint, lock, queue)?\n\n**Afterwards**\n14. Can a reservation be cancelled or modified? Does that involve refunds, and does it return inventory?\n15. Do you need an audit trail of every state transition, and how long must it be kept?\n\n## Proposed documentation\n\n**1. Glossary (`docs/glossary.md`)**\nHolds the canonical terms from the table above, any banned or deprecated terms (\"booking\" → use Hold or Reservation), and a mapping from customer-facing words to domain terms. This is the cheapest and most effective fix for the naming drift.\n\n**2. State model (`docs/reservation-lifecycle.md`)**\nA state diagram plus a transition table.\n```\nHold(active) --confirm+capture ok--> Reservation(confirmed)\nHold(active) --10 min elapsed-----> Hold(expired)\nHold(active) --user cancels-------> Hold(released)\nReservation  --cancel-------------> Reservation(cancelled)   [pending Q14]\n```\nFor each transition, record the trigger, guards, side effects (inventory, payment), and idempotency rules.\n\n**3. Architecture Decision Records (`docs/adr/NNNN-title.md`)**\nOne short record per decision, with the sections Context / Decision / Consequences / Status. Initial candidates:\n- **ADR-0001: Holds expire after 10 minutes** (status: accepted). Pending: start point, configurability, extensions (Q3, Q5).\n- **ADR-0002: Payment is captured only at confirmation** (status: accepted). Pending: whether holds authorize (Q4).\n- **ADR-0003: Split \"booking\" into Hold and Reservation** (status: proposed, depends on Q1–Q2).\n- **ADR-0004: Late confirmation policy** (status: open, Q10).\n- **ADR-0005: Capture/confirmation consistency and idempotency** (status: open, Q9, Q11).\n\nADRs are append-only. A changed decision gets a new ADR that supersedes the old one, which keeps the reason for each change.\n\n**4. Open questions log**\nAny unanswered item from the list above goes here, with an owner. It is promoted to an ADR once it is decided.\n\n## Suggested next step\n\nAnswer Q1, Q4, and Q10 first. The terminology decision (Q1) unblocks the glossary. Q4 and Q10 have the most direct impact on money and customer experience. Once I have those, I can draft the glossary and ADRs 0001 through 0004 here in text.",
    "35531ec82d0097bad82ff41595aae020cf86bd0b9337a489418eaf961b26c588": "## ADR: Cancelled reservations are retained as tombstones\n\n**Status:** Accepted\n\n**Context**\nAudit exports reference reservations by identity. If a cancelled reservation were hard-deleted, any export that references it would point at a record that no longer exists. That breaks traceability and the integrity of the audit trail.\n\n**Decision**\nCancelling a reservation does not delete it. The reservation is kept as a **tombstone**: a record marked as cancelled whose identity stays permanently resolvable. Audit exports can therefore always dereference it.\n\n**Consequences**\n- Reservation identifiers are never reused.\n- Reads that mean \"active reservations\" must exclude tombstones explicitly. \"All reservations\" is no longer the same set as \"live reservations.\"\n- Storage grows with cancellations as well as bookings.\n- A tombstone is not the same thing as a deletion. Any future hard-delete path, such as one for legal erasure, needs its own decision.\n\n**Glossary**\n- **Tombstone:** A cancelled reservation that is kept so that references to it still resolve. It is not bookable and not active.\n\n---\n\n**Open question on retention:**\nHow long must a tombstone be kept? Indefinitely, or only as long as the longest-lived audit export that references it? If there is a limit, what happens to the tombstone when it expires? We could purge it entirely, or strip it down to a minimal stub (ID, cancellation timestamp, reason) that drops personal data but still resolves for old exports.",
    "23ee55e765e0022a63f52e3bb58fb0060ff31c0cd1ad7f5308ece52f6a2b0224": "Here's the decision note I'd preserve, in ADR form:\n\n---\n\n### ADR: Cancelled reservations are kept as tombstones\n\n**Status:** Accepted\n\n**Context**\nAudit exports reference reservations by identity. If a cancelled reservation were hard-deleted, any export that referenced it would point to a record that no longer exists. That would break the audit trail and make past exports impossible to verify.\n\n**Decision**\nCancelling a reservation does not delete it. The record stays as a **tombstone**: it is marked cancelled, it keeps its identifier, and it remains resolvable by anything that references it, including audit exports. Tombstones are excluded from active-reservation views and queries.\n\n**Consequences**\n- Audit exports stay referentially intact, both past and future ones.\n- Storage grows with cancellations, because nothing is reclaimed when a reservation is cancelled.\n- Every read path for \"live\" reservations must filter out tombstones explicitly.\n- Retention and purge policy for tombstones is still undecided (see below).\n\n**Glossary**\n- **Tombstone:** a cancelled reservation that is kept so references to it still resolve. It is not an active reservation and cannot be reinstated as one.\n\n---\n\n**Remaining question on retention:**\nDo tombstones need to be kept forever, or only as long as the audit exports that reference them are retained? If audit exports have a defined retention period, for example a regulatory window, can a tombstone be purged once every export referencing it has expired? Or must it outlive the exports for some other reason, such as disputes or legal holds?",
    "e9d88fcbb36fd634c9cc0b4bf7e96981bf7a1c094c4cfeb9dcc31ad173a88cb4": "**ADR: Cancelled reservations are retained as tombstones**\n\n**Status:** Accepted\n\n**Context:** Audit exports reference reservations by identity. If we hard-delete cancelled reservations, those references dangle and the export can't be reconciled against our records.\n\n**Decision:** When a reservation is cancelled, we keep it as a tombstone rather than deleting the row. The record stays resolvable by its ID and is marked as cancelled.\n\n**Consequences:**\n- Audit exports stay referentially intact.\n- Every query that lists active reservations has to filter out tombstones explicitly.\n- Storage grows with cancellations until some retention policy exists.\n\n**Glossary:** *Tombstone*: a cancelled reservation that we keep only so references to it still resolve. It is not an active booking.\n\n---\n\n**Remaining question on retention:**\nHow long does a tombstone have to outlive the newest audit export that references it? Does that window come from a regulatory or contractual requirement, and when it ends, do we purge the whole record or reduce it to a minimal stub (ID, cancellation timestamp, status) so old exports still resolve?",
    "bb40e25db8a30c73c4ee9dd18df2da172b7afa031eb32358fa8de659f03b12f3": "**Decision: Cancelled reservations are retained as tombstones**\n\n**Status:** Accepted\n\n**Context:** Audit exports reference reservations by identity. A hard delete on cancellation would leave dangling references in those exports and break audit traceability.\n\n**Decision:** A cancelled reservation is not deleted. It stays as a tombstone record, marked cancelled, so that every reservation referenced by an audit export still resolves.\n\n**Consequences:**\n- Reservation storage grows with cancellations, not just with active bookings.\n- Queries for live reservations must exclude tombstones explicitly.\n- Any future purge or cleanup job must account for audit-export references before removing records.\n\n---\n\n**Open question on retention:** How long must a tombstone be kept? Indefinitely, or only until every audit export that references it has passed its own retention period? And if tombstones can eventually be purged, should they first be reduced to the minimum fields that audits need, for privacy or data-minimization reasons?",
    "f33584850f72196b97c86b2fc216a9e8c46316640d5b73c4cd58a036b1588bbe": "**Decision: Cancelled reservations are retained as tombstones**\n\n**Status:** Accepted\n\n**Decision:** When a reservation is cancelled, it is not hard-deleted. Its record stays in place, marked as cancelled (a tombstone).\n\n**Rationale:** Audit exports reference reservations by identity. Hard deletion would leave those references dangling and break the integrity of past and future exports.\n\n**Consequences:**\n- Queries for active reservations must filter out tombstoned records explicitly.\n- Storage grows with cancellations rather than staying flat.\n- Cancelled reservation IDs must never be reused.\n\n---\n\n**Open question on retention:** Do tombstones need to be kept forever? Or can they be purged once no retained audit export can reference them anymore? If they can be purged, what is the governing retention period, and is it set by audit or regulatory requirements? A related point is whether a purge would keep a minimal stub (ID and cancellation timestamp) instead of removing the record entirely.",
    "19d2acfcb646cabcef5825060c584320f80d8027e696206c59011d281a74e03e": "**Decision: Cancelled reservations are retained as tombstones**\n\n**Status:** Accepted\n\n**Context:** Audit exports reference reservations by ID. Hard-deleting a cancelled reservation would leave those export references dangling. Historical audits would then become unverifiable.\n\n**Decision:** When a reservation is cancelled, its record stays in place and is marked as cancelled (a tombstone). It is not deleted.\n\n**Consequences:**\n- Audit exports stay referentially intact. Every exported reservation ID still resolves to a record.\n- Queries for active reservations must filter out tombstones explicitly.\n- Storage grows with every cancellation, because tombstones are never removed automatically.\n\n---\n\n**Open question on retention:** How long must a tombstone be kept? Is there a point, such as when the audit exports that reference it expire or are purged, where it can be safely hard-deleted? Or is retention indefinite? Connected to that: does any personal data on a cancelled reservation need to be scrubbed sooner, for privacy or data-minimization reasons, while the tombstone itself remains?",
    "d71e055c6b25e6d58a6162da64c5a27c325fbb110d6c497b8632be9b9fb9d803": "Per your instructions I'm not calling the grilling/domain-modeling skills or writing files. Below is the interview and the note status, in text only.\n\n## Interview: extending hold expiry from 10 to 30 minutes\n\n**Where things stand.** The existing note says holds expire after 10 minutes, and it remains in force. You've proposed 30 minutes to help slow checkouts. You have not yet accepted that longer holds tie up capacity, so the decision is open.\n\n**Questions, one at a time, each with my recommended answer:**\n\n1. **What does \"slow checkout\" mean, measured?**\n   What share of checkouts that complete take longer than 10 minutes? What share of holds expire while the customer is still active?\n   *Recommendation:* get the distribution before choosing a number. If the 95th percentile of successful checkouts is around 14 minutes, then 30 is a guess, not a fix.\n\n2. **What capacity does a held item lock, and how scarce is it?**\n   Going from 10 to 30 minutes roughly triples the worst-case time inventory sits in holds. For scarce stock or flash sales, that means abandoned carts block real buyers for longer.\n   *Recommendation:* state the cost in your own terms, for example \"up to N units unavailable for up to 20 extra minutes at peak.\" Accept or reject that sentence explicitly. Until you do, the proposal can't move past Proposed.\n\n3. **Does one global value fit every case?**\n   *Recommendation:* consider alternatives that solve slow checkouts with less capacity cost:\n   - a short base hold that extends on activity (heartbeat or step progress), up to a cap;\n   - longer holds only for low-contention inventory.\n\n4. **What happens when a hold expires mid-checkout?**\n   If an expired hold can be recovered by re-reserving available stock at payment time, the pain of 10 minutes may be smaller than assumed.\n\n5. **How will you know it worked?**\n   *Recommendation:* track three things:\n   - checkout completion rate;\n   - expired-hold rate during active sessions;\n   - stock unavailability, or lost sales, caused by held-but-abandoned items.\n\n   Set a review date.\n\n6. **Glossary check.** Pin down **Hold** (a time-bounded reservation of capacity for one checkout) and **Hold expiry** (the moment held capacity returns to the pool). Is expiry measured from hold creation or from last activity? The proposal currently assumes creation.\n\n## Status for the proposed note\n\n> **Status: Proposed** — Not accepted. Would supersede the 10-minute hold expiry note *only if accepted*. Blocked on: explicit acceptance (or rejection) of the capacity tradeoff, plus checkout-duration data supporting the chosen value.\n\nThe prior 10-minute note stays **Accepted** and unchanged. If the proposal is accepted, mark the old note **Superseded by [new note]** and the new note **Accepted**.",
    "af0554441da13a98b2731da032aecdf407828a8b5a6a447fc96579a3edccb135": "Since you asked for no tools, I'm doing this in text only, without loading the grilling and domain-modeling skills or writing any files.\n\n## Interview\n\n**Where things stand:** The existing note says holds expire after **10 minutes**, and that is still the decision in force. You've proposed **30 minutes** to help slow checkouts, but you haven't accepted the capacity tradeoff. So this is a proposal, not a decision.\n\n**First question, the one everything depends on:**\n\n> **What is the capacity cost of tripling hold time, and who pays it?**\n>\n> A held unit is unavailable to other buyers. At steady demand, tripling the hold time roughly triples the inventory locked in unconverted holds. For scarce or high-demand stock, that can mean showing \"sold out\" while units sit in abandoned carts.\n\nMy recommendation: don't accept 30 minutes until you can answer this with numbers.\n\n**Follow-ups, in order:**\n\n1. **Evidence:** What share of checkouts actually take more than 10 minutes, and do they convert if given more time? If it's 2% of sessions, a global change is a blunt tool.\n2. **Abandonment:** What share of holds today expire without purchase? That's your best estimate of how much capacity a longer hold will waste.\n3. **Scope:** Does it need to be global? Alternatives that address slow checkouts with less capacity cost:\n   - *Extend on activity*: start at 10 minutes and add time while the buyer is actively in checkout, with a hard cap.\n   - *Stage-based*: a short hold in the cart and a longer one after payment starts.\n   - *Per-inventory-class*: longer holds only where stock isn't scarce.\n4. **Terminology:** Is a \"hold\" the same thing as a \"reservation\" here? If expiry rules differ by stage, the glossary needs two terms, not one.\n5. **Reversibility:** What signal would make you roll back? For example, a rise in false sold-out events or a drop in sell-through.\n\n## Status for the proposed note\n\n**Status: Proposed**\n\nNot Accepted, because the capacity tradeoff is unresolved, and an ADR shouldn't claim a decision that hasn't been made.\n\nThe prior 10-minute note stays **Accepted**. Mark it **Superseded by** the new note only if and when the new one is accepted.\n\nSuggested header:\n\n> **ADR-NNN: Extend hold expiry from 10 to 30 minutes**\n> **Status:** Proposed\n> **Context:** Slow checkouts lose holds at 10 min (see ADR-prior, Accepted).\n> **Decision (proposed):** Holds expire after 30 minutes.\n> **Consequences:** Unresolved. Capacity locked in unconverted holds rises ~3× at steady demand. Tradeoff not yet accepted.\n> **Open questions:** checkout-duration distribution, expired-hold rate, scoped alternatives.\n\nSo, back to the first question: what does a held-but-abandoned unit cost you, and how scarce is the inventory this applies to?",
    "78773bf23eb4d209012fae8fe284fa439ffdb205982ae69e4196bd8595f03dd6": "Normally this skill loads the \"grilling\" and \"domain-modeling\" skills and writes the ADR and glossary to files. You asked for no tools or files, so here is everything in text.\n\n## Interview\n\n**Q1. What is a \"slow checkout,\" as a measured number?**\nRight now 30 minutes is a guess unless we know how long checkouts take. What are the p50, p95 and p99 times from creating a hold to payment success? And what share of holds expire today before checkout finishes?\n*My recommendation:* If p95 is under 10 minutes, the problem is a small tail of users. A blanket tripling of the expiry would be the wrong fix.\n\n**Q2. What exactly does the capacity tradeoff cost?**\nA hold takes inventory away from other buyers until it expires. Abandoned holds would now lock stock for 30 minutes instead of 10. That is up to 3× the dead inventory during peak demand. For your scarcest inventory, how much stock is held by holds that never convert?\n*My recommendation:* You haven't accepted this tradeoff yet. Measure it before treating the decision as made.\n\n**Q3. Does every hold need the same expiry?**\nSome alternatives meet the goal with less capacity cost:\n- **Extend on activity:** keep a 10-minute base, and refresh the hold when the buyer shows progress, such as entering payment details or completing a 3DS challenge. Set a hard cap, for example 30 minutes.\n- **Tiered expiry:** use a longer expiry only for checkout steps known to be slow, such as bank redirects.\n- **Grace on payment-in-flight:** never expire a hold while a payment authorization is pending.\n\n*My recommendation:* Extend-on-activity with a 30-minute cap. It helps slow but engaged buyers and still releases stock from abandoned carts at about 10 minutes.\n\n**Q4. What happens at expiry while payment is in flight?**\nIf a hold expires while the payment provider is still authorizing, do we oversell, refund, or reject? This race condition may be the real cause of failed slow checkouts. A longer timer only makes it less frequent.\n\n**Q5. Who owns accepting the capacity tradeoff, and what evidence settles it?**\nName the person who decides, and the metric threshold that would justify the change. One example: \"expired-before-pay rate drops by X% with less than Y% increase in held-but-unsold inventory at peak.\"\n\n## Status for the proposed note\n\n```\nStatus: Proposed\nSupersedes (if accepted): <prior note — Hold expiry: 10 minutes>\nOpen: capacity tradeoff not yet accepted; awaiting checkout-duration and\n      held-inventory data (see Q1, Q2, Q5)\n```\n\nThe prior 10-minute note stays **Accepted** and remains in force. Mark it \"Superseded by …\" only once this proposal is accepted. Don't do that now.\n\n## Glossary terms to capture\n\n- **Hold:** a temporary reservation of inventory for one buyer during checkout.\n- **Hold expiry:** the time after which an unconverted hold releases its inventory.\n- **Slow checkout:** to be defined by the threshold you choose in Q1.\n- **Held-but-unsold inventory:** stock locked by holds that end up expiring. This is the cost side of the tradeoff.\n\nWhich would you like to answer first, Q1 (do you have checkout-duration data?) or Q3 (are you open to something other than a flat 30 minutes)?",
    "33ec46ec2771fbc2e812283772bac885455b675a5008b63d512d5a54f78012f7": "## Interview response\n\n> Our current design, per the existing decision note, expires inventory holds after **10 minutes**. I'm proposing we extend that to **30 minutes**, because some users legitimately need longer to finish checkout (slow payment flows, 3-D Secure challenges, mobile users switching apps), and losing their hold mid-checkout is a bad experience and a lost sale.\n>\n> The cost is **capacity**. A hold removes a unit from sellable inventory until it's purchased or expires. Tripling the hold window means abandoned carts lock stock up to three times longer. For scarce or high-demand items (limited drops, event seats) that can show \"sold out\" while units are only held, push real buyers away, and invite hoarding by bots. Roughly, under steady arrival rates, the inventory tied up in holds scales with hold duration, so we could see up to about 3× more units in limbo at peak.\n>\n> I haven't accepted that tradeoff yet. Before committing, I'd want:\n> - **Data:** the distribution of checkout completion times, the abandonment rate, and how often holds currently expire on users who would have completed.\n> - **Alternatives:** keep 10 minutes but extend on activity (a sliding window or heartbeat), grant a one-time extension when payment starts, or use tiered durations (short for scarce SKUs, longer for plentiful ones).\n> - **Guardrails:** per-user hold limits and bot mitigation if we lengthen the window.\n>\n> Until then, **10 minutes remains the rule in effect**, and 30 minutes is a proposal under evaluation.\n\n## Status for the proposed note\n\n**Status: Proposed (not accepted)**\n\n- **Proposal:** Extend hold expiry from 10 to 30 minutes to accommodate slow checkouts.\n- **Open issue:** The capacity tradeoff (inventory locked longer by abandoned holds) has not been accepted.\n- **Relationship to prior note:** Does **not** supersede the existing 10-minute decision. The prior note stays authoritative until this proposal is accepted.\n- **Next step:** Decide after reviewing checkout-duration and abandonment data and weighing alternatives such as activity-based extension or tiered hold durations.",
    "7e1a121d5125e97a2060e90e1b7f788ac981e68d893e3d4a2448706e7106d111": "## Interview response\n\n\"Our current decision is that inventory holds expire after **10 minutes**. That's still the rule in effect.\n\nI'm proposing we extend it to **30 minutes**, because some users take longer to check out. Slow payment flows, 3-D Secure challenges, and users on mobile or poor connections are losing their holds partway through. That causes failed checkouts and a bad experience.\n\nThe cost is capacity. Tripling the hold window means each held unit is unavailable to other buyers for up to three times as long. For scarce or high-demand inventory, that reduces sellable stock and increases 'sold out' errors for other buyers, even though many of those holds will be abandoned. It also enlarges the window for hoarding or bot abuse.\n\nI haven't accepted that tradeoff yet. Before changing the rule, I'd want:\n\n- **Data on checkout duration**: what share of checkouts finish between 10 and 30 minutes, versus abandoned holds that would simply sit longer.\n- **An estimate of inventory impact**: how much held-but-unsold stock 30 minutes creates, especially during peak demand.\n- **Alternatives to a flat increase**, such as:\n  - Extending the hold only once the user enters payment.\n  - A heartbeat-based extension while the session is active.\n  - Different windows by inventory scarcity.\n  - Per-user hold limits.\n\nSo the honest status is: **10 minutes stands; 30 minutes is a proposal pending a capacity decision.**\"\n\n## Status for the proposed note\n\n> **Status: Proposed — not accepted.**\n> Extend hold expiry from 10 to 30 minutes to accommodate slow checkouts. The capacity tradeoff (longer-held, unavailable inventory) has not been accepted. The existing 10-minute expiry remains in effect until this is decided.\n\nThe prior 10-minute note should stay **Accepted / current**. Only mark it **Superseded** if and when the 30-minute proposal is accepted.",
    "8e7c476af2e473ce96b65a869f9b1972043dcec1836b64d8c9595157467ccf5c": "## Interview response\n\n\"Today our decision record says inventory holds expire after **10 minutes**. I'm proposing we extend that to **30 minutes**, because slow checkouts (users comparing payment options, waiting on 3-D Secure, or on a flaky mobile connection) are hitting expiry mid-flow and losing items they believed were reserved. That's a poor experience and likely costs us conversions.\n\nThe tradeoff is **capacity**. A hold takes a unit out of sellable stock until it converts or expires. Tripling the window means abandoned carts lock inventory roughly three times longer. For scarce or high-demand items, that can show 'sold out' to buyers who would actually complete a purchase, while the stock sits in carts that will never convert. It also raises the number of concurrent active holds the system has to track.\n\nI haven't accepted that tradeoff yet, so this is a proposal and not a decision. Before committing, I'd want:\n\n- **Data:** the distribution of checkout completion times, the share of failures caused by hold expiry, and the abandonment rate, so we can estimate how much stock 30 minutes would tie up.\n- **Alternatives to compare:** a moderate increase such as 15 to 20 minutes; a short base hold with an extension on detected activity (for example, when the user enters the payment step); or tiered windows, shorter for scarce SKUs and longer for plentiful ones.\n- **A rollback plan:** make the window configurable and roll it out to a subset of traffic first.\n\nUntil that's resolved, the 10-minute rule remains in force.\"\n\n## Status for the proposed note\n\n**Status: Proposed**\n\n- Expiry window: 30 minutes, proposed to reduce failures in slow checkouts.\n- Open item: the capacity tradeoff (inventory tied up by abandoned holds) has not been accepted.\n- Relationship to the prior note: it would supersede the 10-minute note *if* accepted. It does **not** supersede it now. The prior note stays **Accepted** and in effect.",
    "e6ff5dca0f425f7635859f9c997574bae354a61fb98d5592e4aeeba1123c9025": "## Interview response\n\n\"Our current decision is that inventory holds expire after **10 minutes**. That's still in effect.\n\nI'm proposing we extend it to **30 minutes**, because slow checkouts are timing out. Users on slow payment flows, 3-D Secure challenges, or mobile connections lose their hold before they finish, and that costs us conversions and creates support tickets.\n\nThe cost is capacity. A 30-minute hold keeps each unit locked three times as long. For scarce or high-demand inventory, that means:\n\n- **Fewer units available** to other shoppers at any moment, so more false 'sold out' states.\n- **Abandoned carts tie up stock longer**, which helps hoarding and bots.\n- **More concurrent active holds**, which means more load on the hold store and expiry sweeps.\n\nI haven't accepted that tradeoff yet. Before deciding, I'd want three things:\n\n1. Data on how many checkouts fail between minute 10 and minute 30, and the revenue tied to them.\n2. Hold utilization for constrained SKUs, to see whether a 3× hold duration actually causes stockouts.\n3. Alternatives that solve slow checkouts with less capacity cost, such as:\n   - a short base hold with an extension when the user is actively in payment,\n   - a longer hold only after payment is initiated,\n   - different hold lengths per SKU or demand tier.\n\nSo my position is: the problem is real, 30 minutes is one candidate fix, and the capacity impact is unresolved. Until we decide, we keep 10 minutes.\"\n\n## Status for the proposed note\n\n> **Status: Proposed — not accepted.**\n> Proposal: extend hold expiry from 10 to 30 minutes to reduce failures on slow checkouts.\n> Open issue: capacity tradeoff (3× longer inventory lock-up) has not been evaluated or accepted.\n> Current behavior: the existing decision (holds expire after 10 minutes) remains in effect and is not superseded."
  },
  "draws": [
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "057c0aabbc025cadec9d15a288deb8c9d4eedb29e6799e3b654500d82bd7b1ff",
      "answer_sha256": "057c0aabbc025cadec9d15a288deb8c9d4eedb29e6799e3b654500d82bd7b1ff",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as overloaded across hold and reservation, asks Q1 on whether it is a parent concept, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks the undecided ADR 0001 as proposed, not accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the ambiguous 'booking' term, asks unresolved design questions (Q1 onward), proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks the undecided ADR 0001 as proposed rather than accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: identifies the overloaded 'booking' term, asks an open design question (Q1), and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. Misses criterion 4 in part: ADR 0002 is marked accepted with 'expires 10 minutes after it is created', which Q3 leaves undecided.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as an ambiguous term, asks an unresolved design question (Q1), proposes a glossary distinction consistent with the facts, and marks only the undecided ADR as proposed.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as overloaded, asks Q1 and queued design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks the undecided ADR 0001 as proposed pending the answer.\"\n}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "fe3bcee90ded07cad23431e1040f5f3f38ac14372ea998bc3e845f4e08d21721",
      "answer_sha256": "fe3bcee90ded07cad23431e1040f5f3f38ac14372ea998bc3e845f4e08d21721",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks open design questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It misses the last criterion: ADR-002 records 'from creation' as accepted though the clock start is still open (Q2).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous (criterion 1), asks open questions such as Q1 and Q4 (criterion 2), proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts (criterion 3), and marks undecided items as pending or proposed (criterion 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions (Q1-Q9), proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as pending rather than accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions (Q1-Q9), proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items (authorization, clock source, extensions) as pending rather than accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions Q1-Q9, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It misses criterion 4: ADR-002 and the glossary record the clock starting 'from creation' as accepted, though that start point is still undecided (Q2).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "841b704baa009c3f7ecc98ca03d694542aed9f3a28ee1d985f79c708d11786e5",
      "answer_sha256": "841b704baa009c3f7ecc98ca03d694542aed9f3a28ee1d985f79c708d11786e5",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions Q1-Q8, and proposes a Hold/Reservation distinction consistent with the facts. Misses criterion 4: ADR-002 records 'from creation' as a decision though Q2 leaves it open.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions Q1-Q8, and proposes a hold/reservation glossary consistent with the facts. ADR-001's Decision field is written without a Proposed status, a minor lapse on the undecided-choice criterion.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved design questions (Q1-Q8), and proposes a hold/reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It misses criterion 4: ADR-002 records 'fixed 10-minute TTL from creation' as a Decision even though Q2 leaves the measurement start undecided.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions (Q1-Q8), and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It misses criterion 4: ADR-001 records retiring 'booking' under a 'Decision:' heading without marking it proposed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved design questions, and proposes a hold/reservation glossary consistent with the facts. The ADRs use 'Decision:' labels without a Proposed status, so the no-undecided-decisions criterion is only partly met.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "9220b8903b2b243a3cc460447c82db899dfa94d1c31c0942aaacafaf3579bde7",
      "answer_sha256": "9220b8903b2b243a3cc460447c82db899dfa94d1c31c0942aaacafaf3579bde7",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It misses criterion 4: ADR-001 and ADR-002 record undecided choices (Q1, server-clock rule) under 'Decision' headings.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it identifies the ambiguous 'booking' term, asks open design questions, and proposes a consistent Hold/Reservation glossary. Missed criterion 4: ADR-001 and ADR-002 record pending choices (Q1, Q4/Q5) as accepted decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks open design questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It misses criterion 4: ADR-001 and ADR-002 record 'Decision' entries (e.g., server clock authoritative) that the user never accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the ambiguous 'booking' term, asks unresolved design questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It partly misses the fourth criterion: ADR-002 records 'server clock is authoritative' as a decision though it was only a recommendation, and ADR-001 is labeled 'Decision' despite being pending.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous across hold and reservation, asks unresolved questions (Q1-Q10), proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as pending rather than accepted.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "76bdc179c85eb6c6d929d1f17314fa2374daacd4a51cb52b30025932041844c7",
      "answer_sha256": "76bdc179c85eb6c6d929d1f17314fa2374daacd4a51cb52b30025932041844c7",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions (Q1 onward), proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided points as pending rather than accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous (criterion 1), asks unresolved design questions like Q1 (criterion 2), and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary distinction consistent with the facts (criterion 3); it marks Q1 as undecided and labels pending items, but the ADR-002 and ADR-003 status 'Accepted (from the supplied facts)' records the given facts as decisions, so criterion 4 is at best ambiguous and I score it as missed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions (Q1 etc.), proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as pending.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks unresolved questions, proposes Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with facts; but ADR-002 and ADR-003 are marked 'Accepted' despite pending details, partially violating criterion 4 (though the Q1 split is kept undecided).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks multiple unresolved design questions, proposes Hold/Reservation glossary terms consistent with the facts, and keeps undecided items as pending or Proposed rather than accepted.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "44c1e978ca0b2e7eb13781fbacafdcc2a6424d39c493da2a563736b0d54ef9ec",
      "answer_sha256": "44c1e978ca0b2e7eb13781fbacafdcc2a6424d39c493da2a563736b0d54ef9ec",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks many unresolved questions, proposes Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as Proposed or OPEN rather than Accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous (F3), asks many unresolved design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as Proposed or OPEN rather than Accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as the ambiguous term, asks many unresolved design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as Proposed or OPEN.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Identifies the overloaded term 'booking', asks many unresolved design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as OPEN or Proposed rather than Accepted.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous (F3), asks many unresolved design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items OPEN rather than accepted.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "7ea45e209e162f31caa5c7544896d2f88464166568a45374e13b3e626beb8f36",
      "answer_sha256": "7ea45e209e162f31caa5c7544896d2f88464166568a45374e13b3e626beb8f36",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous between hold and reservation, asks unresolved questions, and proposes a glossary distinction consistent with the facts; however, it records ADR-001 and ADR-002 duration as 'Accepted' partly on unconfirmed grounds, and the 'Accepted' status on ADR-002 is mostly supported by F1 so the 4th criterion is arguably met, so this is 1.0 or 0.75 depending on reading; the marking of 'Proposed' on ADR-001 and 'pending' rationale suggests care, so I score 0.75 conservatively.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks many unresolved questions, proposes Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and keeps undecided items as open questions rather than accepted decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the ambiguous 'booking' term, asks many unresolved design questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It partly misses criterion 4: the glossary marks 'Booking' as DEPRECATED, although retiring the term is still an open question (Q1).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous between Hold and Reservation, asks many unresolved questions, proposes a glossary consistent with the 10-minute and capture-at-confirmation facts, and marks undecided items as Proposed or open.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous between hold and reservation, asks unresolved design questions, proposes a glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as open questions rather than accepted decisions.\"\n}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "aa8cc56953c5c8ef8dab3d58f67ccde5285c9c6226cf20c4093a2d5e50ecbc2e",
      "answer_sha256": "aa8cc56953c5c8ef8dab3d58f67ccde5285c9c6226cf20c4093a2d5e50ecbc2e",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the ambiguous term 'booking', asks many unresolved questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It partly misses criterion 4: the glossary marks 'Booking' as 'Deprecated' and ADR-001 'Retires' it, though that choice is still undecided.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as the ambiguous term, asks many unresolved questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks open items as TBD or tied to questions rather than recording them as decided.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it flags 'booking' as ambiguous, asks many open questions, and gives a glossary consistent with the facts. Missed criterion 4: it records 'Booking: Deprecated' and ADR-001 as settled while Q1 still asks whether to accept them.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the overloaded 'booking' term, asks many unresolved questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It loses credit for marking 'Booking' as Deprecated and naming ADR-001 before the user has accepted the naming (Q1).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks many open questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. Misses 4: the normative glossary marks 'Booking' as deprecated and ADR-001 is titled as settled, though the naming is still a pending proposal.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "b2a9022b402a3b5c0da5310d6f802d7458c9ecb5a48c9ee32ff1f8c1f43269cf",
      "answer_sha256": "b2a9022b402a3b5c0da5310d6f802d7458c9ecb5a48c9ee32ff1f8c1f43269cf",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks many unresolved design questions, proposes Hold/Reservation consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as pending or open rather than accepted.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks many unresolved design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as Proposed, Open, or pending.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as ambiguous, asks many unresolved design questions, and proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts. It partly misses criterion 4: the glossary marks 'booking' as deprecated and states the 10-minute max as settled while related questions remain pending.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as the ambiguous term, asks many unresolved design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as open or pending.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the 'booking' ambiguity, asks many unresolved design questions, proposes Hold/Reservation consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as Proposed or Open rather than accepted.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "decision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "24f55fce99d7b1c1e62297df5b225c352c2b4f80f250a2a2006921cd1701a01d",
      "answer_sha256": "24f55fce99d7b1c1e62297df5b225c352c2b4f80f250a2a2006921cd1701a01d",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as the ambiguous term, asks many unresolved questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as pending or open rather than accepted.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as overloaded across hold and reservation, asks many unresolved questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as proposed, open, or pending.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as the ambiguous term, asks multiple unresolved design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as proposed or open rather than accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies 'booking' as the ambiguous term, asks unresolved design questions (e.g., Q1, Q4, Q10), proposes a Hold vs. Reservation glossary consistent with the 10-minute and capture-at-confirmation facts, and labels undecided items (Q4, Q10, ADR-0003) as pending or proposed rather than accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the ambiguous 'booking' term, asks many unresolved design questions, proposes a Hold/Reservation glossary consistent with the facts, and marks undecided items as open or proposed rather than accepted.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "adr",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "35531ec82d0097bad82ff41595aae020cf86bd0b9337a489418eaf961b26c588",
      "answer_sha256": "35531ec82d0097bad82ff41595aae020cf86bd0b9337a489418eaf961b26c588",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, flags retention as an open question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, flags retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, leaves retention as an open question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written; all four rubric points are met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, lists consequences without claiming files were written, and leaves retention explicitly as an open question.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, flags retention as an open question, includes consequences, and makes no claim that files were written.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "adr",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "23ee55e765e0022a63f52e3bb58fb0060ff31c0cd1ad7f5308ece52f6a2b0224",
      "answer_sha256": "23ee55e765e0022a63f52e3bb58fb0060ff31c0cd1ad7f5308ece52f6a2b0224",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, leaves retention explicitly unresolved as a question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written; all four criteria met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, marks retention as undecided, and includes consequences without claiming files were written; all four criteria are met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, leaves retention explicitly undecided with a question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, marks retention as undecided in both the note and the closing question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, marks retention as undecided with a follow-up question, includes consequences, and makes no claim of writing files.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "adr",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "e9d88fcbb36fd634c9cc0b4bf7e96981bf7a1c094c4cfeb9dcc31ad173a88cb4",
      "answer_sha256": "e9d88fcbb36fd634c9cc0b4bf7e96981bf7a1c094c4cfeb9dcc31ad173a88cb4",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, leaves retention as an open question, includes consequences, and makes no claim that files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale in Context, flags retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export reference rationale, leaves retention as an open question, lists consequences, and claims no files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export reference rationale, flags retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export reference rationale, leaves retention explicitly as an open question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written, satisfying all four rubric points.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "adr",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "bb40e25db8a30c73c4ee9dd18df2da172b7afa031eb32358fa8de659f03b12f3",
      "answer_sha256": "bb40e25db8a30c73c4ee9dd18df2da172b7afa031eb32358fa8de659f03b12f3",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale (dangling references), flags retention duration as an open question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written; all four criteria met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export reference rationale, poses retention as an open question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written; all four rubric points are met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale (dangling references), frames retention duration as an open question, and includes consequences without claiming any files were written; all four rubric points are met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export reference rationale, frames retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four criteria: records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale (dangling references), flags retention duration as an open question, and includes consequences without claiming files were written.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "adr",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "f33584850f72196b97c86b2fc216a9e8c46316640d5b73c4cd58a036b1588bbe",
      "answer_sha256": "f33584850f72196b97c86b2fc216a9e8c46316640d5b73c4cd58a036b1588bbe",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, frames retention as an open question, includes consequences, and claims no files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, flags retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, flags retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale (dangling references), keeps retention explicitly open as an unresolved question, includes consequences, and claims no files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, gives the audit-export rationale, flags retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "adr",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "19d2acfcb646cabcef5825060c584320f80d8027e696206c59011d281a74e03e",
      "answer_sha256": "19d2acfcb646cabcef5825060c584320f80d8027e696206c59011d281a74e03e",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, flags retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export ID rationale, marks retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export reference rationale, leaves retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export reference rationale, leaves retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response records the tombstone decision, explains the audit-export rationale, leaves retention as an open question, and lists consequences without claiming any files were written.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "revision",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "d71e055c6b25e6d58a6162da64c5a27c325fbb110d6c497b8632be9b9fb9d803",
      "answer_sha256": "d71e055c6b25e6d58a6162da64c5a27c325fbb110d6c497b8632be9b9fb9d803",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks about inventory/capacity contention (item 2 explicitly on scarce stock and capacity cost), keeps the 10-minute note identified as Accepted and unchanged, marks the 30-minute proposal as Proposed/not accepted, and does not silently replace the prior decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response asks about capacity contention (scarce stock, units locked for extra minutes), keeps the prior 10-minute note identified as Accepted and unchanged, marks the proposal explicitly as Proposed/not accepted, and does not silently replace the existing decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks about capacity contention (scarce stock, locked units), keeps the 10-minute note identifiable as Accepted, marks the 30-minute proposal as undecided, and does not replace the existing decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: asks about capacity contention (scarce stock, abandoned holds blocking buyers). Criterion 2 met: the prior 10-minute note is kept identifiable as Accepted and unchanged. Criterion 3 met: the proposal is marked Proposed and undecided. Criterion 4 met: it explicitly does not replace the existing decision and only supersedes it if accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: asks about inventory capacity and contention. Criterion 2: the 10-minute note is kept as Accepted and identifiable. Criterion 3: the proposal is marked Proposed and undecided. Criterion 4: the old decision is not silently replaced, and superseding happens only on acceptance.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "revision",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "af0554441da13a98b2731da032aecdf407828a8b5a6a447fc96579a3edccb135",
      "answer_sha256": "af0554441da13a98b2731da032aecdf407828a8b5a6a447fc96579a3edccb135",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: asks first about capacity cost of tripling hold time. Criterion 2 met: 10-minute prior ADR kept Accepted and identified. Criterion 3 met: proposal marked Proposed and explicitly not accepted. Criterion 4 met: no silent replacement; supersession only if accepted.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: asks directly about capacity cost of tripling hold time. Criterion 2 met: explicitly keeps the 10-minute Accepted note identifiable. Criterion 3 met: marks the 30-minute change as Proposed and undecided. Criterion 4 met: states the prior decision stays in force and is not replaced silently.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four: it asks first about capacity cost of tripling hold time, keeps the 10-minute accepted rule identifiable as in force, marks the 30-minute change as Proposed/undecided, and avoids replacing the existing decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks directly about capacity cost of longer holds (criterion 1), keeps the prior 10-minute Accepted note identifiable (2), marks the 30-minute change Proposed and undecided (3), and does not silently replace the existing decision (4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: asks directly about capacity cost of tripling hold time. Criterion 2 met: the 10-minute accepted rule is kept identifiable as Accepted. Criterion 3 met: the 30-minute change is labeled Proposed and not accepted. Criterion 4 met: no silent replacement, the prior note stays in force until superseded.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "revision",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "78773bf23eb4d209012fae8fe284fa439ffdb205982ae69e4196bd8595f03dd6",
      "answer_sha256": "78773bf23eb4d209012fae8fe284fa439ffdb205982ae69e4196bd8595f03dd6",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: Q2 and Q5 ask about held-but-unsold inventory and capacity cost. Criterion 2 met: the prior 10-minute note is named and kept Accepted. Criterion 3 met: status is Proposed with the tradeoff marked not yet accepted. Criterion 4 met: it explicitly says not to supersede the prior note now.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Q2 and Q5 ask about capacity/inventory contention; the prior 10-minute note is kept identifiable as Accepted and in force; the change is marked Proposed and undecided; the response explicitly avoids silently replacing the decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Q2 and the held-but-unsold glossary term address capacity contention (criterion 1); the 10-minute note is kept Accepted and named (2); the proposal is marked Proposed and the tradeoff undecided (3); it explicitly forbids superseding the prior note now (4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: Q2 and Q5 ask about held-inventory and capacity contention. Criterion 2 met: the prior 10-minute note is named and kept in force as Accepted. Criterion 3 met: status is Proposed with the tradeoff marked not yet accepted. Criterion 4 met: it explicitly says not to supersede the prior note now.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Q2 and Q5 address held-inventory capacity contention, the 10-minute Accepted note stays identifiable and in force, the proposal is marked Proposed and undecided, and the response refuses to supersede the prior decision now.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "revision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "33ec46ec2771fbc2e812283772bac885455b675a5008b63d512d5a54f78012f7",
      "answer_sha256": "33ec46ec2771fbc2e812283772bac885455b675a5008b63d512d5a54f78012f7",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four criteria: it raises the capacity tradeoff, keeps the 10-minute rule identifiable as in effect, marks 30 minutes as undecided, and states it does not supersede the prior decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Covers capacity contention and asks for data and alternatives, keeps the 10-minute rule identifiable as in effect, marks the 30-minute change as proposed and not accepted, and states it does not supersede the prior note.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four criteria: it raises capacity contention from held inventory, keeps the 10-minute rule identifiable as in effect, marks the 30-minute change as proposed and not accepted, and states it does not supersede the prior note.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: it discusses the capacity tradeoff and asks for data, keeps the 10-minute rule identifiable as in effect, marks 30 minutes as not accepted, and does not supersede the prior decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: it raises capacity/inventory contention as the cost. Criterion 2: it keeps the 10-minute rule identifiable as the prior decision. Criterion 3: it marks the 30-minute change as proposed, not accepted. Criterion 4: it explicitly does not supersede the existing decision.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "revision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "7e1a121d5125e97a2060e90e1b7f788ac981e68d893e3d4a2448706e7106d111",
      "answer_sha256": "7e1a121d5125e97a2060e90e1b7f788ac981e68d893e3d4a2448706e7106d111",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Covers capacity contention and asks for inventory impact data (1); keeps the 10-minute rule identified as current (2); marks the 30-minute change as proposed and not accepted (3); and explicitly avoids replacing the existing decision (4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks for checkout-duration and inventory-impact data and names the capacity tradeoff (criterion 1), keeps the 10-minute rule explicitly in effect (2), marks 30 minutes as proposed and not accepted (3), and does not silently replace the decision (4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (raises capacity/inventory contention), 2 (10-minute rule identified as current), and 3 (30-minute change marked as proposed/pending); missed criterion 4 partially? No, it avoids silent replacement, so all four met; score reflects full satisfaction.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: it raises inventory capacity contention, keeps the 10-minute rule identified as current, marks 30 minutes as proposed and not accepted, and avoids silently replacing the decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (asks about capacity/inventory impact), 2 (keeps 10-minute rule identifiable as current), and 3 (marks 30-minute change as proposed, not accepted); misses 4 partially since it's not an explicit silent-replacement issue, but it does mention superseding only upon acceptance, so criterion 4 is met too.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "revision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "8e7c476af2e473ce96b65a869f9b1972043dcec1836b64d8c9595157467ccf5c",
      "answer_sha256": "8e7c476af2e473ce96b65a869f9b1972043dcec1836b64d8c9595157467ccf5c",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: it names capacity tying up stock and asks for completion-time and abandonment data; criterion 2 met: the prior 10-minute rule is kept as Accepted and in effect; criterion 3 met: the change is labeled Proposed and undecided; criterion 4 met: it explicitly says the note does not supersede the prior decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Covers capacity tradeoff and requests abandonment and stock data (1); names the prior 10-minute rule and keeps it Accepted (2); marks the change as Proposed and undecided (3); states it does not supersede the prior note (4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: it discusses the capacity tradeoff and asks for stock-tie-up data, names the 10-minute rule as the prior accepted decision, marks the 30-minute change as Proposed and undecided, and does not supersede the existing note.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: it discusses capacity tradeoff and stock tied up by holds. Criterion 2 met: the 10-minute prior note is explicitly kept Accepted and in effect. Criterion 3 met: the change is labeled Proposed and undecided. Criterion 4 met: it states it does not supersede the prior decision now.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: it raises capacity contention from abandoned holds. Criterion 2 met: the 10-minute rule is kept identifiable as Accepted and in force. Criterion 3 met: the 30-minute change is marked Proposed and undecided. Criterion 4 met: it explicitly says the prior note is not superseded.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "revision",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "e6ff5dca0f425f7635859f9c997574bae354a61fb98d5592e4aeeba1123c9025",
      "answer_sha256": "e6ff5dca0f425f7635859f9c997574bae354a61fb98d5592e4aeeba1123c9025",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four rubric points: it asks about capacity/inventory contention (false sold-outs, stock lock-up), keeps the 10-minute rule identifiable as in effect, marks the 30-minute change as proposed and not accepted, and does not silently replace the existing decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response asks about capacity/inventory contention (false sold-out states, hold utilization for constrained SKUs), keeps the 10-minute rule identifiable as in effect, marks the 30-minute proposal as 'Proposed — not accepted', and explicitly does not supersede the existing decision.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: asks about capacity contention, identifies the 10-minute rule as still in effect, marks the 30-minute change as not accepted, and states the existing decision is not superseded.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response asks about inventory capacity and stockouts, identifies the 10-minute rule as still in effect, marks the 30-minute change as undecided, and states the existing decision is not superseded (criteria 1-4 met).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: the response asks about capacity and inventory contention (hoarding, false sold-out states, unit availability). Criterion 2 met: the prior 10-minute rule is kept identifiable and stated as still in effect. Criterion 3 met: the change is marked 'Proposed, not accepted' and undecided. Criterion 4 met: the existing decision is explicitly not superseded.\"}"
      ]
    }
  ]
}