{
  "format": "driftproof-answers/2",
  "receipt_hash": "4be11a73543e9b0a137bee99dbe5f25beaa7f69e5103b45865862654fec3e8ec",
  "model_id": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
  "answers": {
    "6522b270ca9bd29bbe5825442d1e905cbc75d17074d11bf0b531dc146e9ee805": "Two corrections, both from the HyperFrames contract:\n\n1. **Remove the `<template>` wrapper.** A standalone (top-level `index.html`) composition must have its root `<div data-composition-id=\"title\">` sitting directly in `<body>`. Wrapping a standalone root in `<template>` hides all content, and `lint` rejects it with `standalone_composition_wrapped_in_template` (error). The `<template>` form is only for sub-compositions loaded via `data-composition-src`.\n\n2. **Fix the timeline key to match the root id.** `window.__timelines[\"id\"]` must equal the root's `data-composition-id`. The root is `title`, but the timeline is registered under `outro`, so change the registration to `window.__timelines[\"title\"]`. (Alternatively, if `outro` is the intended name, rename the root's `data-composition-id` to `outro`. Pick one and keep them identical.)\n\nRelated checks, which I can't verify from the description alone:\n\n- The timeline should be a single `gsap.timeline({ paused: true })`, registered only after any async build (e.g. `document.fonts.ready`) completes.\n- The root should use `width`/`height: 100%` with canvas size set via `data-width`/`data-height`, not hardcoded `1920px`/`1080px`.\n- Set the root `data-duration` explicitly, since render length comes from it rather than the timeline's length.\n- Once the template is removed, any `<style>`/`<script>` can stay in the normal document. The \"put them inside the template\" rule only applies to templated sub-compositions.",
    "0194c4641cb209fb71e578403bc3893d7a26ad8b77aefe639fa914bb05d9600a": "Two corrections, based on the skill's contract:\n\n1. **Remove the `<template>` wrapper.** This is a standalone composition (top-level `index.html`), so the root `<div data-composition-id=\"title\">` must sit directly in `<body>`. Wrapping a standalone root in `<template>` hides all content, and `lint` rejects it with `standalone_composition_wrapped_in_template` (error). The `<template>` form is only for sub-compositions loaded via `data-composition-src`.\n\n2. **Fix the timeline key.** `window.__timelines[\"outro\"]` must match the root's `data-composition-id`, which is `title`. Register it as `window.__timelines[\"title\"]`, or, if \"outro\" is the intended id, change the root's `data-composition-id` to `outro`. Either way, the two must agree, otherwise the runtime won't find the timeline.\n\nThings to double-check while you're in there (I can't see the full file, so these are conditional):\n\n- The root should use `width`/`height: 100%` with canvas size set via `data-width`/`data-height`, not hardcoded `1920px`/`1080px`.\n- Any `<style>`/`<script>` should live in a place that actually survives. For a standalone root in `<body>` that's fine, but if you ever convert it to a templated sub-composition, they must move inside the template.\n- The timeline should be a single `gsap.timeline({ paused: true })`, registered only after it is fully built, and the root `data-duration` should cover the whole animation.\n\nAfter fixing, run `npx hyperframes check` and make sure there are no lint errors, since a lint error also disables the layout and contrast audits (showing `0 samples`, which can look falsely clean).",
    "698317b8e84db1022a316ea61e2ca5ab26de3315d93f3c1738bcd5d10b49a517": "There are two corrections.\n\n1. **Remove the `<template>` wrapper.** A standalone composition (top-level `index.html`) puts the root `<div data-composition-id=\"title\">` directly in `<body>`. Wrapped in a `<template>`, its content is hidden and `lint` rejects it with `standalone_composition_wrapped_in_template` (error). The template wrapper belongs only to sub-compositions loaded via `data-composition-src`, and that isn't what you described.\n\n2. **Make the timeline key match the root id.** The root is `title` but the timeline is registered under `outro`, and the key in `window.__timelines[\"...\"]` must equal the root's `data-composition-id`. Either change the registration to `window.__timelines[\"title\"] = tl`, or rename the root id to `outro` if that's the intended name. Left as is, the runtime won't find the timeline for the `title` root.\n\nI only have your description, not the file, so I can't check the rest. These are the other things worth confirming:\n- The root should have `data-width`/`data-height` for canvas size, with CSS `width`/`height: 100%` rather than hardcoded pixels.\n- The timeline should be a single `gsap.timeline({ paused: true })`, registered only after it is fully built.\n- The root should have a `data-duration` that covers the timeline.",
    "49feb330f141fb5434e7d458cfea7a832192ce6aea060593d2f0ea981a50f97c": "Based only on the facts you gave, there are two corrections.\n\n1. **Remove the `<template>` wrapper.** In a standalone composition, the root `div` with `data-composition-id` should sit directly in `<body>`. Content inside a `<template>` is inert and isn't rendered, so the composition would never run. Template wrapping is for compositions that a parent loads in. It doesn't belong on a file that is its own entry point.\n\n2. **Make the composition id and the timeline registration key match.** The root says `title` but the timeline is registered under `outro`, so the runtime can't tie the timeline to its composition. Pick one name and use it in both places:\n   - If this is the title composition, register the timeline under `title`.\n   - If it's the outro, change `data-composition-id` to `outro`.\n\n   From the skeleton alone I can't tell which is intended. The id should describe what the composition actually contains, so check the content and the file name.\n\nI haven't seen the actual file or the framework's docs, so this is based only on your description. If the skeleton has other issues, such as missing duration attributes or an unpaused timeline, I'd need to see the code to say.",
    "711a6b6a6b4fb4c6cb32aea97fd0730ff8a101ac4e5e9136007723e576a1047e": "There are two corrections, based only on the facts you gave me.\n\n1. **Make the timeline key match the composition ID.** The root says `data-composition-id=\"title\"`, but the timeline is registered under `outro`. The registration key has to equal the root's `data-composition-id`, otherwise the runtime can't pair the timeline with its composition. Pick one name and use it in both places. Since the root is the \"title\" composition, the registration should most likely be `title`, unless \"outro\" is the real intent and the attribute is what's wrong.\n\n2. **Take the root div out of the `<template>`.** A standalone composition should have its root div directly in `<body>`. Wrapping it in a `<template>` is the pattern for sub-compositions that a parent composition loads and instantiates. In a standalone file, template content is inert and never rendered, so nothing would play. Remove the `<template>` wrapper and leave the root div as a direct child of `<body>`.\n\nI'm working from your description only, without the actual file or the framework's docs. If the skeleton also has a duration, dimension attributes, or the timeline created paused, those would be worth checking too, but I can't confirm them from what you've told me.",
    "04b510fa51cb3af90b9645fc90e3644bdf1f1661464859d1c1fd8431b9909f87": "Based only on the facts you gave, there are two corrections.\n\n1. **Remove the `<template>` wrapper.** A standalone composition's root `div` should sit directly in `<body>`. A `<template>` is inert, so its contents don't render or run on their own. That wrapper belongs to sub-compositions that a parent composition loads and mounts. For a standalone file, put the `data-composition-id=\"title\"` div straight in the body.\n\n2. **Make the timeline key match the composition id.** The root says `title`, but the timeline is registered under `outro`. The registration key must equal the root's `data-composition-id`, or the runtime can't pair the timeline with its composition. Register it as `title`. If this composition is actually the outro, change the root's id to `outro` instead. Either way the two must agree, and the id should describe what the composition is.\n\nI can't see the rest of the skeleton, so also check that the root carries the other attributes your framework requires, such as dimensions and duration, and that the timeline is created paused so the runtime controls playback.",
    "b5f9b92dd66f61c707968acea84cf94cbe90a96851509705d9c0b29a64ff8749": "There are two corrections, both from the facts you gave:\n\n1. **Remove the `<template>` wrapper.** A standalone composition's root `div[data-composition-id]` should sit directly in `<body>`. Wrapping it in a `<template>` is the pattern for sub-compositions that a parent loads, and inert template content won't render or run as a standalone page.\n\n2. **Make the timeline key match the composition id.** The root says `title` but the timeline is registered under `outro`, so the runtime can't pair them. Register it as `window.__timelines[\"title\"]`. If this composition really is the outro, rename `data-composition-id` to `outro` instead. I'd keep `title` and change the registration, since the id is more likely to be referenced elsewhere.\n\nI'm assuming the usual conventions for this kind of composition format. If your framework differs, check these two points against its docs. I haven't seen the actual file, so I can't vouch for anything else in it, such as dimensions, duration attributes, or whether the timeline is created paused.",
    "89beb1904dd8b03dc655b77217ff50eeaa5ca0912f67cd93d36c5247ffc4bece": "Based only on your description (I haven't seen the code), there are two corrections:\n\n1. **Make the composition ID and the timeline key match.** The root div says `data-composition-id=\"title\"`, but the timeline is registered under `outro`. The runtime can't pair them, so the timeline won't attach to this composition. Pick the name that fits the composition's purpose and use it in both places. If this is the title composition, register the timeline as `title`. If it's the outro, change the attribute to `outro`.\n\n2. **Take the root div out of the `<template>`.** A standalone composition's root should sit directly in `<body>`. Template content is inert: it isn't rendered or run until something clones it. Wrapping is meant for sub-compositions that a host composition loads in. A standalone file has no host to instantiate it, so it would render nothing, and its timeline script would have no live elements to target.\n\nAfter both fixes, the root `div[data-composition-id]` is a direct child of `body`, and the timeline registers under that same ID.\n\nIf the file is actually meant to be a sub-composition loaded by a host, keep the template and fix only the ID mismatch. Then it isn't standalone, so the skeleton should be described that way.",
    "841100f368339773960a419a38c75f7957e3583a406a4907e52711f8f641c90b": "Two corrections, based only on the facts you gave:\n\n1. **Make the IDs match.** The root's `data-composition-id` is `title`, but the timeline is registered under `outro`. The runtime pairs a composition with its timeline by this key, so the timeline would never be found. Register it under `title`, or rename the root to `outro` if that's the composition you meant. Since the root says `title`, I'd change the registration.\n\n2. **Take the root out of the `<template>`.** Template content is inert. It isn't rendered or reachable by the document's scripts and selectors until it is cloned. A standalone composition should have its root `div` as a direct child of `body`. The `<template>` wrapper belongs to sub-compositions that a parent composition loads from a separate file.\n\nI can't see the markup, so I can't check anything else, such as dimensions, start/duration attributes, or whether the timeline is created paused. If you paste the skeleton, I can check those too.",
    "925e4838798e12a75606c221db3d36cc60ccfbe6af6a263de3269a4acb0639a1": "The problem: GSAP writes its own `transform` on the element for `x`/`y`, which overwrites the CSS `translate(-50%,-50%)`. The heading loses its centering the moment the tween starts or is seeked. HyperFrames lint flags this as `gsap_css_transform_conflict`.\n\n**Fix: center with layout, not transform.** Let flexbox (or `inset`) do the centering, and leave `transform` entirely to GSAP.\n\nOption A, a flex wrapper (simplest):\n\n```html\n<div class=\"title-wrap\">\n  <h1 id=\"title\">Heading</h1>\n</div>\n```\n\n```css\n.title-wrap {\n  position: absolute;\n  inset: 0;\n  display: flex;\n  align-items: center;\n  justify-content: center;\n}\n/* no transform on #title */\n```\n\n```js\ntl.fromTo(\"#title\", { y: 40, opacity: 0 }, { y: 0, opacity: 1, duration: 0.6 }, 0.2);\n```\n\nOption B, if you must keep the heading itself absolutely positioned and avoid a wrapper, let GSAP own the centering:\n\n```css\n#title { position: absolute; left: 50%; top: 50%; } /* no CSS transform */\n```\n\n```js\ntl.fromTo(\"#title\",\n  { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, y: 40, opacity: 0 },\n  { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, y: 0, opacity: 1, duration: 0.6 }, 0.2);\n```\n\n`xPercent`/`yPercent` are tracked by GSAP in the same transform as `x`/`y`, so they compose rather than collide.\n\n**Why this stays deterministic:**\n- Use `fromTo` so the start state lives in the tween, not in a CSS transform. Seeking to any frame then yields the same result.\n- The timeline stays a single `gsap.timeline({ paused: true })` registered at `window.__timelines[\"<id>\"]` matching the root `data-composition-id`.\n- No render-time clocks or unseeded randomness are involved.\n\nI'd go with Option A: it removes the conflict at the source, and the text stays centered even if you later animate `scale` or `rotation` on the heading.",
    "911d91ce0eec6437f2174b0939ae66dc89f8b1fa2ce416f29f3ddba3c720d87c": "The conflict: GSAP writes its own `transform` on the element (composing `x`/`y` into a matrix), which overwrites the CSS `translate(-50%,-50%)`. The heading loses its centering the moment the tween starts, and `lint` flags it as `gsap_css_transform_conflict`.\n\n**Fix: remove the CSS transform and center with layout, so GSAP owns `transform` alone.**\n\n```css\n.title-wrap {\n  position: absolute;\n  inset: 0;\n  display: flex;\n  align-items: center;\n  justify-content: center;\n}\n```\n\n```html\n<div class=\"title-wrap\">\n  <h1 id=\"title\">Heading</h1>\n</div>\n```\n\n```js\ntl.fromTo(\"#title\",\n  { y: 40, opacity: 0 },\n  { y: 0, opacity: 1, duration: 0.6, ease: \"power2.out\" },\n  0.5\n);\n```\n\nWhy this works:\n\n- Flex centering on the wrapper puts the heading at the center without touching `transform`, so nothing competes with GSAP's `x`/`y`.\n- `fromTo` sets the start state explicitly inside the tween rather than relying on a CSS initial transform, which keeps seeking deterministic: any frame resolves to the same values regardless of prior state.\n- The tween goes on the one paused timeline registered at `window.__timelines[\"<id>\"]`, as usual.\n\n**Alternative** if you must keep the heading itself absolutely positioned at `top: 50%; left: 50%`: drop the CSS `translate(-50%,-50%)` and let GSAP apply the centering with percent units:\n\n```js\ntl.fromTo(\"#title\",\n  { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, y: 40, opacity: 0 },\n  { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, y: 0, opacity: 1, duration: 0.6 },\n  0.5\n);\n```\n\n`xPercent`/`yPercent` combine with `x`/`y` in the same GSAP-managed transform, so centering survives. The flex wrapper is simpler, though, and I'd recommend it.\n\nAlso make sure the heading is block-level and sized (not an inline element), since transformed inline elements misbehave. After the change, run `npx hyperframes check` to confirm the lint finding is gone.",
    "b53f8f9575aad3e06e4ac6c57d9bc782cded2761915e58cf94f080185c7da10e": "**The problem:** GSAP writes its own `transform` on the element (it composes `x`, `y`, etc. into a single matrix). That overwrites the CSS `translate(-50%,-50%)`, so the heading loses its centering, or the two fight over the same property. `lint` flags this as `gsap_css_transform_conflict`.\n\n**Fix: move centering out of `transform` and let GSAP own it alone.** Pick one of these:\n\n**Option 1 (preferred): center with flex/inset, no transform**\n\n```css\n.heading-wrap {\n  position: absolute;\n  inset: 0;\n  display: flex;\n  align-items: center;\n  justify-content: center;\n}\n```\n\n```html\n<div class=\"heading-wrap\">\n  <h1 id=\"title\">Heading</h1>\n</div>\n```\n\n```js\ntl.fromTo(\"#title\", { y: 40, opacity: 0 }, { y: 0, opacity: 1, duration: 0.6 }, 0);\n```\n\nThe wrapper handles centering; GSAP's `x`/`y` only animate the heading's offset from that centered position. Nothing else touches `transform`.\n\n**Option 2: keep absolute positioning, hand centering to GSAP**\n\n```css\n#title { position: absolute; left: 50%; top: 50%; } /* no CSS transform */\n```\n\n```js\ntl.fromTo(\"#title\",\n  { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, y: 40, opacity: 0 },\n  { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, y: 0, opacity: 1, duration: 0.6 }, 0);\n```\n\n`xPercent`/`yPercent` replace the CSS `translate(-50%,-50%)`, and GSAP merges them with `x`/`y` into one transform, so centering survives the animation.\n\n**Why this stays deterministic:**\n- Use `fromTo` so the start state lives in the tween, not in a CSS `transform` that could disagree with it when the timeline is seeked.\n- Keep the tween on the single paused timeline registered at `window.__timelines[\"<root data-composition-id>\"]`, with no render-time clocks or unseeded randomness.\n- If the heading is a `.clip`, don't tween `autoAlpha`/`visibility` on the clip itself; animate it or an inner child via `opacity`/`y`.\n\nIf you can't change the markup, Option 2 is the smallest edit. For new work, Option 1 is cleaner because centering never depends on the animation state.",
    "8a4c442ed02462c0f81da2b650e297a8b0d1907367a972f5653483d97bd07c36": "**Problem:** GSAP writes its own `transform` inline (`translate(x, y)` plus rotation/scale). That overwrites the CSS `transform: translate(-50%, -50%)`, so centering is lost or, depending on GSAP's parse of the existing matrix, gets baked in as pixel values that go stale on resize. Either way the result is non-deterministic.\n\n**Fix: let GSAP own the centering with `xPercent`/`yPercent`.**\n\nCSS: remove the transform and keep only the positioning.\n\n```css\n.heading {\n  position: absolute;\n  top: 50%;\n  left: 50%;\n  /* no transform here */\n}\n```\n\nJS: set the percent offsets in GSAP, then animate x/y as pixel offsets on top.\n\n```js\ngsap.set(\".heading\", { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50 });\n\ngsap.to(\".heading\", {\n  x: 100,\n  y: 40,\n  duration: 1,\n  ease: \"power2.out\"\n});\n```\n\nOr in a single tween with `from`:\n\n```js\ngsap.fromTo(\".heading\",\n  { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, x: 0, y: 20, opacity: 0 },\n  { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, x: 0, y: 0, opacity: 1, duration: 0.8 }\n);\n```\n\n**Why this is deterministic:**\n- GSAP composes `translate(-50%, -50%)` and `translate(x, y)` itself in one transform, so nothing is overwritten.\n- `xPercent`/`yPercent` are relative to the element's own size and are re-resolved on resize, so centering stays correct.\n- Animated `x`/`y` values start from known numbers (0 if not set) rather than from a parsed CSS matrix.\n\n**Alternatives if you prefer to keep the CSS transform out of GSAP's way:**\n- Use a flex or grid centering wrapper (`display: grid; place-items: center`) and animate the heading's `x`/`y` freely, with no transform needed for centering.\n- Or wrap the heading: the outer element carries the CSS `translate(-50%, -50%)`, and GSAP animates the inner element only.\n\nI'd go with `xPercent`/`yPercent`, since it's the smallest change and keeps a single element.",
    "052b20e2a458e134f644527bcf372256fc4fe09567459b1968cdd334508a9a69": "**Problem:** GSAP writes its own `transform` inline (built from `x`, `y`, `scale`, `rotation`, etc.), which overwrites the CSS `transform: translate(-50%, -50%)`. The centering is lost on the first tween or `gsap.set`, so the heading jumps. If GSAP happens to parse the existing CSS transform first, the result depends on timing and on whether percentages get converted to pixels, which makes it non-deterministic across resizes and font loads.\n\n**Fix: hand centering to GSAP, and remove it from CSS.**\n\nCSS:\n```css\n.heading {\n  position: absolute;\n  top: 50%;\n  left: 50%;\n  /* no transform here */\n}\n```\n\nJS:\n```js\ngsap.set(\".heading\", { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50 });\n\ngsap.to(\".heading\", { x: 100, y: 40, duration: 1 });\n```\n\n**Why it works:**\n- `xPercent`/`yPercent` are tracked as separate properties from `x`/`y`, so GSAP composes them into a single transform: `translate(-50%, -50%) translate(100px, 40px)`. Centering and animation no longer fight.\n- The percentages stay relative to the element's own size, so centering holds if the text reflows or the viewport changes.\n- Because GSAP owns the whole transform, the starting state is explicit and the same every run. Nothing depends on parsing a stylesheet transform.\n\n**Alternatives if you can't use `xPercent`/`yPercent`:**\n- Use `gsap.set(\".heading\", { x: \"-50%\", y: \"-50%\" })` and animate with relative values (`x: \"+=100\"`). This is less clean because it mixes units.\n- Put the centering on a wrapper element, using CSS `translate(-50%, -50%)` or flexbox/grid centering, and animate the heading inside it. This is the most robust option if other code also touches the heading's transform.\n\n**Also worth doing:**\n- Call the `gsap.set` before the first paint (or in `useLayoutEffect` in React) to avoid a flash of uncentered text.\n- Avoid animating `top`/`left` for movement; keep them as static anchors.",
    "8c1b2af2d3283364aec2bb67d987eaa5e846f1756fc80c995ddbcd317adc074c": "**Problem:** GSAP writes its own `transform` on the element (built from x, y, scale, rotation, etc.). That overwrites the CSS `transform: translate(-50%, -50%)`, so the centering is lost or behaves inconsistently. Depending on when GSAP parses the existing transform, the result can also vary, which makes the animation non-deterministic.\n\n**Fix: let GSAP own the centering with `xPercent` / `yPercent`.**\n\nCSS: keep the positioning, drop the transform.\n\n```css\n.heading {\n  position: absolute;\n  top: 50%;\n  left: 50%;\n  /* no transform here */\n}\n```\n\nJS: set the offset through GSAP, then animate x/y as before.\n\n```js\ngsap.set(\".heading\", { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50 });\n\ngsap.to(\".heading\", {\n  x: 100,\n  y: 40,\n  duration: 1,\n});\n```\n\nBecause `xPercent`/`yPercent` and `x`/`y` are separate properties in the same transform matrix, they combine as `translate(-50%, -50%) translate(100px, 40px)`. The centering is preserved and the animation starts from a known state.\n\n**Alternatives:**\n\n- **`gsap.fromTo`** with explicit start and end values, if you want the animation fully self-contained and repeatable:\n  ```js\n  gsap.fromTo(\".heading\",\n    { xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50, x: 0, y: 0 },\n    { x: 100, y: 40, duration: 1 }\n  );\n  ```\n- **No transform at all for centering**: use flexbox or grid on the parent (`display: grid; place-items: center;`) and let GSAP animate x/y alone. This is the most robust option since CSS and GSAP never compete for the `transform` property.\n- **Individual transform properties** (`translate: -50% -50%` in CSS), which are separate from `transform`. This works in modern browsers, but GSAP may also use `translate` in some versions, so verify against your version.\n\n**Recommendation:** use `gsap.set` with `xPercent: -50, yPercent: -50` (or the grid approach if you can change the layout). Avoid relying on GSAP to parse a CSS `translate(-50%, -50%)`, since percent values in a parsed matrix are converted to pixels and go stale on resize.",
    "fdb34767c888939dc822d83af3647b21889487a620140e4b0d849a740dcf1efd": "**The ownership problem**\n\nTwo things are trying to control the same property on the same element:\n\n1. **The framework** owns clip visibility. For any element with `class=\"clip\"` and `data-start`/`data-duration`, the runtime shows it inside its time window and hides it outside, and it recomputes that from the current time on every seek.\n2. **Your timeline** also writes `visibility` via something like `tl.set(clip, { visibility: \"hidden\" }, endTime)`.\n\nA `tl.set` is a stateful write: once the playhead passes `endTime`, GSAP leaves `visibility: hidden` on the element as inline style. When you seek backward to a time inside the clip's window, the runtime says \"visible\", but your timeline's recorded end state (or the inline style it left behind) says \"hidden\". Since the two writers disagree and neither knows about the other, the result depends on seek order and the clip stays hidden. Forward playback looks fine, which is why it slips through. Scrubbing, re-seeking, and frame-by-frame rendering are where it breaks, and a render has to be deterministic under arbitrary seeks.\n\nIn short, visibility on a timed clip has two owners, and the one you added is a redundant, non-idempotent copy of what the framework already does.\n\n**The fix**\n\n- **Delete the exit `visibility` set.** The runtime already hides timed clips when their window ends. You don't need to hide them yourself.\n- If you want a visual exit, animate an **inner child** (or the clip's `opacity`) with a normal tween, such as a fade to 0 ending at the clip's end. Tweens are fully reversible on seek, so scrubbing backward restores the state correctly.\n- Don't tween `display`, `visibility`, or `autoAlpha` on the `.clip` element itself either. `lint` flags that as `gsap_animates_clip_element`. Put the animation on a child instead.\n- Make sure the clip's `data-start` and `data-duration` are correct, since they are now the single source of truth for when it's visible. If it ends past the root `data-duration`, extend the root, or it will be cut off.\n\nAfter the change, run `npx hyperframes check` and snapshot a few times, including one scrubbed backward into the clip's window, to confirm it shows again.",
    "9524eff165fcd28740b3c22521ee06834f129c9664727626eec75759d96438ab": "**The ownership problem**\n\nTwo things are trying to control the same property on the same element.\n\n- The framework owns clip visibility. For any element with `class=\"clip\"` and `data-start`/`data-duration`, the runtime shows it inside its time window and hides it outside. It re-evaluates this on every seek, so it works in both directions.\n- Your timeline adds a second owner when you write something like `tl.set(clip, {visibility: \"hidden\"}, endTime)`. GSAP applies that as inline style when the playhead passes `endTime`.\n\nOn forward playback this looks fine, because the hide happens at the time the framework would hide the clip anyway. The trouble comes on a backward seek. The runtime makes the clip visible again because the playhead is back inside its window. A paused GSAP timeline seeked backward reverts a `set` only if the timeline renders that position and the tween's recorded start value matches what's in the DOM. Because the framework has been toggling the same property independently, the two disagree. The inline `visibility: hidden` stays, the clip is shown by the framework's logic but hidden by your style, and it stays hidden. Seeking and rendering frames out of order, which the renderer does, then produces wrong frames.\n\nThis is the rule \"never tween `display`, `visibility`, or `autoAlpha` on a `.clip`\", and `lint` flags it as `gsap_animates_clip_element`. A scene-exit `tl.set(..., {visibility:\"hidden\"})` is also redundant, since the runtime already hides timed clips.\n\n**The fix**\n\n1. Delete the `visibility` set (and any `autoAlpha` or `display` tween) on the `.clip` element. Let `data-start` and `data-duration` control when it exists.\n2. If you want an exit effect, animate a child of the clip instead: an opacity fade, a transform, and so on, on an inner node. Or animate plain `opacity` on the clip if you only need a fade, which is allowed.\n3. Make sure the clip's `data-duration` ends where you want it hidden. The framework then hides it, and it is correctly restored on any backward seek.\n4. Keep the timeline paused and registered at `window.__timelines[\"<id>\"]`, so seeking is deterministic.\n5. Run `npx hyperframes check`, which should no longer report `gsap_animates_clip_element`, then confirm with a snapshot at a time before the clip's end after seeking backward.\n\nThe principle: the framework owns whether the clip is present, and your timeline owns only how its contents move while it is present.",
    "4087d75269f1a6a14a6d9144afdedc6f2a45af2a8b2160afd91fad37d8674000": "**The ownership problem**\n\nTwo systems are both trying to control the same property on the same element, and neither knows about the other.\n\n- The framework owns clip visibility. A `.clip` with `data-start`/`data-duration` is shown and hidden by the runtime based on the current time, which it recomputes on every seek.\n- Your timeline also writes `visibility` on that element, for example `tl.set(clip, {visibility: \"hidden\"}, endTime)`. GSAP records that as an inline style the timeline applies when playhead passes `endTime`.\n\nGoing forward, both agree: the clip is hidden after its end. The trouble is seeking backward. The runtime decides the clip should be visible again because the time is back inside its window. But GSAP only re-applies a `set` when the playhead crosses it in a direction it tracks, and an inline `visibility: hidden` that your timeline wrote can still win over, or fight with, the runtime's own toggling. The result is a clip that is inside its window yet stays hidden. Because rendering is frame-by-frame seeking, the same drift can also show up as wrong frames in a render, not just in preview scrubbing.\n\nThe root cause is not GSAP being buggy. It is that visibility on a timed clip has two owners, and a seekable timeline has to be the single source of truth for anything it touches.\n\n**The fix**\n\n1. Delete the end-of-clip `tl.set(..., {visibility: \"hidden\"})`. The runtime already hides a timed clip once its window ends, so it is redundant. `lint` also rejects tweening `display`, `visibility`, or `autoAlpha` on a `.clip` (`gsap_animates_clip_element`).\n2. If you want a visual exit, animate a child of the clip instead, such as `opacity` on an inner wrapper, using `tl.to(inner, {opacity: 0, ...})` or `fromTo`. Those tweens are fully seekable in both directions, because GSAP renders them from the playhead rather than from a one-way event.\n3. Let `data-start` and `data-duration` alone define when the clip exists. Set the duration to match the intended end so the framework hides it at the right moment.\n\nAfter that change, scrubbing backward re-shows the clip correctly, since only the framework controls its visibility and your timeline only controls the inner content. To confirm, run `npx hyperframes check`, then `snapshot` at a few times, including one point you reach by seeking backward.",
    "d8b29f8b8546009e649b4246d2bf6f1ca2701ae127171cde97f0b0cbd91db973": "**The problem: two owners for one property.**\n\nA timed clip's visibility is being written by two different parties:\n\n1. The **clip itself** (its own timing) decides it should be visible while the playhead is within its start/end range.\n2. The **timeline's visibility setting**, set at the clip's end, forces it hidden once playback reaches that point.\n\nThe timeline's \"hide at end\" is a one-shot, imperative write to the clip's `visible` state. Nothing ever writes it back. So when you seek backward into the clip's range, the clip's own timing logic has no reason to re-show it: it believes it is already handled, or it only reacts to forward transitions. The hidden flag set by the timeline persists because the timeline owns a mutation that the clip is supposed to own, and neither side reconciles on seek.\n\nIn short: visibility is **stored state mutated by events** (reach end, so hide) rather than **derived from the current time**. Event-driven state is path-dependent, so seeking (which skips or reverses events) leaves it stale.\n\n**The fix: give visibility a single owner and derive it from time.**\n\n- Make the clip (or a single resolver) the sole owner of its visibility.\n- Compute visibility as a pure function of the current playhead time on every update and every seek:\n  `visible = t >= clip.start && t < clip.end` (combined with any timeline-level override, such as \"hidden after end\", expressed as a rule, not a write).\n- Treat the timeline's end-of-clip visibility as **configuration** the clip reads (for example `hideAfterEnd: true`), not as a command that flips the flag.\n- On seek, in either direction, re-evaluate that function for every clip rather than relying on enter/exit events.\n\nIf you must keep event-based hooks for performance, have the seek handler explicitly reset and recompute visibility for all clips at the new time, so state is never carried across a discontinuity.\n\nResult: seeking backward into the range re-shows the clip because visibility depends only on where the playhead is, not on what happened earlier.",
    "728b3e6d065e98dc8ba6eea3389a91dd66a3320f9d19a309bab5820dac0a2be1": "**The problem: two owners for one piece of state**\n\nA timed clip's visibility ends up controlled by two independent writers:\n\n1. The clip's own timing logic, which should decide \"am I visible at time *t*?\" from its start and end.\n2. The timeline's visibility setting, which is applied at the clip's end and sets it hidden.\n\nThe second writer is an event, not a function of time. When playback reaches the clip's end, the timeline sets visibility to hidden and records that as persistent state. Nothing ever sets it back. If you seek backward to a time inside the clip's range, the clip's timing logic says it should be visible, but the stored \"hidden\" flag from the end event is still there, so it stays hidden.\n\nIn short, visibility is derived from time in one place and imperatively mutated in another, and the mutation is one-way. The state depends on the history of playback rather than on the current time, so seeking backward gives a different result than playing forward to the same point.\n\n**The fix: give visibility a single owner and make it a pure function of time**\n\n- Make the clip (or a single resolver) the only owner of visibility. On every tick or seek, compute `visible = start <= t < end` and apply it. Do not store a sticky flag.\n- Remove the end-time \"set hidden\" as a one-shot side effect. If an end-of-clip action must exist, make it idempotent and part of the same computation, so the next evaluation can reverse it.\n- If the timeline must keep its visibility control, have it hold only an override (for example, a user-requested \"force hide\") that is separate from the time-derived value. The effective visibility is then `timeDerived && !override`. The end event must not write into the override.\n- Re-evaluate on seek, not only on forward playback. A seek should run the same resolve path as a normal tick, so jumping backward re-shows the clip.\n\n**Result:** hidden-at-end is just what the function returns for *t* ≥ end. Seeking back to *t* < end returns visible again, with no leftover state to clear.\n\n**Test cases to check:**\n- Play past the end, seek back into the range: the clip is visible.\n- Seek straight to a time after the end, then back: the clip is hidden, then visible.\n- With the override on, the clip stays hidden anywhere. With it off, the clip follows time.",
    "0efa8120b60d623558bb6f4cac59a7121a93e4b5b3b5f9006bcb6701e7e9092a": "**The ownership problem**\n\nTwo independent mechanisms both write the same piece of state: the clip's visibility.\n\n1. The **clip** owns its own timing. Because it's timed, it should be visible only while the playhead is inside its `[start, end)` range.\n2. The **timeline** also owns a visibility setting, and it fires at the clip's end, setting visibility to hidden.\n\nThe timeline's end-of-clip action is an *imperative, one-shot event*: \"when time reaches the end, hide.\" Nothing ever issues the matching \"show\" when the playhead moves back before the end. So when the user seeks backward, the clip's own timing says it should be visible again, but the last write to the visibility state was the timeline's \"hide,\" and it still stands. The clip stays hidden.\n\nIn other words, visibility is derived from time in one place (the clip's range) but is also mutated as a side effect of passing a time point in another (the timeline's end-event). The side effect is forward-only and not reversible, so the state drifts from what the playhead position implies. Neither owner is wrong in isolation. The bug is that two owners write one value and only one of them is seek-aware.\n\n**The fix**\n\nMake a single owner responsible for visibility, and make it a pure function of the current time rather than a record of events that happened.\n\n- Have the timeline (or the clip) compute visibility on every time update or seek: `visible = start <= t < end`. Do not set it only when crossing the end.\n- Remove the one-shot \"hide at end\" write, or turn it into a no-op that just triggers re-evaluation.\n- Evaluate on seeks too, not only on forward playback ticks, so jumping backward re-derives visibility from the new time.\n\nIf you can't remove the end-event (for example, it's part of an external API), the alternative is to make it symmetric: pair it with a \"show\" when time re-enters the range, and run that on seek as well. That is more fragile, because you must replay or reconcile events correctly for arbitrary seeks, so the derived-from-time approach is the better recommendation.\n\nThe principle is that time-dependent state should be computed from the current time, not accumulated from events, so seeking in either direction yields the same result as playing straight to that point.",
    "ef388231258fd89c661b4f0ca044eec2eac30b58b2ec9e6983c44f4e3a0988c7": "**The problem: two owners for one piece of state**\n\nA timed clip's visibility has two writers:\n\n1. **The clip itself** owns its visibility as a function of time: visible while `start <= t < end`.\n2. **The timeline** also sets visibility, and when playback reaches the clip's end it hides the clip (a one-shot \"end\" event or callback that sets `visible = false`).\n\nBecause the timeline's write is an *event-driven mutation* rather than a *derived value*, it is order-dependent and stateful. Playback crosses `end`, the timeline hides the clip, and that `false` sticks. When the user seeks backward to a time inside `[start, end)`, nothing re-asserts visibility, because the \"end\" event only fires on forward crossing. The clip's own time-based rule never runs, or runs but is overridden by the stale flag. The clip stays hidden even though the playhead is back inside its range.\n\nThe root issue: visibility is stored as mutable state that is updated by transitions (entering/leaving) instead of being computed from the current time. Any non-monotonic time change (seek back, loop, scrub) breaks the assumption that transitions are seen in order.\n\n**The fix: give visibility a single owner and derive it from time**\n\n- Make the clip (or one resolver in the timeline) the sole owner. Remove the timeline's end-of-clip `visible = false` write.\n- On every time update, including seeks in either direction, compute visibility from the playhead: `visible = start <= t && t < end`. It is idempotent and has no memory of earlier events.\n- If the timeline needs to influence visibility (e.g. a track is muted or hidden), keep that as a separate input, such as `trackHidden`, and combine them at one point: `visible = inRange(t) && !trackHidden`. The timeline then no longer overwrites the clip's flag. It only supplies an independent input.\n- Run this evaluation on seek as well as on tick, so a backward jump re-evaluates every clip.\n\n**Why this works:** with one owner and a pure function of `t`, seeking backward just yields a different `t` and therefore the correct visibility. There is no stale `false` to clear, and the result no longer depends on the order in which time moved.\n\n**Test to add:** play past a clip's end so it hides, seek back to a time inside its range, and assert it is visible. Also check seeking forward past the end, seeking to exactly `start` and exactly `end` (boundary: end is exclusive), and repeated back-and-forth seeks."
  },
  "draws": [
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "6522b270ca9bd29bbe5825442d1e905cbc75d17074d11bf0b531dc146e9ee805",
      "answer_sha256": "6522b270ca9bd29bbe5825442d1e905cbc75d17074d11bf0b531dc146e9ee805",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the standalone template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, changes timeline registration to title, and does not claim any validation was run (it only describes what lint would reject).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, sets timeline registration to title, and never claims validation was run; it only says lint would reject the wrapper.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response removes the template wrapper, keeps the root visible in body, sets timeline registration to title, and does not claim any validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the standalone template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, makes the timeline registration match title as the primary fix, and does not claim validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response removes the standalone template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, sets timeline registration to match 'title', and does not claim validation was run, only that lint would reject the wrapper.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "0194c4641cb209fb71e578403bc3893d7a26ad8b77aefe639fa914bb05d9600a",
      "answer_sha256": "0194c4641cb209fb71e578403bc3893d7a26ad8b77aefe639fa914bb05d9600a",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, registers the timeline as \\\"title\\\" (offering an outro alternative), and only instructs running check without claiming it ran.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the standalone template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, makes timeline registration match 'title', and does not claim validation has run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the standalone template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, makes timeline registration match title as the primary fix, and does not claim validation has run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the standalone template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, offers registration as title, and makes no claim that validation has run; the outro-to-title alternative is hedged but the title fix is explicit.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the standalone `<template>` wrapper, keeps the root directly in `<body>`, makes the timeline key match `title`, and does not claim validation has run.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "698317b8e84db1022a316ea61e2ca5ab26de3315d93f3c1738bcd5d10b49a517",
      "answer_sha256": "698317b8e84db1022a316ea61e2ca5ab26de3315d93f3c1738bcd5d10b49a517",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Covers removing the template wrapper, keeping the root visible in body, and matching the timeline registration to the title id; it does not claim validation ran, noting it only has the description.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, makes registration match the title root, and does not claim validation was run. The offered alternative of renaming the root is a minor hedge.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response removes the template wrapper, keeps the root directly in body, makes the timeline key match the title root, and does not claim validation was run, satisfying all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, makes the timeline key match the root id, and does not claim any validation was run.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: removes the template wrapper, keeps the root visible in body, sets timeline registration to title, and does not claim validation was run.\"\n}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "49feb330f141fb5434e7d458cfea7a832192ce6aea060593d2f0ea981a50f97c",
      "answer_sha256": "49feb330f141fb5434e7d458cfea7a832192ce6aea060593d2f0ea981a50f97c",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criteria 1 (removes the template wrapper), 2 (keeps the root visible in body, implied by 'should sit directly in body'), and 4 (no claim that validation ran; it explicitly disclaims having seen the file) are met. Criterion 3 is only partly met: it offers title or outro as alternatives rather than committing to making the registration match title.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets points 1, 2, and 4: it removes the template wrapper, places the root in body, and claims no validation. It misses point 3 because it offers either title or outro instead of committing to matching the timeline to title.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, and claims no validation. It misses criterion 3 because it offers either title or outro rather than making registration match title.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets removing the template wrapper, keeping a visible root in body, and not claiming validation ran; misses matching registration to title, since it offers either title or outro.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it removes the template wrapper, keeps the root in body, and claims no validation ran. It misses 3 because it offers changing the id to outro as an equal option instead of matching registration to title.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "711a6b6a6b4fb4c6cb32aea97fd0730ff8a101ac4e5e9136007723e576a1047e",
      "answer_sha256": "711a6b6a6b4fb4c6cb32aea97fd0730ff8a101ac4e5e9136007723e576a1047e",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (removes template wrapper), 2 (root div stays as direct body child), and 3 (registration should be 'title' matching the composition ID), and did not claim validation ran; the response hedges on whether 'outro' is intended but still recommends 'title'. Score reflects 0.75 since all four criteria are satisfied, with the hedge not disqualifying it.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response removes the template wrapper, keeps the root div as a visible child of body, and makes the timeline registration match 'title' (hedged with 'most likely'). It also does not claim validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Covers all four rubric points: removes the template wrapper, keeps the root div in body, makes the timeline key match title (with a hedge), and claims no validation ran.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Covers all four rubric points: removes the template wrapper, keeps the root div as a direct child of body, recommends registering the timeline as title, and makes no claim that validation ran.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: it removes the template wrapper, keeps the root div directly in body, recommends matching the timeline registration to 'title', and makes no claim that validation ran.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "04b510fa51cb3af90b9645fc90e3644bdf1f1661464859d1c1fd8431b9909f87",
      "answer_sha256": "04b510fa51cb3af90b9645fc90e3644bdf1f1661464859d1c1fd8431b9909f87",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the template wrapper, keeps the root div directly in body, makes timeline registration match 'title' as the primary fix, and does not claim validation ran.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the template wrapper, places the title root directly in body, registers the timeline as title, and does not claim validation ran, meeting all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Removes the template wrapper, keeps the root div directly in body, registers the timeline to match 'title' (with an outro-rename alternative), and does not claim validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met all four: it removes the template wrapper, puts the visible root in body, registers the timeline as title, and claims no validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Covers all four rubric points: removes the template wrapper, places the visible root in body, registers the timeline to match title, and claims no validation was run.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "b5f9b92dd66f61c707968acea84cf94cbe90a96851509705d9c0b29a64ff8749",
      "answer_sha256": "b5f9b92dd66f61c707968acea84cf94cbe90a96851509705d9c0b29a64ff8749",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, registers the timeline under title, and makes no claim that validation has run, satisfying all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, registers the timeline under title, and claims no validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"The response removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, registers the timeline under \\\"title\\\", and does not claim any validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, registers the timeline under title, and claims no validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: removes the template wrapper, places the root in body, registers the timeline as title, and makes no claim that validation ran.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "89beb1904dd8b03dc655b77217ff50eeaa5ca0912f67cd93d36c5247ffc4bece",
      "answer_sha256": "89beb1904dd8b03dc655b77217ff50eeaa5ca0912f67cd93d36c5247ffc4bece",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (removes template wrapper), 2 (root sits directly in body), and 4 (no validation claimed). Missed 3: it hedges between title and outro instead of making the timeline register under title.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 2, and 4: it moves the root out of the template into body and claims no validation. Missed criterion 3: it hedges between title and outro instead of making the timeline registration match title.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it removes the template wrapper, puts the root in body, and claims no validation. It misses 3 because it offers either name rather than making registration match title.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets removing the template wrapper, keeping the root in body, and not claiming validation ran. Misses the timeline-title criterion because it hedges and allows changing the ID to outro instead of committing to title.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets removing the template wrapper, keeping a visible root in body, and not claiming validation ran. Misses the title-match point because it hedges, offering outro as an equal alternative instead of committing to title.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "root",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 5,
      "generation_hash": "841100f368339773960a419a38c75f7957e3583a406a4907e52711f8f641c90b",
      "answer_sha256": "841100f368339773960a419a38c75f7957e3583a406a4907e52711f8f641c90b",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: moves the root out of the template, places it directly in body, registers the timeline under title, and makes no claim that validation ran.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, registers the timeline to match title, and claims no validation was run; all four rubric points met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, registers the timeline under title, and does not claim any validation was run, meeting all four rubric points.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response removes the root from the template wrapper, places it as a direct child of body, registers the timeline under title, and makes no claim that validation was run.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: removes the template wrapper, places the root directly in body, registers the timeline under title, and does not claim validation was run.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "transform",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "925e4838798e12a75606c221db3d36cc60ccfbe6af6a263de3269a4acb0639a1",
      "answer_sha256": "925e4838798e12a75606c221db3d36cc60ccfbe6af6a263de3269a4acb0639a1",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP transform overwriting CSS translate (criterion 1), uses flexbox layout centering and xPercent/yPercent alternative (criterion 2), keeps animation seekable via paused timeline and fromTo (criterion 3), and uses no wall-clock timing (criterion 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP's transform overwriting the CSS translate, uses flexbox centering and xPercent/yPercent, keeps the timeline paused and seekable with fromTo, and uses no wall-clock timing.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP's x/y transform overwriting CSS translate(-50%,-50%) (criterion 1), uses flexbox layout centering and xPercent/yPercent (criterion 2), keeps the timeline paused and seekable via fromTo (criterion 3), and uses no wall-clock timing workaround (criterion 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP transform overwriting CSS translate (criterion 1), uses flexbox layout centering and xPercent/yPercent (criterion 2), keeps animation seekable via fromTo and paused timeline (criterion 3), and avoids any wall-clock workaround (criterion 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP transform overwriting CSS translate (criterion 1), uses flex layout centering and xPercent/yPercent (criterion 2), keeps fromTo timeline paused and seekable (criterion 3), and uses no wall-clock timing (criterion 4).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "transform",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "911d91ce0eec6437f2174b0939ae66dc89f8b1fa2ce416f29f3ddba3c720d87c",
      "answer_sha256": "911d91ce0eec6437f2174b0939ae66dc89f8b1fa2ce416f29f3ddba3c720d87c",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP transform overwriting the CSS translate (criterion 1), uses flex layout centering and xPercent/yPercent alternative (criterion 2), keeps timeline paused and registered for deterministic seeking (criterion 3), and uses no wall-clock workaround (criterion 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP's transform overwriting the CSS translate, uses flex centering and xPercent/yPercent, keeps the paused timeline seekable via fromTo, and uses no wall-clock timing workaround.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP's transform overwriting CSS translate, uses flex centering or xPercent/yPercent, keeps the paused timeline seekable with fromTo, and uses no wall-clock workaround.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP overwriting the CSS transform, centers via flex wrapper or xPercent/yPercent, keeps the paused timeline seekable with fromTo, and uses no wall-clock workaround.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP's transform overwriting CSS translate (criterion 1), uses flex layout centering and an xPercent/yPercent alternative (criterion 2), keeps the tween on a paused timeline with deterministic fromTo (criterion 3), and uses no wall-clock timing workaround (criterion 4).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "transform",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "b53f8f9575aad3e06e4ac6c57d9bc782cded2761915e58cf94f080185c7da10e",
      "answer_sha256": "b53f8f9575aad3e06e4ac6c57d9bc782cded2761915e58cf94f080185c7da10e",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the GSAP/CSS transform conflict, uses flex centering or xPercent/yPercent, keeps the paused timeline seekable with fromTo, and avoids wall-clock timing workarounds.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP transform overwriting CSS translate, offers flex or xPercent/yPercent centering, uses fromTo on a paused seekable timeline, and avoids wall-clock timing workarounds.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP's transform ownership conflict, offers layout centering and xPercent/yPercent options, keeps animation seekable via fromTo on a paused timeline, and uses no wall-clock workaround.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP's transform overwriting CSS translate, offers flex or xPercent/yPercent centering, uses fromTo and a seekable paused timeline, and includes no wall-clock workaround. All four criteria met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP's transform overwriting the CSS translate, uses flex centering and xPercent/yPercent, keeps the timeline seekable with fromTo and a paused registered timeline, and uses no wall-clock workaround.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "transform",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "8a4c442ed02462c0f81da2b650e297a8b0d1907367a972f5653483d97bd07c36",
      "answer_sha256": "8a4c442ed02462c0f81da2b650e297a8b0d1907367a972f5653483d97bd07c36",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies the competing transform ownership and uses xPercent/yPercent centering, and avoids timing workarounds; it never addresses keeping the animation seekable (e.g., a paused timeline).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies competing transform ownership (GSAP overwriting CSS translate), uses xPercent/yPercent centering, and keeps animation as seekable GSAP tweens; no wall-clock workaround, so criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 are met, though 3 is only implicit.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 2, and 4: it identifies GSAP overwriting the CSS transform, uses xPercent/yPercent centering, and avoids wall-clock timing. It never addresses keeping the animation seekable (criterion 3).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP overwriting the CSS transform, uses xPercent/yPercent centering, and avoids wall-clock timing; it never addresses keeping the animation seekable (e.g., timeline control).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP overwriting the CSS transform, uses xPercent/yPercent centering, and avoids wall-clock timing. It never explicitly addresses keeping the animation seekable, so that criterion is missed.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "transform",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "052b20e2a458e134f644527bcf372256fc4fe09567459b1968cdd334508a9a69",
      "answer_sha256": "052b20e2a458e134f644527bcf372256fc4fe09567459b1968cdd334508a9a69",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies competing transform ownership, uses xPercent/yPercent for centering, and avoids wall-clock timing workarounds; it never explicitly addresses keeping the animation seekable.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (identifies GSAP inline transform overwriting CSS transform), 2 (xPercent/yPercent centering), and 4 (no wall-clock workaround). Missed 3: never addresses keeping the animation seekable, such as a paused timeline or seek().\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (identifies GSAP's inline transform overwriting CSS), 2 (xPercent/yPercent centering), and 4 (no wall-clock workaround). Missed 3: never addresses keeping the animation seekable, such as a paused timeline that can be scrubbed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it identifies GSAP overriding the CSS transform, uses xPercent/yPercent centering, and avoids wall-clock timing. It misses 3 because it never addresses keeping the animation seekable.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Identifies GSAP transform overwriting CSS centering and uses xPercent/yPercent, and avoids timing hacks. It never addresses keeping the animation seekable (e.g., paused timelines or seek()), so that criterion is missed.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "transform",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "8c1b2af2d3283364aec2bb67d987eaa5e846f1756fc80c995ddbcd317adc074c",
      "answer_sha256": "8c1b2af2d3283364aec2bb67d987eaa5e846f1756fc80c995ddbcd317adc074c",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 2, and 4: it identifies GSAP overwriting the CSS transform, uses xPercent/yPercent, and avoids wall-clock workarounds. It never explicitly addresses seekability (timeline scrubbing), so criterion 3 is missed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it identifies GSAP overwriting the CSS transform, uses xPercent/yPercent, and avoids timing workarounds. It misses criterion 3 because it never addresses seekability, such as scrubbing or seeking a timeline.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it identifies GSAP overwriting the CSS transform, uses xPercent/yPercent centering, and avoids wall-clock timing. It misses 3 because it never mentions keeping the animation seekable or scrubbable via a timeline.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (identifies GSAP overwriting the CSS transform), 2 (uses xPercent/yPercent centering), and 4 (no wall-clock workaround); missed 3, since it never explicitly addresses keeping the animation seekable.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets competing-transform identification, GSAP xPercent/yPercent centering, and avoids wall-clock workarounds; does not explicitly address keeping the animation seekable (timeline/seek control).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "exit",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "fdb34767c888939dc822d83af3647b21889487a620140e4b0d849a740dcf1efd",
      "answer_sha256": "fdb34767c888939dc822d83af3647b21889487a620140e4b0d849a740dcf1efd",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: it identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the hard hide, and uses an inner or opacity fade. It misses criterion 4 because its verification step names only backward seeking and never explicitly checks forward seeking.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: it identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the exit visibility set, and suggests an inner or opacity tween for a fade. Criterion 4 is only partly met because the verification step names a backward scrub but not forward seeking.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the exit visibility set, and suggests an inner-child opacity fade. Criterion 4 is only partly met because verification mentions a backward scrub but never explicitly calls for forward seeking.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it recognizes framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the hard hide, and uses an inner or opacity fade. Criterion 4 is only partly met because the verification includes a backward scrub but never explicitly checks forward seeking.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the hard hide, and suggests an inner opacity fade. Criterion 4 is only partly met: verification names backward seeking but not forward seeking explicitly.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "exit",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "9524eff165fcd28740b3c22521ee06834f129c9664727626eec75759d96438ab",
      "answer_sha256": "9524eff165fcd28740b3c22521ee06834f129c9664727626eec75759d96438ab",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: it identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the hard hide, and suggests an inner-node opacity fade. Misses 4 because its verification step only checks a backward seek, not forward seeking.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.75,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it explains framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the redundant hard hide, and uses an inner opacity fade. Missed criterion 4: the verification step checks only backward seeking, not forward.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: explains framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the redundant hard hide, and offers an inner opacity fade. Misses criterion 4 because verification checks only backward seeking, not forward.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, says to remove the redundant hard hide, and offers an inner-node opacity fade. Missed 4: the verification only checks a backward seek and never a forward seek.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: it identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the hard hide, and suggests an inner opacity fade. Criterion 4 is missed because the verification step only checks a backward seek, not forward seeking.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "exit",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "4087d75269f1a6a14a6d9144afdedc6f2a45af2a8b2160afd91fad37d8674000",
      "answer_sha256": "4087d75269f1a6a14a6d9144afdedc6f2a45af2a8b2160afd91fad37d8674000",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the end-of-clip hard hide, and uses inner opacity for a fade. Misses criterion 4 because verification only explicitly mentions backward seeking, not forward.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the end-of-clip hard hide, and uses inner opacity for the fade. Criterion 4 is only partly met: it mentions checking a backward-seek point but never explicitly calls for forward seeking.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: recognizes framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the end-of-clip hard hide, and uses inner opacity. Missed criterion 4 because verification only explicitly names backward seeking, not forward.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: identifies framework ownership of clip visibility, removes the end-of-clip hard hide, and uses inner opacity for the fade. Criterion 4 is only partly met: it verifies backward seeking explicitly but never names forward seeking.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Recognizes framework ownership of timed visibility, removes the hard hide set, and uses inner opacity animation for the fade; verification checks backward seeking, but forward seeking is not explicitly checked (snapshot at 'a few times' is vague).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "exit",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "d8b29f8b8546009e649b4246d2bf6f1ca2701ae127171cde97f0b0cbd91db973",
      "answer_sha256": "d8b29f8b8546009e649b4246d2bf6f1ca2701ae127171cde97f0b0cbd91db973",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it identifies the ownership conflict and treats visibility as derived state. Criterion 2 is not clearly met: it never says to remove the hard hide. Criterion 3 is missed: it doesn't propose an inner opacity animation for a fade. Criterion 4 is missed: it proposes re-evaluating on seek but gives no explicit backward/forward verification plan.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Identifies the ownership conflict and treats end-of-clip hiding as configuration rather than a hard write (points 1-2 partly met), but never mentions an inner opacity animation for fades (point 3 missed) and only describes re-evaluating on seek rather than a verification plan (point 4 partly met).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Removing the hard hide (criterion 2) is met by converting end-of-clip hiding into a rule. Framework ownership (1) is not named, no inner opacity fade is proposed (3), and no forward/backward seek verification is offered (4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Recognizes an ownership conflict but not framework ownership of timed visibility; never removes the hard hide explicitly, omits the inner opacity fade, and gives no seek-direction verification plan.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (treats end-of-clip hide as configuration, not a hard write) and 4 (re-evaluates on both seek directions). Misses 1 (proposes user-side ownership instead of recognizing framework ownership) and 3 (no inner opacity fade).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "exit",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "728b3e6d065e98dc8ba6eea3389a91dd66a3320f9d19a309bab5820dac0a2be1",
      "answer_sha256": "728b3e6d065e98dc8ba6eea3389a91dd66a3320f9d19a309bab5820dac0a2be1",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (removes the end-time hard hide) and criterion 4 (tests backward and forward seeking), but misses criterion 1 (never identifies framework ownership of timed visibility) and criterion 3 (no inner opacity animation for a fade).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (removes the unnecessary end-time hard hide) and criterion 4 (tests backward and forward seeking), but misses criterion 1 (no framework ownership of timed visibility) and criterion 3 (no inner opacity animation for a fade).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (removes the end-time hard hide) and criterion 4 (tests backward and forward seeking), but misses criterion 1 (no framework ownership of timed visibility) and criterion 3 (no inner opacity animation for a fade).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets removing the unnecessary hard hide and checking backward and forward seeking; misses framework ownership of timed visibility and the inner opacity animation for a fade.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (removes the hard hide) and criterion 4 (tests backward and forward seeking), but misses criterion 1 by never naming framework ownership and criterion 3 by omitting an inner opacity animation.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "exit",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "0efa8120b60d623558bb6f4cac59a7121a93e4b5b3b5f9006bcb6701e7e9092a",
      "answer_sha256": "0efa8120b60d623558bb6f4cac59a7121a93e4b5b3b5f9006bcb6701e7e9092a",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 by removing the hard hide at end and criterion 4 by covering forward and backward seeks. Misses criterion 1, since it never identifies framework ownership of timed visibility, and criterion 3, since it never suggests an inner opacity animation for a fade.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (removes the hard end-of-clip hide) and criterion 4 (requires seek-aware re-evaluation in both directions). Misses criterion 1 (no framework ownership of timed visibility) and criterion 3 (no inner opacity animation for a fade).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 by removing the hard end-of-clip hide and criterion 4 by requiring re-evaluation on backward and forward seeks. Misses criterion 1 by not identifying the framework as owning timed visibility, and criterion 3 by never suggesting an inner opacity animation for a fade.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the hard-hide removal (point 2) and touches on framework-owned timing; misses the inner opacity animation for fades (point 3) and gives no explicit forward/backward seek verification (point 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets only criterion 2 by removing the hard end-of-clip hide; it never names framework ownership of timed visibility, omits the inner opacity fade option, and proposes no backward/forward seek verification.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "exit",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "ef388231258fd89c661b4f0ca044eec2eac30b58b2ec9e6983c44f4e3a0988c7",
      "answer_sha256": "ef388231258fd89c661b4f0ca044eec2eac30b58b2ec9e6983c44f4e3a0988c7",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (removes the timeline's hard hide) and criterion 4 (tests backward and forward seeks); misses criterion 1, since it never names framework ownership of timed visibility, and criterion 3, since it never mentions inner opacity animation for a fade.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets rubric 2 (removes the hard hide) and 4 (tests backward and forward seeks), but misses 1 (never identifies framework ownership of timed visibility) and 3 (no inner opacity animation for a fade).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the rubric on removing the hard hide (item 2) and checking both backward and forward seeks (item 4), but never identifies the framework as owning timed visibility (item 1) and omits the inner opacity animation for fades (item 3).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the hard-hide removal and forward/backward seek verification criteria, but misses framework ownership of timed visibility (it assigns ownership to the clip) and never mentions an inner opacity animation for fades.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (removes the end-of-clip hard hide) and criterion 4 (tests backward and forward seeks), but misses 1 (never identifies framework ownership of timed visibility) and 3 (no inner opacity animation for a fade).\"}"
      ]
    }
  ]
}