{ "format": "driftproof-answers/2", "receipt_hash": "8a22b747d44275755d3d236e3ed3fe09942ada0de2492562b1a0e64dc7750d59", "model_id": "claude-opus-5-5", "answers": { "65c0a58d85caf3676d4988bab6c33206a6eaed576ec1f2e094ca9194387a13a8": "# Prototype: can a reservation reach `paid` after `cancelled`?\n\nYou didn't include the real state machine, so this demo uses an **assumed** model, stated at the top of the file. Replace the `T` table and the webhook handler with your real ones, and the demo will answer the question for your actual code.\n\n## Why the assumed model looks like this\n\nCancelled→paid almost never comes from an explicit transition in the table. It usually comes from an **asynchronous payment confirmation**, such as a PSP webhook, that arrives after the user has cancelled, combined with a handler that sets `status = 'paid'` without checking the current state. So the model keeps two things separate:\n\n- **A pure transition table** for user and system actions. It has no cancelled→paid edge.\n- **A payment-in-flight flag.** Cancelling doesn't recall the payment, so the webhook can still land after the cancel.\n\nA **Guard** checkbox switches the webhook handler between the naive version and a state-checked version, so you can see the hole open and close.\n\n## The artifact\n\nSave it as a single file next to the reservation module, for example `reservation.PROTOTYPE.html`, and double-click it to open.\n\n```html\n\n\nPROTOTYPE: reservation states\n\n

PROTOTYPE: can paid follow cancelled?

\n\n\n

Free play

\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Guided walkthroughs
\n
\n
\n\n
Exhaustive search
\n\n
\n\n\n```\n\n## What it should show under the assumed model\n\n| Guard | Exhaustive search result |\n|---|---|\n| Off | Reachable. Shortest path: `hold → startPayment → cancel → webhookSucceeded`. |\n| On | Not reachable within depth 6. Several paths end in `needsRefund`. |\n\n**Verdict (assumed model):** yes, a reservation can reach `paid` after `cancelled`. The bug is not in the transition table. It's the combination of a payment left in flight across a cancel or expiry, plus a webhook handler that doesn't check the current state.\n\nGuarding the handler closes the state hole but leaves a real business question: **money captured on a cancelled reservation.** You need to decide whether that case auto-refunds, voids the authorization at cancel time, or blocks cancel while a payment is pending. The demo makes that tradeoff visible but doesn't decide it.\n\n**Caveat:** the search is bounded at depth 6. That's plenty for this table, but if the real machine has loops (retry payment, re-hold), raise the depth.\n\n## When you're done\n\n1. Swap in the real table and handler, then rerun the search.\n2. Fold the chosen fix into the real code, such as the guarded handler or voiding the payment on cancel.\n3. Commit this file to a throwaway branch, not main, and link that branch from the implementation issue.\n4. Record the verdict in the issue, along with the counterexample path and which guard or policy was chosen.",
    "1d9d52f72b0560296f25b2371095ae6c5690e199e3f7c6d8df8985ddb39c6c4a": "# Prototype: can a reservation reach `paid` after `cancelled`?\n\nYou asked whether the logic is right, so this is a logic prototype: one HTML file you open by double-clicking.\n\n**Assumption:** I haven't seen your state machine, and the repo has no commits yet. The transition table at the top of the script is a guess at a typical reservation flow. Replace it with your real one before you trust the verdict.\n\n## Why this needs a demo\n\nA transition table usually forbids `cancelled → paid`. Bugs happen in two places the table doesn't cover:\n\n1. **Late payment webhook.** The user pays, cancels while the payment provider is still processing, and then the \"success\" webhook arrives.\n2. **Handlers that bypass the machine.** A webhook handler sets `status = 'paid'` directly instead of firing a transition.\n\nThe demo models both. It also tracks whether money was captured, separately from the status.\n\n## File: `reservation-state.PROTOTYPE.html`\n\nPut it next to the reservation module.\n\n```html\n\n\nPROTOTYPE – reservation: paid after cancelled?\n\n
PROTOTYPE — throwaway. The transition table is ASSUMED; paste in the real one.
\n
Can a reservation reach paid after cancelled?
\n\n
\n
\n
State
\n
Invariants
\n
Log
\n\n```\n\n## What it shows with the assumed table\n\n| Scenario | Reaches `paid` after `cancelled`? | Money captured while not `paid`? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Cancel, then pay | No (rejected) | No |\n| Late webhook, guarded | No | **Yes** |\n| Late webhook, naive handler | **Yes** | No |\n| Expiry + late webhook | No | **Yes** |\n\nThe likely finding is that the answer depends on the webhook handler, not on the table. If the handler bypasses the machine, `paid` is reachable after `cancelled`. If it goes through the machine, the status stays correct, but the customer can still be charged for a cancelled reservation.\n\nSo the real design decision is what `payment_succeeded` should do in `cancelled` and `expired`. One option is to auto-refund. The other is to add an explicit `cancelled → refund_pending` transition. The bad outcome is silently dropping the event.\n\n## Next steps (for you to run; I haven't touched the repo)\n\n1. Paste your real transition table into `T`. Also check whether your actual webhook handler goes through the machine or sets the status directly. That sets the bypass toggle.\n2. Fold the decision you settle on into the real module.\n3. Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch such as `prototype/reservation-paid-after-cancel`, not `main`. Link it from the implementation issue, along with the question and the verdict.",
    "5224eaf91933f0a9c5674b65c8321c411a6e81f50e486f47871d8a1894548e64": "# Prototype: can a reservation reach `paid` after `cancelled`?\n\nI don't have your actual reservation states or transitions, so this design assumes a typical model. **Swap the `T` table and the webhook handler for your real ones before trusting the verdict.** The prototype is built to show where `paid` after `cancelled` usually comes from: a payment webhook that writes `paid` without checking the current state.\n\n## Artifact\n\nThere is one file, `reservation-state.PROTOTYPE.html`, placed next to your reservation module. You open it by double-clicking. It has no build step, no persistence and no dependencies.\n\nIt includes:\n- **Free-play buttons** for every event.\n- **A Naive / Guarded toggle** so you can see the bug and the fix side by side.\n- **Tabbed guided walkthroughs** for the cases that are hard to reason about on paper.\n- **A live invariant check** that flags `paid` after `cancelled` in the history.\n- **A full-state dump** after every action.\n\n## Assumed model\n\n| From | Event | To |\n|---|---|---|\n| requested | HOLD / CANCEL | held / cancelled |\n| held | PAY / CANCEL / EXPIRE | payment_pending / cancelled / expired |\n| payment_pending | FAIL / CANCEL / EXPIRE | held / cancelled / expired |\n| paid | CANCEL / REFUND | cancelled (refund owed) / refunded |\n| cancelled | REINSTATE | held |\n\n`WEBHOOK_OK` is delivered asynchronously and can arrive late or more than once. It is the event that can produce `paid`.\n\n```html\n\n\n\nPROTOTYPE: reservation paid-after-cancelled\n\n
PROTOTYPE — reservation state machine
\n\n
\n\n
Free play
\n
\n\n
Guided walkthroughs
\n
\n
 \n\n
History
\n
Full state
\n\n\n```\n\n## How to read the result\n\n**Naive mode.** Three walkthroughs show the red VIOLATION banner:\n- Cancel during payment\n- Expire then late pay\n- Duplicate after cancel\n\nSo with an unconditional webhook write, **yes, the machine can reach `paid` after `cancelled`**. That holds even though no row in the transition table allows it.\n\n**Guarded mode.** Those same three cases stay `cancelled` or `expired` and set `refundOwed`. The answer then depends on the table alone.\n\n**Reinstate walkthrough.** This one shows yellow in both modes. It marks a product decision rather than a bug: is a reinstated reservation the \"same\" reservation? If it isn't, drop `REINSTATE` and require a new reservation instead.\n\n## Next steps\n\nI didn't create or commit anything, per your instructions. Once you've run the prototype, three steps remain:\n\n1. **Fold the verdict into the real code.** The likely change is a current-state guard plus an idempotent webhook handler.\n2. **Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch,** for example `prototype/reservation-paid-after-cancelled`, and keep it out of `main`.\n3. **Leave a pointer on the implementation issue.** It should name the question, the verdict (naive: reachable via late or duplicate webhook; guarded: not reachable except via reinstate) and the branch.",
    "980add6b0b3ab858e051ad101794b33ba41ec6a33308402bfdee5b6ab51be136": "No transition table or code was included, so I can't say whether **your** machine can reach `paid` after `cancelled`. Below is a small throwaway demo that answers the question for any transition table you plug in, and also shows the most common way this bug happens in practice.\n\n## How \"paid after cancelled\" usually happens\n\n1. **A direct edge exists.** The table allows `cancelled → paid`, or allows `cancelled → X → paid`, for example through a \"reactivate\" or \"retry payment\" path.\n2. **A race.** The table is correct, but the code checks the state and then writes it non-atomically. A late payment webhook reads `pending_payment`, the user cancels, and then the webhook writes `paid`.\n3. **The guard is bypassed.** Some code path, such as an admin tool, a migration, or a webhook handler, sets `status = 'paid'` directly instead of going through the transition function.\n\nThe demo covers the first two. The third needs a code search for direct writes to the status field.\n\n## Throwaway demo (Python, stdlib only)\n\n```python\n# reservation_demo.py -- throwaway, not production\nfrom collections import deque\nimport threading, time\n\n# 1. Replace with your real transition table.\nTRANSITIONS = {\n    \"draft\":           {\"pending_payment\", \"cancelled\"},\n    \"pending_payment\": {\"paid\", \"cancelled\", \"expired\"},\n    \"paid\":            {\"refunded\"},\n    \"cancelled\":       set(),          # terminal?\n    \"expired\":         {\"pending_payment\"},  # suspicious \"retry\" edge\n    \"refunded\":        set(),\n}\n\ndef reachable(start):\n    seen, q, parent = {start}, deque([start]), {start: None}\n    while q:\n        s = q.popleft()\n        for t in TRANSITIONS.get(s, ()):\n            if t not in seen:\n                seen.add(t); parent[t] = s; q.append(t)\n    return seen, parent\n\ndef path_to(parent, target):\n    p = []\n    while target is not None:\n        p.append(target); target = parent[target]\n    return list(reversed(p))\n\n# 2. Static check: can cancelled reach paid via the table?\nseen, parent = reachable(\"cancelled\")\nprint(\"Static: cancelled -> paid reachable?\", \"paid\" in seen)\nif \"paid\" in seen:\n    print(\"  path:\", \" -> \".join(path_to(parent, \"paid\")))\n\n# 3. Race check: naive check-then-set vs. atomic compare-and-set.\nclass Reservation:\n    def __init__(self):\n        self.state = \"pending_payment\"\n        self.lock = threading.Lock()\n\n    def naive_transition(self, to):\n        if to in TRANSITIONS[self.state]:   # check\n            time.sleep(0.01)                # widen the race window\n            self.state = to                 # set (stale decision)\n\n    def atomic_transition(self, to):\n        with self.lock:\n            if to in TRANSITIONS[self.state]:\n                self.state = to\n\ndef race(method_name):\n    r = Reservation()\n    pay    = threading.Thread(target=getattr(r, method_name), args=(\"paid\",))\n    cancel = threading.Thread(target=getattr(r, method_name), args=(\"cancelled\",))\n    pay.start(); time.sleep(0.001); cancel.start()\n    pay.join(); cancel.join()\n    return r.state\n\nfor m in (\"naive_transition\", \"atomic_transition\"):\n    results = {race(m) for _ in range(20)}\n    print(f\"Race ({m}): final states seen = {results}\")\n```\n\n## What to expect\n\n- **Static check:** With the sample table it prints `False`, because `cancelled` has no outgoing edges. Add an edge like `\"cancelled\": {\"pending_payment\"}` and it prints `True` along with the path, e.g. `cancelled -> pending_payment -> paid`.\n- **Naive race:** Both threads pass the check while the state is still `pending_payment`, so the final state is whichever write lands last. You'll see a mix that can include `paid` even though cancellation was requested. With this timing, \"cancelled, then overwritten\" isn't guaranteed to show up, so reverse the sleeps to make cancel write first if you want to force it.\n- **Atomic race:** Only one transition wins. Whichever thread runs second is rejected, so a reservation is never both cancelled and paid.\n\n## To answer it for your system\n\n1. Paste your real transition table into `TRANSITIONS` and run the static check.\n2. Check whether your real transition code is atomic. In a database that means something like `UPDATE ... SET status='paid' WHERE id=? AND status='pending_payment'` followed by checking the affected row count, or using row locks or version columns.\n3. Grep for direct writes to the status field outside the transition function.\n\nIf you share the actual states, transitions, or handler code, I can tell you specifically whether `paid` is reachable after `cancelled`.",
    "857ca04ba53455d58aab7f45ca2752816b528900c6b956a419fdc175b0ffbd72": "# Can `paid` follow `cancelled`? A throwaway demonstration\n\nI haven't seen your actual state machine. The repo has no commits, and you haven't pasted the transition table. So below is a template you can fill in with your real transitions and handlers. It checks the question in two different ways, because the bug usually hides in the second one.\n\n## Two ways `paid` can follow `cancelled`\n\n1. **Declared reachability.** The transition table itself contains a path from `cancelled` to `paid`, for example `cancelled → pending → paid` through a \"reinstate\" or \"retry\" action. A graph search answers this.\n2. **Undeclared reachability.** The table says no, but some code path writes `status = \"paid\"` without checking the current state. The classic case is a late payment webhook or capture callback that arrives after the user cancelled. The graph can't show this. You have to replay the events.\n\n## Demo script (single file, standard library only, untested)\n\n```python\n# throwaway_reachability.py — not production code\nfrom collections import deque\n\n# 1. Replace with your real transitions: state -> {event: next_state}\nTRANSITIONS = {\n    \"pending\":   {\"pay\": \"paid\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\", \"expire\": \"expired\"},\n    \"paid\":      {\"refund\": \"refunded\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\"},\n    \"cancelled\": {\"reinstate\": \"pending\"},   # delete if you have no reinstate\n    \"expired\":   {},\n    \"refunded\":  {},\n}\n\ndef path_between(start, goal):\n    seen, q = {start}, deque([(start, [])])\n    while q:\n        state, path = q.popleft()\n        if state == goal:\n            return path\n        for event, nxt in TRANSITIONS.get(state, {}).items():\n            if nxt not in seen:\n                seen.add(nxt)\n                q.append((nxt, path + [f\"{state} --{event}--> {nxt}\"]))\n    return None\n\nprint(\"Declared path cancelled -> paid:\", path_between(\"cancelled\", \"paid\"))\n\n# 2. Mimic how your handlers actually write state.\nclass Reservation:\n    def __init__(self):\n        self.status = \"pending\"\n\n    def apply(self, event):                  # guarded: uses the table\n        nxt = TRANSITIONS[self.status].get(event)\n        if nxt is None:\n            return f\"rejected {event} in {self.status}\"\n        self.status = nxt\n        return f\"{event} -> {nxt}\"\n\n    def on_payment_webhook(self):            # copy the shape of YOUR handler\n        self.status = \"paid\"                 # unguarded write = the bug\n        return \"webhook -> paid\"\n\nr = Reservation()\nprint(r.apply(\"cancel\"))           # user cancels\nprint(r.on_payment_webhook())      # provider confirms the earlier charge\nprint(\"Final status:\", r.status)   # 'paid' means it is reachable in practice\n```\n\n## Reading the output\n\n- **The declared path prints `None` and the final status is `cancelled`.** Your model and handlers are consistent, at least for the paths you modelled.\n- **The declared path prints a list of steps.** Paid-after-cancelled is allowed by design. Decide whether that is intended, for example reinstate-then-pay.\n- **The declared path prints `None` but the final status is `paid`.** This is the dangerous case: a handler bypasses the state machine. The usual fix is to route the handler through the guarded transition, or to use a conditional write such as `UPDATE … SET status='paid' WHERE id=? AND status='pending'`. You also need a policy for what a late payment on a cancelled reservation should do, such as auto-refund or flag for review.\n\n## Making the check thorough\n\nCopy every place in your code that writes `status` into the `Reservation` class as its own method. Then replay each possible ordering of `cancel` against each payment-related event (authorize, capture, webhook, retry). With about 3–4 events this is a few dozen permutations, so `itertools.permutations` is enough.\n\nIf you paste your transition table and the payment and cancel handlers, I can tell you which of the three outcomes applies.",
    "4bf3cc8a6741d14c8d18fcef0b23f1d36b9821f285c76fdaf9c24b5ba7e568fa": "# Can `cancelled` lead to `paid`? A throwaway demo\n\n**I don't have the state machine itself.** The message mentions \"supplied facts,\" but no transitions, states or code came with it, and the repo has no commits. So I can't tell you whether *your* machine can reach `paid` after `cancelled`. Below is a small harness that answers the question once you paste in your real transition table. It uses an assumed example table, which you should replace.\n\n## What \"reach paid after cancelled\" can mean\n\n1. **Structural:** the transition graph has a path from `cancelled` to `paid`, directly or through other states such as `cancelled → reopened → pending → paid`.\n2. **Behavioural:** the graph forbids it, but the code doesn't enforce it. A classic case is a late payment webhook that sets `status = \"paid\"` without checking the current state.\n\nThe demo checks both.\n\n## Demo (single file, Python, stdlib only)\n\n```python\n# throwaway_reservation_demo.py -- not production code\nfrom collections import deque\nfrom itertools import permutations\n\n# --- 1. Transition table: REPLACE with your real one -------------------------\n# (state, event) -> next_state\nTRANSITIONS = {\n    (\"pending\",   \"pay_ok\"):  \"paid\",\n    (\"pending\",   \"cancel\"):  \"cancelled\",\n    (\"pending\",   \"expire\"):  \"expired\",\n    (\"paid\",      \"refund\"):  \"refunded\",\n    (\"cancelled\", \"reopen\"):  \"pending\",   # <- suspicious edge, remove to compare\n}\n\ndef path_between(start, goal):\n    \"\"\"BFS: shortest event sequence from start to goal, or None.\"\"\"\n    queue, seen = deque([(start, [])]), {start}\n    while queue:\n        state, events = queue.popleft()\n        if state == goal:\n            return events\n        for (s, e), nxt in TRANSITIONS.items():\n            if s == state and nxt not in seen:\n                seen.add(nxt)\n                queue.append((nxt, events + [e]))\n    return None\n\n# --- 2. Behavioural check: naive vs guarded event handling --------------------\ndef apply_naive(state, event):\n    # Mimics a handler that writes the target state without checking the source.\n    targets = {e: nxt for (_, e), nxt in TRANSITIONS.items()}\n    return targets.get(event, state)\n\ndef apply_guarded(state, event):\n    return TRANSITIONS.get((state, event), state)   # illegal -> no-op\n\ndef interleavings(events):\n    return set(permutations(events))\n\ndef find_violations(apply, events=(\"cancel\", \"pay_ok\")):\n    bad = []\n    for order in interleavings(events):\n        state, history = \"pending\", [\"pending\"]\n        for e in order:\n            state = apply(state, e)\n            history.append(state)\n        if \"cancelled\" in history and history.index(\"cancelled\") < len(history) - 1 \\\n                and \"paid\" in history[history.index(\"cancelled\"):]:\n            bad.append((order, history))\n    return bad\n\nif __name__ == \"__main__\":\n    p = path_between(\"cancelled\", \"paid\")\n    print(\"Structural path cancelled -> paid:\", p if p else \"none\")\n    print(\"Naive handler violations:  \", find_violations(apply_naive))\n    print(\"Guarded handler violations:\", find_violations(apply_guarded))\n```\n\n## Expected output with the example table\n\n- **Structural:** `['reopen', 'pay_ok']`, because the `reopen` edge makes it reachable. Delete that edge and the result becomes `none`.\n- **Naive handler:** one violation. The order `('cancel', 'pay_ok')` gives the history `pending → cancelled → paid`. This is the late-webhook bug.\n- **Guarded handler:** no violations. `pay_ok` in the `cancelled` state is a no-op.\n\n## How to use it on your system\n\n1. Transcribe your real transitions into `TRANSITIONS`, including any admin, retry or \"reopen\" paths.\n2. Make `apply_naive` mirror how your payment callback actually writes state. That might be an unconditional `UPDATE ... SET status='paid'` or a check on a stale read.\n3. Extend `events` to include retries, for example `(\"cancel\", \"pay_ok\", \"pay_ok\")`, and any expiry or refund events.\n\nIf both checks come back clean, the remaining risk is concurrency the model doesn't capture. Two workers could read `pending` at the same time. That gets fixed in the real code with a conditional update such as `WHERE status='pending'` or a row lock, not in this demo.\n\nIf you paste your actual states and transitions, I can trace the answer by hand.",
    "acadaf179ffc99bfecd19bdd3e361a4df631f29a5e935d237b470246e0d5ba7f": "I don't have your actual state machine. The repo snapshot has no commits and no transition table was supplied. So the demo below uses an **assumed** model. To get a real answer, swap in your real transitions and guards.\n\n## What \"reach paid after cancelled\" usually means\n\nThere are two separate questions, and the demo checks both:\n\n1. **Static reachability:** Is there any path `cancelled → … → paid` in the transition graph? This happens when a transition from cancelled exists, such as `cancelled → pending` on \"reinstate\".\n2. **Dynamic reachability:** Even if the graph forbids it, can the *running system* end in `paid` after a cancel? The classic cause is a race. Cancel and a late payment webhook both read `pending` and both write, and the last write wins.\n\n## Throwaway demo (Python, stdlib only)\n\n```python\n# demo_fsm.py — throwaway. Replace TRANSITIONS with your real table.\nfrom collections import deque\nimport threading, time\n\n# ASSUMED model — edit to match reality\nTRANSITIONS = {\n    \"pending\":   {\"pay\": \"paid\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\", \"expire\": \"expired\"},\n    \"paid\":      {\"refund\": \"refunded\", \"cancel\": \"cancelled\"},\n    \"cancelled\": {\"reinstate\": \"pending\"},   # <-- suspicious edge; delete to test\n    \"expired\":   {},\n    \"refunded\":  {},\n}\n\n# 1. Static: BFS for any path from 'cancelled' to 'paid'\ndef find_path(src, dst):\n    q, seen = deque([(src, [])]), {src}\n    while q:\n        state, path = q.popleft()\n        if state == dst:\n            return path\n        for event, nxt in TRANSITIONS.get(state, {}).items():\n            if nxt not in seen:\n                seen.add(nxt)\n                q.append((nxt, path + [f\"{state} --{event}--> {nxt}\"]))\n    return None\n\npath = find_path(\"cancelled\", \"paid\")\nprint(\"STATIC:\", \"REACHABLE via \" + \" | \".join(path) if path else \"unreachable\")\n\n# 2. Dynamic: naive check-then-set race (cancel vs. late payment webhook)\nclass Reservation:\n    def __init__(self): self.state, self.history = \"pending\", []\n    def apply(self, event, delay=0.0):\n        current = self.state                      # read\n        nxt = TRANSITIONS[current].get(event)     # validate against stale read\n        time.sleep(delay)                         # widen the race window\n        if nxt:\n            self.state = nxt                      # unguarded write\n            self.history.append((event, current, nxt))\n\nr = Reservation()\nt1 = threading.Thread(target=r.apply, args=(\"cancel\", 0.01))\nt2 = threading.Thread(target=r.apply, args=(\"pay\", 0.05))   # webhook lands later\nt1.start(); t2.start(); t1.join(); t2.join()\nprint(\"DYNAMIC: final =\", r.state, \"| history =\", r.history)\n# Expected bug: history shows cancel applied, then pay applied from a stale 'pending' read\n# -> final state 'paid' even though the reservation was cancelled.\n```\n\n### Expected output with the assumed model\n- **STATIC:** `REACHABLE via cancelled --reinstate--> pending | pending --pay--> paid`\n- **DYNAMIC:** `final = paid`, with both `cancel` and `pay` in the history.\n\n### How to use it to answer your question\n- **Remove the `reinstate` edge.** If STATIC then says unreachable, the graph itself is safe.\n- **Leave DYNAMIC as is.** It still reaches `paid` even with a safe graph, which shows that graph safety alone isn't enough.\n- **Check the fix.** Make the write conditional on the state it read: compare-and-set, `UPDATE … SET state='paid' WHERE id=? AND state='pending'`, or a lock around the read and write. Rerun, and the late `pay` should be rejected and leave `cancelled`.\n\n## What I need to give a real answer\n- Your actual transition table, including any admin, reinstate or retry transitions.\n- How transitions are persisted: an ORM save, a conditional update, or a lock.\n- Whether payment confirmation arrives asynchronously, for example from a provider webhook.\n\nWith those, the same two checks give a definitive yes or no.",
    "b0790de1f67767ae5ac0f59980e77f79f65b27f30fd5000f7fae374f47943fc5": "# Can a reservation reach `paid` after `cancelled`?\n\nI don't have your actual state machine. The repo has no commits and no code was supplied. So this demo uses an assumed, typical reservation model. Replace `TRANSITIONS` and the handlers with your real ones and the checks still apply.\n\n`cancelled → paid` usually happens in one of two ways, and the demo tests both:\n\n1. **Static:** the transition table allows a path out of `cancelled` that eventually leads to `paid`.\n2. **Dynamic:** every individual transition is legal, but a check-then-act race lets a late payment callback overwrite `cancelled`.\n\n## Throwaway demo (`demo_paid_after_cancel.py`)\n\n```python\nfrom collections import deque\nfrom itertools import permutations\n\n# --- 1. Static reachability over the declared transition table -------------\n# Assumed model; paste your real table here.\nTRANSITIONS = {\n    \"pending\":   {\"held\", \"cancelled\", \"expired\"},\n    \"held\":      {\"paid\", \"cancelled\", \"expired\"},\n    \"paid\":      {\"refunded\"},\n    \"cancelled\": {\"pending\"},        # e.g. a \"reopen\" feature; delete to compare\n    \"expired\":   set(),\n    \"refunded\":  set(),\n}\n\ndef reachable(start):\n    seen, q = {start}, deque([start])\n    while q:\n        for nxt in TRANSITIONS.get(q.popleft(), ()):\n            if nxt not in seen:\n                seen.add(nxt); q.append(nxt)\n    return seen\n\ndef path(src, dst):\n    prev, q = {src: None}, deque([src])\n    while q:\n        s = q.popleft()\n        if s == dst:\n            out = []\n            while s is not None: out.append(s); s = prev[s]\n            return out[::-1]\n        for n in TRANSITIONS.get(s, ()):\n            if n not in prev: prev[n] = s; q.append(n)\n\nprint(\"static: paid reachable from cancelled?\", \"paid\" in reachable(\"cancelled\"),\n      path(\"cancelled\", \"paid\"))\n\n# --- 2. Dynamic: interleave a canceller and a payment webhook ---------------\n# Each actor is split into atomic steps: read state, then write state.\n# GUARDED=False mimics `if r.state == 'held': ... r.state = 'paid'` with no lock/CAS.\nGUARDED = False\n\ndef run(schedule):\n    db = {\"state\": \"held\"}\n    local = {}\n    history = []\n    steps = {\n        (\"cancel\", 0): lambda: local.__setitem__(\"c\", db[\"state\"]),\n        (\"cancel\", 1): lambda: _write(db, history, \"cancelled\",\n                                      ok=local[\"c\"] in {\"pending\", \"held\"}),\n        (\"pay\", 0):    lambda: local.__setitem__(\"p\", db[\"state\"]),\n        (\"pay\", 1):    lambda: _write(db, history, \"paid\",\n                                      ok=local[\"p\"] == \"held\"),\n    }\n    for s in schedule:\n        steps[s]()\n    return history\n\ndef _write(db, history, new, ok):\n    if not ok:\n        return\n    if GUARDED and new not in TRANSITIONS[db[\"state\"]]:   # re-check at write time (CAS)\n        return\n    db[\"state\"] = new\n    history.append(new)\n\ndef valid(order):  # each actor's step 0 must precede its step 1\n    return all(order.index((a, 0)) < order.index((a, 1)) for a in (\"cancel\", \"pay\"))\n\nops = [(\"cancel\", 0), (\"cancel\", 1), (\"pay\", 0), (\"pay\", 1)]\nbad = set()\nfor order in filter(valid, permutations(ops)):\n    h = run(order)\n    if \"cancelled\" in h and \"paid\" in h[h.index(\"cancelled\"):]:\n        bad.add(tuple(order))\nprint(f\"dynamic (GUARDED={GUARDED}): {len(bad)} bad interleavings\")\nfor b in sorted(bad):\n    print(\"  \", \" -> \".join(f\"{a}.{'read' if i == 0 else 'write'}\" for a, i in b))\n```\n\n## What to expect\n\nRun it with `python3 demo_paid_after_cancel.py`, flipping the two knobs between runs.\n\n| Knob | Expected result |\n|---|---|\n| `cancelled: {\"pending\"}` present | Static check reports `True`, path `cancelled → pending → held → paid` |\n| `cancelled: set()` | Static check reports `False` |\n| `GUARDED = False` | Nonzero bad interleavings, e.g. `pay.read → cancel.read → cancel.write → pay.write` |\n| `GUARDED = True` | 0 bad interleavings (the write re-validates against the current state) |\n\n## How to read the outcome for your system\n\n- **Static check is `True`:** the design itself allows it. Decide whether \"reopen\" is meant to exist.\n- **Static check is `False` but `GUARDED = False` produces bad runs, and your code reads then writes without a lock:** it is reachable in production via races. Typical sources are late payment webhooks, retries, and queue redelivery. The fix is an atomic conditional write, such as `UPDATE ... SET state='paid' WHERE id=? AND state='held'` (checking the row count), or a row lock. A cancel that loses the race to an already-captured payment should trigger a refund, not a silent overwrite.\n- **Both clean:** within this model, `paid` after `cancelled` is unreachable. The model only covers two actors with one read and one write each. If your flow has more actors (expiry job, admin tools), add them to `steps`.\n\nIf you paste your real transition table and the payment and cancel handlers, I can map them onto this demo and tell you which case applies.",
    "f9aec8f69150738c33ed407042f249944e12a302ea82f5e6e35c832287c8db2b": "No reservation code or transition table was supplied, and the repo snapshot has no commits. So I can't say whether *your* machine reaches `paid` after `cancelled`. Below is a small throwaway demonstration you can point at the real transitions. It checks the two ways this usually happens:\n\n1. **Static reachability:** the transition table has a path `cancelled → … → paid`.\n2. **Runtime race:** the table forbids it, but a late or concurrent payment callback writes `paid` without checking the current state.\n\n## Throwaway demo (Python, single file, stdlib only)\n\n```python\n# demo_cancel_then_paid.py — throwaway; replace TRANSITIONS with the real table\nfrom collections import deque\nimport threading, time\n\n# --- 1. Static reachability -------------------------------------------------\nTRANSITIONS = {            # EXAMPLE ONLY: transcribe the real table here\n    \"pending\":   {\"held\", \"cancelled\"},\n    \"held\":      {\"paid\", \"cancelled\", \"expired\"},\n    \"expired\":   {\"pending\"},          # \"retry\" edge, a common hidden path\n    \"cancelled\": {\"pending\"},          # \"reopen\" edge, the suspect\n    \"paid\":      {\"refunded\"},\n    \"refunded\":  set(),\n}\n\ndef path(src, dst):\n    q, prev = deque([src]), {src: None}\n    while q:\n        s = q.popleft()\n        if s == dst:\n            out = []\n            while s is not None:\n                out.append(s); s = prev[s]\n            return out[::-1]\n        for n in TRANSITIONS.get(s, ()):\n            if n not in prev:\n                prev[n] = s; q.append(n)\n    return None\n\nprint(\"static path cancelled->paid:\", path(\"cancelled\", \"paid\"))\n\n# --- 2. Runtime race: check-then-act without a guard ------------------------\nclass Reservation:\n    def __init__(self): self.state = \"held\"; self.lock = threading.Lock()\n\n    # Mimics a webhook handler that validates, then does slow work, then writes.\n    def on_payment_unsafe(self):\n        if self.state in (\"held\",):          # check\n            time.sleep(0.05)                 # e.g. call to payment provider\n            self.state = \"paid\"              # act (no re-check)\n\n    def on_payment_safe(self):\n        with self.lock:                      # stands in for UPDATE ... WHERE state='held'\n            if self.state == \"held\":\n                self.state = \"paid\"\n\n    def cancel(self):\n        with self.lock:\n            if self.state in (\"pending\", \"held\"):\n                self.state = \"cancelled\"\n\ndef race(handler_name):\n    r = Reservation()\n    t1 = threading.Thread(target=getattr(r, handler_name))\n    t2 = threading.Thread(target=lambda: (time.sleep(0.01), r.cancel()))\n    t1.start(); t2.start(); t1.join(); t2.join()\n    return r.state\n\nprint(\"unsafe handler final state:\", race(\"on_payment_unsafe\"))  # 'paid' after cancel succeeded\nprint(\"safe handler final state:  \", race(\"on_payment_safe\"))    # 'cancelled'\n```\n\nWith the example table, the expected output is:\n\n```\nstatic path cancelled->paid: ['cancelled', 'pending', 'held', 'paid']\nunsafe handler final state: paid\nsafe handler final state:   cancelled\n```\n\n## How to use it against the real system\n\n- **Part 1:** Copy every allowed transition from the real code (enum, `can_transition_to`, or DB check constraints) into `TRANSITIONS`. If the result is `None`, the *declared* machine is safe. Watch for \"reopen\", \"retry\" and \"restore\" edges, and for admin or backfill paths that bypass the table.\n- **Part 2:** Find every place that writes `paid`, such as payment webhooks, reconciliation jobs and manual admin actions. Ask whether each one re-checks the state atomically at write time, for example with `UPDATE reservations SET state='paid' WHERE id=? AND state='held'` and a check on the affected row count. If it reads first and writes later, the unsafe variant applies, and a delayed or retried webhook can resurrect a cancelled reservation.\n- **Also check:** whether out-of-order events (a payment event timestamped before the cancel but delivered after it) are handled. A per-reservation version number or an event-sequence check covers this.\n\nIf you paste the real transition definitions and payment handler, I can trace them by hand and give you a definite yes or no.",
    "6daa11ac40a423aa0d24cab1a3b099ee5f773205b8430669a847a749334ea5d2": "This is the **\"What should this look like?\"** question, so it's the UI branch: one throwaway route with three switchable variants.\n\n## Location and naming\n\n- Put it under the project's existing prototype route convention, next to the real checkout page, with a name that makes its purpose obvious, e.g. `checkout-prototype` or `checkout.proto` (whichever pattern the convention uses).\n- I haven't inspected the repo, so the exact path will follow whatever the convention dictates. No new top-level structure.\n- Add one task-runner script so it starts with a single command, e.g. `pnpm proto:checkout`, which opens the route.\n\n## Route shape\n\nOne route renders one of three variants, selected by a URL search param:\n\n```\n//checkout?variant=a   (default)\n//checkout?variant=b\n//checkout?variant=c\n```\n\n- The param makes each direction linkable, so you can paste `?variant=b` into a review thread.\n- A **floating bottom bar** is fixed to the viewport with buttons `A · B · C` and the current variant's name. It updates the param without a full reload. Left/right arrow keys cycle through the variants.\n\n## The three variants\n\nThey should be **radically different**, not tweaks of the same layout, so the comparison actually teaches us something. For example:\n\n| Variant | Direction | What it tests |\n|---|---|---|\n| **A – Single-page stacked** | Everything on one scrolling page: contact, shipping, payment, review | Whether seeing it all at once feels fast or overwhelming |\n| **B – Multi-step wizard** | 3–4 steps with a progress indicator, one concern per screen | Whether focus beats the cost of extra clicks |\n| **C – Split summary** | Form on the left, a persistent sticky order summary and totals on the right, with an accordion for the sections | Whether constant cart visibility builds confidence |\n\nIf you already have three specific directions in mind, these slots get replaced with yours.\n\n## Shared fake data, in memory\n\n- One hardcoded fixture (cart items, prices, tax, shipping options, a saved address) is shared by all three variants, so the only difference between them is the UI.\n- There is no persistence and no real payment or API calls. Form state lives in component state and resets on variant switch, or is shared if we want to compare the same filled-in data across variants.\n\n## Surface the state\n\n- The bottom bar shows the active variant plus a collapsible panel with the current form/cart state as JSON, so reviewers can see what each interaction changed.\n\n## Polish level\n\n- Use real project components and styles where they're cheap, so the variants feel realistic.\n- No tests, no validation beyond what makes the form clickable, and no error states unless one of them is part of the question.\n\n## When it's done\n\n- Fold the winning direction into the real checkout page.\n- Commit the prototype route to a throwaway branch such as `prototype/checkout-variants`, kept off `main`.\n- On the implementation issue, link that branch and record the verdict: which variant won and why.\n\nOne thing to confirm before building: are the three directions already defined, or should I use the A/B/C split above?",
    "da87ca75e9476eee1464200af1f84d72e9df4b4fb9d968600e63279c58cc1c12": "This is a **\"what should this look like?\"** question, so it's the UI branch: one throwaway route rendering three radically different checkout variants, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.\n\n## Shape\n\n**Location and naming**\n- Put it under the project's existing prototype route convention, next to the real checkout, with an unmistakable name, e.g. `/checkout-prototype`.\n- Don't add a new top-level structure. Mirror whatever the existing prototype routes do (file layout, layout wrapper, how they're excluded from production nav).\n\n**One route, three variants**\n- `/…/checkout-prototype?variant=a|b|c`, defaulting to `a` when the param is missing or invalid.\n- Each variant is a self-contained component (`VariantA`, `VariantB`, `VariantC`) in the same folder. Duplication is fine. Don't extract shared abstractions.\n- The variants should differ in structure, not just styling. For example:\n  - **A: Single-page stacked.** Cart, shipping, payment and review all on one scrolling page, with a sticky order summary.\n  - **B: Multi-step wizard.** One concern per screen, with a progress indicator and back/next.\n  - **C: Split / express-first.** Express pay buttons up top, a collapsed guest form below, and the summary in a side panel.\n  - If you already have three directions in mind, swap these out.\n\n**Floating bottom bar**\n- Fixed to the bottom of the viewport, visually distinct from the checkout UI (e.g., dark pill), with `A / B / C` buttons.\n- Clicking a button updates `?variant=` in the URL (replace, not push), so each variant is linkable and survives a reload.\n- It shows the current variant name plus a one-line description, so a reviewer knows what they're looking at.\n\n**State: in memory, and visible**\n- The cart, address and payment fields use hardcoded fixture data in component state. No API calls, no persistence.\n- Shared fixture state lives above the variant switch, so switching variants keeps the same cart and entered data. That makes the comparison apples-to-apples.\n- A collapsible \"state\" panel in the bottom bar dumps the current fixture state as JSON on every variant switch.\n\n**Running it**\n- One command in the project's existing task runner, e.g. `pnpm prototype:checkout`, which starts the dev server and opens the route. If existing prototypes already reuse `pnpm dev` plus a URL, follow that instead.\n\n**Skip**\n- Tests, real validation, error states (unless one is part of what you're comparing), accessibility polish, and analytics.\n\n## When done\n- Pick the winning direction (or a hybrid) and build it properly in the real checkout.\n- Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch such as `prototype/checkout-variants`, kept out of main.\n- On the checkout implementation issue, record a link to that branch plus the verdict: which variant won, why, and what question it settled. Main keeps only the real implementation.\n\nTwo things would sharpen this: the exact prototype route path from your project's convention, and whether you already have three specific directions in mind or want me to propose them.",
    "c5d8aa62071af6ec8f015b02ae6c477dc105419d8aeb0eba724f1162ce9c3ce2": "# Checkout prototype: three visual directions\n\nThis is a **\"what should this look like?\"** question, so it takes the UI branch: one route, three very different variants, switched by a URL param.\n\n## Location and naming\n\n- Put it under the project's **existing prototype route convention**, next to the real checkout. For example, if prototypes live at `/prototypes/`, use `/prototypes/checkout-directions`. I haven't seen the convention, so adjust to match it and don't create a new top-level structure.\n- Use names that make the throwaway status obvious, such as `checkout-directions.prototype.tsx` or a `_prototype/` folder, whichever the project already uses.\n- Run it with one command added to the task runner, such as `pnpm proto:checkout`. That command starts the dev server and opens the route.\n\n## Structure\n\n```\n/prototypes/checkout-directions?variant=a|b|c\n```\n\n- **One route component** reads `variant` from the search params and renders ``, ``, or ``. It defaults to `a`.\n- **Shared mock data** is a single in-memory fixture with a cart of 2–3 items, one discount, shipping options, a saved address, and tax. All three variants render the same data so you compare layout and feel, not content.\n- **Shared in-memory state** covers the selected shipping, payment method, promo code, and current step. There is no API, persistence, or real payment SDK. The pay button just changes the state to \"submitted.\"\n\n## Three radically different directions\n\nThe variants should differ structurally, not just in color. Suggested axes:\n\n| Variant | Direction | What it tests |\n|---|---|---|\n| **A: Single page** | Everything on one scrolling page, with a sticky order summary on the right (or at the bottom on mobile) | Does seeing everything at once reduce friction or overwhelm? |\n| **B: Stepped wizard** | Cart → Shipping → Payment → Review, with a progress indicator and one focus per screen | Does guided flow feel clearer or slower? |\n| **C: Express-first / minimal** | Wallet buttons and a one-tap \"pay with saved details\" at the top, with full details in an expandable section | How far can we push speed for returning users? |\n\nIf you already have specific directions in mind, swap them in. The point is to keep them far apart.\n\n## Floating bottom bar\n\nA fixed bar sits at the bottom of the viewport and contains:\n- `A / B / C` buttons that update `?variant=` with `replaceState`, so links can be shared and the back button stays clean\n- Left and right arrow keys to cycle through variants\n- A **state readout toggle** that shows the current state object as JSON (step, selections, totals). This keeps changes visible every time you switch variants.\n- A **viewport toggle** (mobile/desktop width), since checkout layouts usually split on that\n\n## Deliberately skipped\n\nNo tests, validation, error states, real payments, analytics, or abstractions shared with production checkout. Copy-paste between the variants is fine.\n\n## When it's done\n\n1. Port the winning direction, or a hybrid of variants, into the real checkout on its own branch.\n2. Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch such as `prototype/checkout-directions` and keep it out of `main`.\n3. On the checkout implementation issue, record the question (\"which visual direction for checkout?\"), the verdict and why, and a link to the prototype branch.\n\nIf you confirm the prototype route convention and the task-runner setup, I can make the paths and command exact.",
    "ee1209799fed0673898aa5abf06cf83188079eef80b7668dc3673e6b3e4e8907": "# Checkout prototype: three visual directions\n\nYou mentioned a prototype route convention but didn't describe it, so I've used a placeholder (`/prototypes/...`). Swap in your actual prefix, naming, and folder layout. The structure should carry over unchanged.\n\n## Routes\n\n```\n/prototypes/checkout              → comparison index (links + short rationale per direction)\n/prototypes/checkout/a-     → Direction A\n/prototypes/checkout/b-     → Direction B\n/prototypes/checkout/c-     → Direction C\n```\n\nUse descriptive slugs (e.g. `a-single-column`, `b-split-summary`, `c-stepped`) rather than bare `a/b/c`. That keeps links in feedback threads readable.\n\n## Separate content from presentation\n\nOnly the visual layer should differ between directions. Otherwise reviewers end up comparing data or behavior instead of design.\n\n- **Shared:** cart and order fixtures, form state and validation, pricing and tax calculation, and the submit handler, which should be stubbed with no real payment call.\n- **Per direction:** layout, components, styling, and copy treatment only.\n\n```\nprototypes/checkout/\n  shared/\n    fixtures.ts        // carts: typical, single item, many items, promo applied\n    useCheckout.ts     // form state, validation, totals\n  a-single-column/\n  b-split-summary/\n  c-stepped/\n  index.tsx            // comparison page\n```\n\n## Comparable states\n\nEach direction should render the same set of scenarios, selected with a query param such as `?scenario=`:\n\n- default cart\n- long cart (scroll and summary behavior)\n- validation errors\n- promo code applied or rejected\n- loading/submitting\n- success\n- mobile width (check it directly, not just at desktop)\n\nReviewers can then open `a/?scenario=errors` and `b/?scenario=errors` side by side.\n\n## Review aids\n\n- **Switcher:** a small persistent bar to switch between A, B, and C while keeping the current scenario. This makes it easy to flip between directions quickly.\n- **Index page:** for each direction, give a one-line hypothesis (e.g. \"B: persistent summary reduces total-price surprise\") and a link to each scenario.\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- Keep the routes out of production, using whatever gating your convention already applies to prototypes (env flag, dev-only router, etc.).\n- Make no real payment, analytics, or order-creation calls. Stub them at the `shared/` boundary.\n- Plan to delete the losing directions after the decision, so don't let them become dependencies of the real checkout.\n\nIf you share the actual convention (path prefix, file layout, gating mechanism), I can map this onto it exactly.",
    "d4d7c83c3b92fcae813262dce3ee3f7c1bba5e2c570fc7e688af5cafd6cedb26": "# Proposed prototype shape: three checkout directions\n\nI haven't seen your prototype route convention, so the paths below are placeholders. Map them onto your existing pattern. The structure is what matters.\n\n## Routes\n\n```\n/checkout/              → index: links + short rationale for each direction\n/checkout/a-      → Direction A\n/checkout/b-      → Direction B\n/checkout/c-      → Direction C\n/checkout/compare       → optional: all three side by side\n```\n\nGive each direction a descriptive slug (e.g. `a-single-page`, `b-stepped`, `c-express-first`) rather than just `a/b/c`. Links in feedback threads stay meaningful that way.\n\n## Structure\n\n**Shared, identical across all three:**\n- Cart and fixture data: same items, prices, tax, shipping options, saved addresses\n- Checkout logic and state: validation, totals, promo handling, step transitions (mocked)\n- Payment and submit, stubbed so they never hit real services\n\n**Varies per direction:**\n- Layout, visual hierarchy, component styling, copy placement\n- Each direction is a thin presentation layer over the shared state\n\nThis keeps the comparison about visuals. If behavior also drifts between versions, reviewers end up evaluating logic differences without realizing it.\n\n## Shared states and a switcher\n\nEvery direction should render the same set of states, selectable via a query param or a small floating toolbar:\n\n- Default cart (2–3 items)\n- Large cart or long product names (stress test)\n- Empty cart\n- Promo applied, and invalid promo\n- Field validation errors\n- Payment declined\n- Loading/submitting\n- Order confirmation\n\nThe toolbar can also switch between directions while keeping the current state, so reviewers can flip A→B→C on \"payment declined\" without re-entering anything.\n\n## Viewports\n\nCheckout is usually mobile-heavy. The compare page, or the toolbar, should make it easy to view each direction at mobile width, not just desktop.\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- Exclude from production builds or put behind whatever flag your prototype convention already uses\n- `noindex` and no analytics events firing into real dashboards\n- No real payment SDK calls\n\n## Teardown\n\nOnce a direction is chosen, delete the other two. Promote the winner's presentation layer into the real checkout instead of carrying the prototype code forward.\n\nIf you share the existing convention (path prefix, how prototypes are gated, where fixtures live), I can make this concrete.",
    "9bc15209152e834cee4397fa6b1d0aa7a77a3780f96a49d059efa23a3de7ad5b": "I can't see your existing prototype route convention, so I've used a placeholder (`/prototypes/...`). Swap in your real prefix and file layout.\n\n## Proposed shape\n\n**Routes: one index and one route per direction**\n\n```\n/prototypes/checkout              → comparison index (links + short rationale per direction)\n/prototypes/checkout/a-     → Direction A\n/prototypes/checkout/b-     → Direction B\n/prototypes/checkout/c-     → Direction C\n```\n\nUse descriptive slugs (e.g. `a-single-page`, `b-stepped`, `c-express-first`) so links in feedback threads say what they are.\n\n**Structure: shared data, divergent presentation**\n\n```\nprototypes/checkout/\n  _shared/\n    fixtures.ts        # one cart, one user, one set of shipping/payment options\n    states.ts          # named scenarios: empty, single-item, many-items, promo, error, guest vs signed-in\n    useCheckoutState.ts# fake submit/validation logic, no real API calls\n  a-/page\n  b-/page\n  c-/page\n  index/page           # comparison landing\n```\n\n- All three directions consume the same fixtures and state hook. Then differences reviewers see are purely visual and interaction choices, not data quirks.\n- Each direction owns its own layout and components. Don't force shared UI components early. That flattens the directions toward each other.\n- Reuse production design tokens and primitives (buttons, inputs) where they exist, so you're comparing layout and flow, not button styling.\n\n**Review affordances**\n\n- A `?state=` query param on every direction, so reviewers can jump to `promo` or `payment-error` without clicking through.\n- Optionally a `?viewport=mobile` toggle or a side-by-side iframe view on the index page, since checkout differences often show most on mobile.\n- A small persistent banner on each page with the direction name and a link back to the index. Screenshots in feedback then stay identifiable.\n\n**Guardrails**\n\n- Exclude the routes from production builds or put them behind your existing prototype gate, whatever the convention uses.\n- No real payment SDKs. Use stubbed fields that look right.\n- Make the delete path easy. Once a direction wins, remove the whole `prototypes/checkout/` tree rather than promoting prototype code directly.\n\n## Open questions before building\n\n1. What is the actual prototype convention (path prefix, file-based vs. registered routes, how it's gated)?\n2. Are the three directions mostly visual (same flow, different styling) or structural (single-page vs. multi-step vs. express)? If they're structural, the shared state hook matters more. If they're purely visual, you could even use one route with a `?direction=` switch.\n3. Will reviewers be internal only, or will this go in front of users for testing? User testing would justify adding lightweight event logging per direction.\n\nIf you share the existing convention, I'll adapt this to match it exactly.",
    "87dc44e724a66169861a2a5b912151c1e720e6351aa1f0c83bac3280a8c4cfa1": "I don't know the exact form of your prototype route convention, so I've written this against a placeholder ``. Swap in your real prefix, file layout and naming.\n\n## Proposed shape\n\n**Routes**\n```\n/checkout/              → index: links to the three directions, plus a side-by-side view\n/checkout/a-      → Direction A\n/checkout/b-      → Direction B\n/checkout/c-      → Direction C\n```\nGive the slugs short descriptive names like `a-single-page`, `b-stepped` or `c-express-first`, not just `a/b/c`. That way, links shared in review stay readable.\n\n**What's shared and what differs**\n- **Shared:** cart fixture data, pricing and tax calculations, form state and validation, and mock payment and shipping responses. Put these in one module, such as `checkout/_shared/`, that all three routes import.\n- **Differs:** only layout, visual hierarchy and component styling.\n\nThis is the main design point. If the three directions use different data or logic, you end up comparing implementations, not visual directions.\n\n**State coverage (the same for every direction)**\nUse a query param or toggle, such as `?state=`, to switch between:\n- `default`, which is a filled cart\n- `empty`\n- `validation-error`\n- `payment-declined`\n- `loading`, for submitting\n- `success`\n\nWithout this, reviewers tend to judge only the happy path.\n\n**Comparison aids**\n- A small floating switcher on each direction page to jump between A, B and C with the same `state` kept.\n- An optional side-by-side mode on the index page, using iframes at a fixed mobile width and a fixed desktop width.\n\n**Isolation**\n- Follow the convention for keeping prototypes out of production. That usually means a dev-only or flag-gated route, `noindex`, and no real payment calls.\n- Don't touch the production checkout components. Fork or copy into the prototype folder so the directions can be thrown away.\n\n**Decision artifact**\nAdd a short note on the index page listing the evaluation criteria, for example:\n- clarity of total cost\n- number of steps or fields\n- mobile thumb reach\n- trust signals\n- fit with the brand\n\nReviewers then score against those criteria, not on taste.\n\n## What I need from you to finalize\n1. The actual convention: the path prefix, whether routing is file-based or config-based, and how prototypes are gated.\n2. A one-line description of each of the three directions, so I can name the slugs and flag where they need components that don't exist yet.",
    "a18e862d9d194841515300df44acab47b9f699da1514c52b0c3a0194bc438bf4": "I can't see the existing prototype route convention without reading the repo, so I'll propose a shape and mark where it should snap to your convention.\n\n## Proposed shape\n\n**One route per direction, plus a comparison index:**\n\n```\n/prototypes/checkout/            → index: links + one-line rationale per direction\n/prototypes/checkout/a-    → e.g. a-minimal\n/prototypes/checkout/b-    → e.g. b-guided-steps\n/prototypes/checkout/c-    → e.g. c-express-first\n```\n\nSwap the `/prototypes/...` prefix and naming style for whatever the existing convention uses.\n\n**Shared, not duplicated:**\n- **One fixture module** (cart items, totals, shipping options, saved cards, an error case). All three directions render identical data, so you're comparing design, not content.\n- **Real checkout logic stays out.** Pricing, validation, and payment calls are stubbed. \"Pay\" goes to a fake confirmation state, so nothing touches real payment endpoints.\n- **Shared primitives** (inputs, buttons) where they already exist. Each direction owns only its layout and composition.\n\n**Per direction:**\n- A self-contained page component in its own folder, so a losing direction can be deleted cleanly.\n- A short header comment or index entry with the hypothesis, e.g. \"C: wallet/express pay above the fold reduces steps for returning users.\"\n\n**Comparison affordances (cheap, high value):**\n- A query param for state, e.g. `?state=empty|default|error|loading`, so all three can be reviewed in the same scenarios.\n- A small persistent switcher (A / B / C) that keeps the current state param, for quick back-and-forth.\n- A mobile check. Checkout differences often only show up at narrow widths.\n\n**Lifecycle:**\n- Keep the routes out of production builds or behind the existing prototype guard.\n- Once a direction wins, port it into the real checkout and delete the prototype folder and fixtures. Don't promote prototype code directly.\n\n## Recommendation\nKeep it to three sibling routes, one shared fixture, and a state query param. That's the smallest setup that gives a fair side-by-side comparison. If you paste the existing prototype route convention (path pattern, file layout, how prototypes are gated), I'll adjust names and placement to match exactly.",
    "1a07c66cb8ba65d31ab55fe43668876e1c966e5ced7119bc66feb3e8158e681d": "I don't know the specifics of your prototype route convention, so the paths below use a placeholder (`/prototypes/...`). Swap in your actual prefix, file location, and naming.\n\n## Recommended shape\n\n**One route per direction, plus a comparison index, all on shared data and logic.**\n\n```\n/prototypes/checkout/              → index: links to each direction and a side-by-side view\n/prototypes/checkout/a-      → Direction A (e.g. \"minimal\")\n/prototypes/checkout/b-      → Direction B (e.g. \"guided-steps\")\n/prototypes/checkout/c-      → Direction C (e.g. \"single-page-dense\")\n```\n\n### Structure\n\n- **Shared fixtures.** One mock cart, customer, shipping options, and promo codes used by all three directions. Reviewers then judge the design, not differences in the data.\n- **Shared checkout logic.** A single state model covers cart → details → shipping → payment → review → confirmation, along with validation rules. Each direction is only a presentation layer over it. This stops one direction from looking better because it quietly handles less.\n- **Per-direction view components.** Each direction gets its own folder (e.g. `checkout/directions/a/`) so they can diverge freely and be deleted cleanly afterwards.\n- **No real side effects.** Use a stubbed payment step with no network calls, plus a visible \"Prototype\" banner.\n\n### Comparability controls\n\n- A `?state=` query param that jumps straight to a given state in any direction:\n  - `empty-cart`\n  - `validation-error`\n  - `payment-declined`\n  - `loading`\n  - `promo-applied`\n  - `success`\n- A `?viewport=mobile` toggle, or a note to review at fixed breakpoints.\n- An index page with a matrix of directions × key states. It can use iframes or screenshots and works well in review sessions.\n- An optional switcher overlay (A/B/C) on each route to flip between directions without losing your place in the flow.\n\n### What to decide before building\n\n1. **Comparison criteria.** Examples: steps to complete, perceived trust, error recovery, mobile ergonomics. These determine which states the fixtures must cover.\n2. **Who reviews, and how.** Live clicking favours the switcher. Async review favours the matrix and screenshots.\n3. **Lifespan.** If the winner will be promoted to production, keep the shared logic close to what you'd ship. If the prototypes are throwaway, keep everything inside the prototype namespace.\n\nIf you share the convention itself (path prefix, file layout, any registry or flag), I can make the proposal match it exactly.",
    "13055468902a401909d87f404f0f7425000c8af84c47ffc49fc541d7e8fba32c": "**Provisional direction: logic branch (LOGIC.md).**\n\nThe stakeholder can't be reached to clarify, so the surrounding code decides. A backend retry module with no UI work means the question is \"does this retry state model feel right?\", not \"what should this look like?\" The prototype should open with that stated assumption so a reviewer can redirect it if it's wrong.\n\n## Artifact\n\n- A single self-contained HTML file placed next to the retry module and clearly marked as throwaway, e.g. `retry.prototype.html`. The user double-clicks it to open; there's no build step.\n- State lives in memory only. It has no real network or DB, and failures are simulated.\n- **Free-play controls:** \"Attempt → succeeds\", \"Attempt → transient error\", \"Attempt → permanent error\", \"Advance clock N ms\", \"Cancel\", \"Reset\".\n- **Tabbed guided walkthroughs** for the scripted cases below.\n- **The full state is rendered after every action:** current state (idle / in-flight / waiting / succeeded / exhausted / cancelled), attempt count, next scheduled delay, elapsed time vs. deadline, last error and its classification, and an event log.\n\n## Questions the prototype should answer\n\nThese are the cases that are hard to reason about on paper:\n\n1. **Error classification.** Which errors retry and which fail immediately? What happens to an error the module doesn't recognise?\n2. **Backoff shape.** Is the delay sequence (base, multiplier, cap, jitter) sensible across 1 to 10 attempts? Does the cap actually take effect?\n3. **Termination.** When max attempts and an overall deadline both exist, which one wins? Does it ever schedule a retry that would land past the deadline?\n4. **Cancellation mid-wait vs. mid-flight.** Does cancel during backoff stop cleanly? What happens if a request is in flight and then succeeds after cancel?\n5. **Server hints.** If a `Retry-After`-style hint arrives, does it override, add to, or get clamped by the computed backoff?\n6. **Idempotency.** Is it safe to retry a non-idempotent operation? Should those be blocked or flagged?\n7. **Terminal-state stickiness.** After success, exhausted, or cancelled, do further events get correctly ignored?\n\n## Done criteria\n\nSomeone non-technical can step through each tab and agree or disagree with every transition. Once they have, the validated rules go into the real retry module. The prototype gets committed to a throwaway branch (not main), and the implementation issue gets a pointer to that branch, a short verdict, and the questions it settled.",
    "658dd75aab2cbde27e73c0ded1f84aff3e74c5e55b26db55cfbbc468486140de": "# Provisional direction: logic prototype\n\n**Assumption (put this at the top of the prototype):** The stakeholder couldn't be reached and the target is a backend retry module with no UI work, so this uses the **logic / state-model** branch, not the UI branch. The question is whether the retry behavior *feels right*, not what anything looks like.\n\n## Shape of the artifact\n\n- **One self-contained HTML file** that can be opened by double-clicking. No build step, server, or dependencies.\n- **Location:** next to the retry module, with an obviously throwaway name, e.g. `retry.PROTOTYPE.html`.\n- **State in memory only.** Use a simulated clock and a fake downstream call. No real network, timers, or persistence.\n- **Free-play panel.** Buttons to issue a request, make the next attempt succeed, make it fail (retryable or non-retryable), time out, advance the clock, and cancel.\n- **Tabbed guided walkthroughs.** Scripted step-throughs of the cases that are hard to reason about on paper (listed below).\n- **Full state shown after every action.** Show the current state, attempt count, next scheduled attempt time, computed backoff with jitter, elapsed budget, last error, and an event log.\n\n## What the prototype should answer\n\n1. **State model.** Are the states and transitions right and complete? For example: idle → in-flight → waiting-to-retry → succeeded / failed-permanently / cancelled. Are there any impossible or unreachable states?\n2. **Retry vs. give-up.** Which errors are retryable? What stops retrying: a maximum number of attempts, a total time budget, or both? Which limit wins when they disagree?\n3. **Backoff timing.** Does the delay curve look sensible over many attempts? This covers the base delay, the multiplier, the cap, and jitter. Does a server-supplied \"retry after\" hint override the computed delay?\n4. **Timeouts.** How does a per-attempt timeout interact with the overall deadline? Can a slow attempt finish after the budget has expired?\n5. **Cancellation.** What happens if the caller cancels during an attempt, or while waiting to retry? Is a late success ignored or delivered?\n6. **Concurrency and idempotency.** What happens if the same operation is retried while a previous attempt is still unresolved? Does the model assume operations are idempotent, and is that assumption visible?\n7. **Optional, if it's in scope:** Should many simultaneous failures trip a shared circuit breaker, or does each call retry independently?\n\nThe walkthrough tabs should map roughly one-to-one onto questions 2–6. That way a non-developer can step through each case and say \"yes, that's what should happen\" or \"no, it should stop there.\"\n\n## When done\n\n- Move the validated decisions into the real retry module, such as the chosen limits, the error classification, and the cancellation semantics.\n- Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, not main.\n- On the implementation issue, link to that branch and record each verdict next to the question it settled.\n\n**Open items to confirm with the stakeholder later:** whether this is client-side retry only or also covers queued or background jobs, and whether circuit breaking is in scope. Neither is stated in the facts provided, so I would build those as optional tabs rather than assuming them.",
    "a7d335de0b9a48e7dc852431b700669349c316ccf36748667623b894d55c2625": "# Provisional direction: logic prototype\n\n**Assumption, to state at the top of the prototype:** *The stakeholder couldn't be reached. This prototype assumes the open question is whether the retry state model behaves correctly, not how anything should look. It sits next to a backend retry module and no UI work exists, so the logic branch applies.*\n\n## The artifact\n\n- **One self-contained HTML file** next to the retry module, named so nobody mistakes it for production code, e.g. `retry.PROTOTYPE.html`. The user opens it by double-clicking. There is no build step and no server.\n- **The state machine is reimplemented in plain JS, in memory.** There is no real network and no persistence. A \"fake clock\" button advances time so backoff can be stepped through instead of waited out.\n- **Free-play buttons** let the user drive it by hand: *Start request*, *Respond: success / transient error / permanent error / timeout / 429 with Retry-After*, *Advance clock*, *Cancel*.\n- **Tabbed guided walkthroughs** script the cases that are hard to reason about on paper (listed below), one tab each.\n- **The full state is shown after every action:** current state, attempt count, next scheduled attempt time, computed delay (with and without jitter), elapsed budget, and a log of state transitions.\n\n## What the prototype should answer\n\nThe core question: **does the retry state model produce the right outcome in the edge cases, and can a non-developer follow why?** Concretely:\n\n1. **Classification.** Which failures are retried and which are terminal? Is a timeout treated like a transient error?\n2. **Exhaustion.** After the last allowed attempt, what is the final state, and what error reaches the caller: the first failure, the last one, or an aggregate?\n3. **Backoff shape.** Is the delay sequence (base, multiplier, cap, jitter) what people expect? Does the cap kick in where it should?\n4. **Server hints.** When `Retry-After` conflicts with computed backoff, which one wins? What happens if it exceeds the remaining budget?\n5. **Overall budget vs. per-attempt limits.** If both exist, which ends the sequence first, and does that feel right?\n6. **Cancellation mid-wait.** If the caller cancels during a backoff sleep, does the sequence stop cleanly with no stray attempt afterward?\n7. **Late success.** If a response arrives after its attempt has already timed out and a retry is in flight, which result counts? This also raises the idempotency question.\n\nThese parameters aren't in the supplied facts, so the prototype should expose them as editable inputs rather than guess at the real module's values.\n\n## When it's done\n\nFold the validated decisions back into the real retry module. Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, not `main`, and leave a pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Record the verdict, including which of the questions above it settled, in the issue or a commit message.",
    "076807718327de8f357cc9a3de5edcfc0fbbacc293b39af8060f3db23c52ab34": "## Provisional direction: logic prototype\n\n**Assumption:** The stakeholder can't be reached to clarify, the target is a backend retry module, and there's no UI work. So this follows the **logic / state-model** branch, not the UI-variations branch. The prototype should open with a banner saying so: *\"PROTOTYPE, throwaway. Assumed question: does the retry state model behave correctly? Not a UI exploration.\"*\n\n### What gets built\n\n- **One self-contained HTML file** that the user double-clicks. It needs no build step, server, or persistence.\n- **Placement and naming:** next to the retry module, named so it's obviously throwaway, e.g. `retry.prototype.html` beside `retry.*`.\n- **A free-play panel** with buttons that inject events: `attempt succeeds`, `attempt fails (transient)`, `attempt fails (permanent)`, `timeout`, `advance clock`, `cancel`, `concurrent duplicate request`.\n- **Tabbed guided walkthroughs** that script the hard cases step by step, so a non-developer can click \"next\" and watch.\n- **A full state dump after every action:** attempt count, current state, next scheduled retry time, accumulated backoff, last error, and terminal/non-terminal flag.\n\n### Questions the prototype should answer\n\n1. **Termination.** Does every path reach a terminal state (succeeded / gave up / cancelled)? Is there any loop that never exits?\n2. **Error classification.** Do transient and permanent failures branch correctly? Does a permanent error stop retries immediately?\n3. **Backoff shape.** Does the delay sequence (fixed, exponential, jitter, cap) match intent across many attempts, including at the max-attempts boundary? Is there an off-by-one?\n4. **Timeouts vs. failures.** Is a timeout treated as a retryable failure, and what happens if a late success arrives after a timeout already scheduled a retry?\n5. **Cancellation mid-backoff.** Does cancelling while waiting cleanly prevent the next attempt?\n6. **Idempotency / duplicates.** If the same operation is triggered twice concurrently, do we get two independent retry chains, or one? Which is intended?\n7. **Budget interactions.** If there's both a max-attempts and a max-total-time limit, which wins, and is that obvious from the state?\n\n### Explicitly out of scope\n\nNo tests, no real network calls, no persistence, and no polish. Persistence of retry state (for example surviving a restart) is a *question to check* only if the stakeholder confirms it matters. In that case it would use an in-memory or clearly named scratch store.\n\n### When done\n\nFold the validated rules (classification, backoff formula, termination conditions) into the real retry module. Commit the prototype to a throwaway branch, not main. Leave a pointer to that branch on the implementation issue, along with the verdict for each question above.\n\n**Open item for the stakeholder:** confirm the assumed question. If they actually meant something like \"how should retry status be shown to users,\" that's the UI branch and this plan changes.",
    "cb0a411f723a471b464c518bca037041c035a5801ba203cf27e68e60186936ea": "## Provisional direction\n\nBuild a small, isolated retry prototype **alongside** the existing backend retry module, not inside it. It should sit in its own file or package, be callable from a single test harness or one opt-in call site, and leave current production retry behavior untouched. That fits the stakeholder's \"next to\" wording and keeps the work reversible while they're unreachable.\n\nScope it as backend-only. No UI, no config surfaces beyond what the harness needs. Default to a conventional design:\n\n- **Exponential backoff with full jitter**, with a capped max delay\n- **Bounded attempts and a total deadline**, whichever hits first\n- **Explicit retryable-error classification**, such as timeouts, 5xx, 429, and connection resets, kept separate from non-retryable errors like 4xx and validation failures\n- **Idempotency guard**: only retry operations marked safe, or that carry an idempotency key\n- **Hooks for metrics/logging** per attempt, so behavior is observable\n\nTreat this as provisional. It's my reading of a one-line instruction, and I haven't inspected the actual module because tools were off-limits. The repo snapshot also showed no commits. Confirm with the stakeholder before anything is merged or wired into real traffic.\n\n## What the prototype should answer\n\n1. **Does it beat the current module?** Compare success rate, p50/p99 latency, and attempt count under injected failures: transient blips, sustained outage, and rate limiting.\n2. **Does it avoid retry storms?** Check that jitter and caps keep aggregate load bounded when many callers fail at once, and decide whether a circuit breaker or retry budget is needed.\n3. **Is error classification right?** Find which real errors from downstream dependencies should and shouldn't retry, and whether 429 `Retry-After` should be honored.\n4. **Is idempotency handled safely?** Identify which existing call sites are safe to retry, and what would break with duplicate side effects.\n5. **What does integration cost?** Decide whether it can replace the existing module behind a flag or adapter, or whether the interfaces diverge too much.\n6. **Which defaults hold up?** Determine base delay, multiplier, max attempts, and deadline values that perform well, and whether they need to be per-dependency.\n\n## Open questions for the stakeholder\n\n- What problem prompted this? Flaky dependency, latency, duplicate writes, or cost?\n- Is the goal to eventually replace the existing module, or to extend it?\n- What evidence would count as success for moving past the prototype?",
    "78d35587e027c8e906ff8ef5a583125ba0521f71d7a5ae6378b4f0576a58cb3f": "## Provisional direction\n\n**Build a small, isolated prototype beside the existing retry module, without modifying it.** Put it in a sibling file or package that wraps or calls the retry logic, so it's easy to discard or promote later. There's no UI work, so the prototype should be backend-only and driven by tests or a small harness script.\n\nThe stakeholder is unreachable, so treat this as exploratory, not a committed design. Keep the blast radius at zero: no changes to the current retry module's behavior, config defaults, or call sites until someone confirms the direction.\n\nNote: the repo snapshot shows a clean tree on `HEAD` with no recent commits, so there may be no existing retry module to inspect yet. If so, the prototype should define a minimal stand-in interface rather than assume one.\n\n## What the prototype should answer\n\n1. **Policy shape.** Which backoff strategy fits the failure modes we expect: fixed, exponential, or exponential with jitter? What are reasonable defaults for max attempts, base delay, and max delay?\n2. **Retry classification.** Which errors are retryable (timeouts, 5xx, connection resets) and which must fail fast (4xx, validation errors)? Where should that decision live, in the caller or in the module?\n3. **Idempotency safety.** Are the wrapped operations safe to repeat? If not, what's needed: idempotency keys, deduplication, or excluding those operations from retries?\n4. **Budget and cascade behavior.** Does retrying amplify load under sustained failure? Is a retry budget or circuit breaker needed to avoid retry storms?\n5. **Composition.** How does it interact with existing timeouts? Is the timeout per attempt or overall? Does it nest badly with retries at other layers, such as HTTP client or SDK retries?\n6. **Observability.** What should be logged or emitted per attempt (attempt count, delay, final outcome) so retry behavior can be diagnosed in production?\n7. **Integration cost.** How invasive would adopting it be? Is it a drop-in wrapper, a decorator, or a change to every call site?\n\n## Exit criteria\n\nThe prototype is done when a short write-up can answer the questions above, supported by tests that simulate transient failures, permanent failures, and sustained outages. That write-up is what goes back to the stakeholder for a go/no-go decision before anything touches the real retry module.",
    "fac4af27abf8bf8bd88695e641794b5844389c1d7292d5ad0089ab067734d78d": "## Provisional direction\n\nBuild a **standalone prototype module alongside the existing retry module**, not a modification of it. It should wrap the same call sites through a thin adapter so it can be swapped in or out without touching production retry behavior. Keep it backend-only and headless. Results should come from tests, logs, and metrics rather than any interface.\n\nI haven't seen the retry module, and the stakeholder can't clarify, so this direction rests on these assumptions:\n\n- The existing module does retries with some backoff, and the stakeholder suspects it is insufficient or unclear in some way.\n- \"Next to\" means isolated and reversible: a sibling package or file behind a flag, not a rewrite.\n- The goal is to learn something before committing to a design, not to ship.\n\n**Proposed shape:**\n- **Same interface** as the current retry entry point, so call sites don't change.\n- **Pluggable policy:** max attempts, backoff (fixed, exponential, or exponential with jitter), and a retryable-error classifier.\n- **Optional retry budget or circuit breaker**, so retries can't amplify an outage.\n- **Instrumentation hooks:** attempt count, delay, final outcome, error class.\n- **A test harness** with a fake dependency that injects latency, transient errors, permanent errors, and sustained outages.\n\n## What the prototype should answer\n\n1. **Correctness of classification:** Does it retry only transient failures (timeouts, 503s, connection resets) and fail fast on permanent ones (4xx, validation errors)? Where is the current module wrong about this?\n2. **Idempotency safety:** Which wrapped operations are safe to retry? Do non-idempotent calls need idempotency keys, or should they be excluded?\n3. **Load behavior under outage:** During a sustained dependency failure, how much extra traffic do retries generate? Does jittered backoff plus a budget or breaker keep it bounded compared with the current module?\n4. **Latency cost:** What happens to p50/p99 end-to-end latency, and how often do retries exceed the caller's timeout or deadline? Should deadlines propagate into the retry loop?\n5. **Recovery behavior:** After the dependency recovers, does traffic resume smoothly, or do synchronized retries cause a thundering herd?\n6. **Observability:** Can an operator tell from the emitted metrics and logs why a request succeeded on attempt N or ultimately failed?\n7. **Integration cost:** Can it replace the current module with an adapter alone? What would migration require?\n\n## Exit criteria\n\nThe prototype is done when it produces side-by-side results against the current module for the failure scenarios above. Those results should support a clear recommendation: keep the current module, patch specific gaps, or replace it.\n\nWhen the stakeholder is reachable, the first things to confirm are:\n- what problem prompted the request (incidents, latency, or code clarity), and\n- which operations are in scope.\n\nEither answer could redirect the prototype's focus.",
    "111ce773a0395d58f41c320c34f0891bcac630f228f39185394fffef25cf97cc": "# Provisional direction: a side-by-side retry prototype\n\n**Context and assumptions.** The stakeholder can't be reached, so this direction is provisional. The git snapshot shows a clean, detached HEAD with no commits, so I can't see the existing retry module. I'm treating it as a generic backend retry layer, likely fixed or exponential backoff wrapped around outbound calls.\n\n## Direction\n\nBuild a **standalone prototype module next to the existing retry module, not a replacement for it**:\n\n- **Isolated.** Use a separate file or package with its own entry point. Nothing in production calls it, and the existing module stays unchanged.\n- **Same interface.** Mirror the current retry function or class signature so you could swap one for the other later with little code change.\n- **Focused scope.** Prototype a policy-based retry:\n  - exponential backoff with jitter\n  - a cap on total attempts and total elapsed time\n  - explicit classification of retryable and non-retryable errors (e.g. timeouts and 5xx/429 versus 4xx and validation errors)\n  - honoring `Retry-After` hints where present\n- **Simulated harness.** Drive it with a fake downstream that injects configurable failure rates, latency and error types. No real services are involved.\n- **No UI.** Output is logs and a small summary: attempts, latency, success rate and retry amplification.\n\n## What the prototype should answer\n\n1. **Behavioral parity.** Does it behave the same as the current module on the happy path and on simple transient failures? If not, where does it differ?\n2. **Error classification.** Which errors should be retried? Does the current module retry things it shouldn't, such as non-idempotent writes or 4xx responses?\n3. **Load amplification.** Under a sustained downstream outage, how many extra requests does each approach generate? Is a retry budget or circuit breaker needed?\n4. **Latency bounds.** What is the worst-case added latency per call? Does it fit within caller timeouts and deadlines?\n5. **Idempotency.** Which call sites are safe to retry? Do any need idempotency keys first?\n6. **Integration cost.** Can it drop in behind the existing interface, or would callers need changes?\n7. **Observability.** What metrics or log fields are needed, such as attempt count, final outcome and cause, to judge it in production?\n\n## Exit criteria\n\nThe prototype is done when it gives a clear go/no-go recommendation with numbers from the harness. That recommendation is the artifact to bring to the stakeholder.\n\nUntil they confirm, avoid:\n- changing the existing retry module\n- wiring the prototype into any real call path\n- committing to a migration plan",
    "5b12163ddce183ab38e047df8f059388ba464b36701ae558ba8f5a8a0376b4e4": "## Provisional direction\n\nBuild a small, isolated prototype **alongside** the existing backend retry module, not inside it. It should wrap or sit parallel to the current retry path so it can be compared against today's behavior and removed cleanly. It is backend-only: no UI, no user-facing surface.\n\nAssumptions I'm making, since the stakeholder can't be reached and I haven't inspected the code:\n- \"Next to\" means a sibling module or package, such as `retry_prototype/`, rather than a modification of the existing retry module.\n- The goal is to evaluate an alternative or improved retry strategy, not to ship one yet.\n- The prototype stays behind a flag or test harness and never becomes the default path.\n\nShape of the prototype:\n1. **Same interface** as the existing retry module (the same call signature and the same error and result contract), so either one can be swapped in.\n2. **Configurable policy:** max attempts, backoff (fixed, exponential, or exponential with jitter), an overall deadline or budget, and a retryable-error classifier.\n3. **Instrumentation:** attempts per call, total latency, final outcome, and which errors triggered retries.\n4. **A harness** that drives both modules against simulated failures, such as transient errors, permanent errors, timeouts, slow responses, and burst outages.\n\n## What the prototype should answer\n\n1. **Correctness:** Does it retry only errors that are safe to retry? Does it stop on permanent failures, and does it respect idempotency?\n2. **Bounded cost:** Do the deadline and budget hold in the worst case, with no unbounded latency or attempt counts?\n3. **Load behavior:** During a downstream outage, does it amplify traffic (a retry storm), or do jitter, budgets, or circuit-breaking keep load contained? How does it compare to the current module?\n4. **Success rate vs. latency:** Under transient failures, does it recover more calls than the current module, and at what latency cost?\n5. **Integration fit:** Can it replace the current module without changing callers? What would break?\n6. **Observability:** Do the metrics and logs make retry behavior diagnosable in production?\n7. **Go/no-go:** Is the improvement big enough to justify replacing or extending the existing module, and what is the migration path if so?\n\n## Open questions for the stakeholder when reachable\n\n- What problem prompted this? For example, incidents, retry storms, or poor recovery.\n- Should the prototype eventually replace the existing module, or only inform changes to it?\n- Which callers or downstream dependencies matter most for evaluation?\n\nTreat this direction as provisional until those answers come in."
  },
  "draws": [
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "65c0a58d85caf3676d4988bab6c33206a6eaed576ec1f2e094ca9194387a13a8",
      "answer_sha256": "65c0a58d85caf3676d4988bab6c33206a6eaed576ec1f2e094ca9194387a13a8",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine demo, full state JSON rendered after every action, a single self-contained HTML file, and no persistence or production architecture (the commit-to-throwaway-branch step concerns workflow, not the demo's design).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Uses a state-machine logic demo, renders full state JSON and status history after every action, ships as one double-clickable HTML file, and avoids persistence or production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine logic demo, full state JSON rendered after every action, a single double-clickable HTML file, and no persistence or production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Builds a state-machine demonstration, shows full state JSON and history after every action, ships as one standalone HTML file, and has no persistence or production architecture, meeting all four criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: it builds a reservation state machine demo, shows the full state after every action, delivers a single HTML file, and avoids persistence and production architecture.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "1d9d52f72b0560296f25b2371095ae6c5690e199e3f7c6d8df8985ddb39c6c4a",
      "answer_sha256": "1d9d52f72b0560296f25b2371095ae6c5690e199e3f7c6d8df8985ddb39c6c4a",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a logic/state machine demo of cancelled→paid, exposes state and invariants after every action, is a single openable HTML file, and avoids persistence or production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Builds a state-machine logic demo (criterion 1), renders state, log, and invariants after every action (criterion 2), delivers a single double-clickable HTML file (criterion 3), and uses no persistence and is explicitly throwaway (criterion 4).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine logic demo is chosen, state (status, history, captured payments, invariants, log) is exposed after every action, it is a single openable HTML file, and it avoids persistence and production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Uses a state-machine logic demo, renders state and log after every action, ships as one double-click HTML file, and avoids persistence and production architecture, meeting all four criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a logic/state demo of the reservation machine, state and history shown after every action, a single double-clickable HTML file, and no persistence or production architecture (explicitly throwaway, no repo writes).\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "5224eaf91933f0a9c5674b65c8321c411a6e81f50e486f47871d8a1894548e64",
      "answer_sha256": "5224eaf91933f0a9c5674b65c8321c411a6e81f50e486f47871d8a1894548e64",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine logic demo, full state dumped after every action, a single runnable HTML file with no build step, and explicitly no persistence or production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine logic demo, full state dumped after every action, a single self-contained HTML file, and no persistence or production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: a state-machine demo, full state dumped after every action, a single runnable HTML file, and no persistence or production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: a state-machine logic demo, state dumped after every action, a single self-contained HTML file, and no persistence or production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets all four rubric points: chooses a state-machine demonstration, exposes full state and history after every action, delivers a single runnable HTML file, and avoids persistence and production architecture.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "980add6b0b3ab858e051ad101794b33ba41ec6a33308402bfdee5b6ab51be136",
      "answer_sha256": "980add6b0b3ab858e051ad101794b33ba41ec6a33308402bfdee5b6ab51be136",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, no persistence), but misses 2 (state is printed only at the end, not after every action) and 3 (Python script, not a single HTML demo).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, in-memory, no persistence). Misses criterion 2, since it prints only final and path states, not state after every action, and criterion 3, since it is a Python script rather than a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, stdlib, no persistence). Missed criterion 2, since it prints only final states, not state after every action, and criterion 3, since the demo is Python rather than a single HTML file.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (logic/state demo chosen) and criterion 4 is met (no persistence or production architecture), but criterion 2 (exposing state after every action) and criterion 3 (single HTML demo) are missed since it's a Python script with only static and race checks.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, no persistence), but misses 2 because it reports only final states, not state after each action, and misses 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "857ca04ba53455d58aab7f45ca2752816b528900c6b956a419fdc175b0ffbd72",
      "answer_sha256": "857ca04ba53455d58aab7f45ca2752816b528900c6b956a419fdc175b0ffbd72",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 (logic/state demonstration) is met, but criterion 2 (expose state after every action) is only partly met, criterion 3 (single HTML demonstration) is missed since it is a Python script, and criterion 4 is met by avoiding persistence and production architecture.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine demo) and 4 (in-memory, no persistence), but misses 3 (Python script, not a single HTML demo) and only partly meets 2, since state is not shown after every action.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (a state-machine demonstration) and criterion 4 (throwaway, no persistence), but misses criterion 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demonstration, and only partly meets criterion 2 by printing the final state rather than the state after every action.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.5,\n  \"pass\": false,\n  \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine demo) and 4 (throwaway, no persistence); misses 3 (Python script, not single HTML) and 2 (state printed only at the end, not after every action).\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (a state-machine logic demonstration is chosen), but criterion 2 (expose state after every action) is only partly met, criterion 3 (single HTML demonstration) is missed since it is a Python script, and criterion 4 (avoid persistence and production architecture) is arguably met as a throwaway script.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "4bf3cc8a6741d14c8d18fcef0b23f1d36b9821f285c76fdaf9c24b5ba7e568fa",
      "answer_sha256": "4bf3cc8a6741d14c8d18fcef0b23f1d36b9821f285c76fdaf9c24b5ba7e568fa",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets state-demo choice, exposes state history per event, and avoids persistence/production architecture, but misses the required single HTML demonstration, delivering Python instead.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (no persistence, throwaway stdlib script). Misses criterion 3 because it is a Python CLI, not a single HTML demo, and criterion 2 is only partly met since state history is printed only for violations.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (logic/state demo) and criterion 2 partially via state history, but misses criterion 3 (single HTML demo; it's a Python script) and criterion 4 is arguably met since no persistence, yet the rubric requires HTML, so only 0.25–0.5 fits; scored conservatively.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state machine demo), 2 (history tracks state after each event), and 4 (throwaway, no persistence), but misses 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demonstration.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the state-machine demo, exposes state history after each event, and avoids persistence and production architecture; misses the single-HTML-demonstration criterion since it delivers a Python script.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "acadaf179ffc99bfecd19bdd3e361a4df631f29a5e935d237b470246e0d5ba7f",
      "answer_sha256": "acadaf179ffc99bfecd19bdd3e361a4df631f29a5e935d237b470246e0d5ba7f",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state/logic demo) and criterion 4 (in-memory, no persistence), but misses 3 because it is Python rather than a single HTML demo, and 2 because it prints only final state, not state after every action.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, no persistence). Misses criterion 2 because state is printed only at the end, not after every action, and criterion 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (no persistence, throwaway stdlib script). Misses criterion 3 (delivered as Python, not a single HTML demo) and criterion 2 (prints only final state and history, not state after every action).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (stdlib, no persistence), but misses 2 (state is printed only at the end, not after every action) and 3 (Python script, not a single HTML demo).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence), but misses criterion 2 since state is shown only at the end, not after every action, and criterion 3 since it is a Python script rather than a single HTML demo.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "b0790de1f67767ae5ac0f59980e77f79f65b27f30fd5000f7fae374f47943fc5",
      "answer_sha256": "b0790de1f67767ae5ac0f59980e77f79f65b27f30fd5000f7fae374f47943fc5",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (a state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence). Misses criterion 2, since it records only write history rather than state after every action, and criterion 3, since it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine demo) and 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence), but misses 2 because it doesn't expose state after every action and misses 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine demo) and 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence), but misses 2 because it only logs write history, not state after every action, and misses 3 because it is a Python script rather than a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine logic demo) and criterion 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence); misses criterion 2 because it only logs write history, not state after every action, and criterion 3 because it is a Python script rather than a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine demo) and 4 (in-memory, throwaway, no persistence); misses 2 because only write history is printed, not state after every action, and misses 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "logic",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 5,
      "generation_hash": "f9aec8f69150738c33ed407042f249944e12a302ea82f5e6e35c832287c8db2b",
      "answer_sha256": "f9aec8f69150738c33ed407042f249944e12a302ea82f5e6e35c832287c8db2b",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (throwaway, no persistence), but misses criterion 2 since only final states are printed, and criterion 3 since it is Python rather than a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine demonstration) and 4 (throwaway, no persistence). Misses 2 because only final states are printed, not state after every action, and misses 3 because it is a Python script, not a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (chooses a state-machine logic demonstration) but misses 2 (no state exposed after every action), 3 (Python script, not a single HTML demo), and 4 (uses threads and a lock, not clearly free of production-style architecture; arguably persistence-adjacent via SQL suggestions).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 1 (state-machine demo) and criterion 4 (no persistence, single throwaway script). Misses criterion 2, since only final state is printed, not state after every action, and criterion 3, since it is Python rather than a single HTML demo.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (state-machine demo) and 4 (no persistence, throwaway stdlib script), but misses 2 because it prints only final states, not state after every action, and misses 3 because it is Python, not a single HTML demonstration.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "6daa11ac40a423aa0d24cab1a3b099ee5f773205b8430669a847a749334ea5d2",
      "answer_sha256": "6daa11ac40a423aa0d24cab1a3b099ee5f773205b8430669a847a749334ea5d2",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three radically different variants on one route, switches via a ?variant= URL param, and follows the existing prototype route convention while labeling it throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Selects the UI branch, proposes three radically different variants on one route switched by a `?variant=` URL param, and follows the existing prototype route convention while labeling it throwaway.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Identifies the UI branch, proposes three radically different variants on one route switched by a URL param, and places it under the existing prototype convention labeled throwaway (though it defers the exact path without inspecting the repo).\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three radically different variants on one route, switches them via a `?variant=` URL parameter, and labels the route throwaway under the existing prototype convention.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three radically different variants (stacked, wizard, split summary) on one route, switches via ?variant= URL param, and labels the route throwaway under the existing prototype convention.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "da87ca75e9476eee1464200af1f84d72e9df4b4fb9d968600e63279c58cc1c12",
      "answer_sha256": "da87ca75e9476eee1464200af1f84d72e9df4b4fb9d968600e63279c58cc1c12",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Meets all four criteria: it selects the UI branch, proposes three structurally distinct variants (stacked, wizard, split) on one route, switches via a `?variant=` URL param, and labels the route throwaway while mirroring the existing prototype convention.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch explicitly, proposes three structurally different variants (stacked, wizard, split/express) on one route switched via ?variant= URL param, follows the existing prototype route convention, and labels it throwaway with a throwaway branch.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants (stacked, wizard, split/express) on one route, switches via a ?variant= URL param, and mirrors the existing prototype route convention while labeling it throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Names the UI branch, gives three structurally different variants (stacked, wizard, split/express) on one route switched by ?variant=, and mirrors the existing prototype route convention while calling it throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, proposes three structurally different variants (stacked, wizard, split/express) on one route switched via ?variant= URL param, respects the existing prototype route convention, and labels it throwaway.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "c5d8aa62071af6ec8f015b02ae6c477dc105419d8aeb0eba724f1162ce9c3ce2",
      "answer_sha256": "c5d8aa62071af6ec8f015b02ae6c477dc105419d8aeb0eba724f1162ce9c3ce2",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally distinct variants on one route switched by a ?variant= URL param, follows the existing /prototypes convention, and labels it throwaway on a non-main branch.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, gives three structurally distinct variants on one route, switches them via a ?variant= URL param, and labels the work throwaway while deferring to the existing prototype convention.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch explicitly, gives three structurally distinct variants on one route switched by ?variant=, and places it under the prototype convention while labeling it throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, offers three structurally distinct variants on one route, switches via ?variant= URL param, and places it under the existing prototype convention labeled throwaway/prototype, meeting all four criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch, provides three structurally distinct variants on one route switched by ?variant= URL param, and follows the existing prototype route convention while labeling it throwaway and keeping it off main.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "ee1209799fed0673898aa5abf06cf83188079eef80b7668dc3673e6b3e4e8907",
      "answer_sha256": "ee1209799fed0673898aa5abf06cf83188079eef80b7668dc3673e6b3e4e8907",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses criteria 1-3: it picks no branch, uses separate routes per direction instead of variants on one route, and relies on a path plus a switcher bar rather than a URL-parameter variant switch. Criterion 4 fails because it uses a placeholder instead of the existing convention, though it does note the throwaway nature.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets only the UI-branch criterion; uses separate routes per direction instead of one route, puts variant selection in the path rather than a URL parameter, and does not respect the unknown route convention, though it notes throwaway deletion.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses 1: it never chooses a UI branch. Misses 2: it puts each variant on its own route rather than one route. Misses 3: the A/B/C switch is a persistent bar, not a simple URL parameter. Misses 4: it invents a placeholder route convention instead of respecting an existing one, though it mentions deleting losers.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Implicitly takes the UI branch and offers a simple switcher bar, but puts variants on separate routes rather than one route, and does not respect the existing convention (it admits using a placeholder), though it does mark the work for deletion.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (three distinct variant directories on one route), 3 (?scenario= query param and switcher), and 4 (respects a placeholder prefix and notes losing directions should be deleted); criterion 1 (choose the UI branch) is not explicitly addressed, as it recommends comparison without choosing one.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "d4d7c83c3b92fcae813262dce3ee3f7c1bba5e2c570fc7e688af5cafd6cedb26",
      "answer_sha256": "d4d7c83c3b92fcae813262dce3ee3f7c1bba5e2c570fc7e688af5cafd6cedb26",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI-branch and URL/toolbar variant-switch criteria and implies throwaway teardown, but uses separate routes (a-, b-, c-) instead of variants on one route and does not respect the existing convention.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI-branch and variant-switch criteria (query param or toolbar), but uses separate routes per direction rather than one route, and does not clearly respect the convention or explicitly label the work throwaway.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.5,\n  \"pass\": false,\n  \"reason\": \"Meets the URL/toolbar variant switch (3) and effectively picks the UI-only branch (1), but misses one route with variants (2) since it uses separate a-/b-/c- routes, and never explicitly labels the prototype throwaway (4).\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI branch, variant switch via query param or toolbar, and convention/throwaway criteria (teardown, production exclusion). Misses genuinely different variants on one route, since each direction gets its own route.\"}",
        "```json\n{\n  \"score\": 0.5,\n  \"pass\": false,\n  \"reason\": \"Chooses a UI-variant approach and includes a state/direction switcher with a query param, and defers to the existing route convention with teardown implying throwaway. Misses criterion 2: variants live on separate routes rather than one route.\"\n}\n```"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "9bc15209152e834cee4397fa6b1d0aa7a77a3780f96a49d059efa23a3de7ad5b",
      "answer_sha256": "9bc15209152e834cee4397fa6b1d0aa7a77a3780f96a49d059efa23a3de7ad5b",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"It proposes separate routes per direction instead of one route, offers only a state param rather than a variant switch, and doesn't choose a UI branch. It does label the work throwaway and defers to the unknown convention.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses criterion 1 (no UI branch chosen), criterion 2 (variants on separate routes, not one route), and criterion 3 (?state= switches scenarios, not variants; ?direction= is only an open-question aside). Criterion 4 fails because it admits not respecting the convention, though it does label the tree throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses criterion 1 (no UI branch chosen) and criterion 2 (three separate routes, not one route). Criterion 3 is only a passing mention of ?direction=. Criterion 4 fails because it invents a placeholder convention rather than respecting one, despite labeling the work throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Chooses the UI branch and labels the prototype throwaway, but uses separate routes per direction rather than one route, relegates the ?direction= switch to an aside, and does not respect the existing route convention.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Treats the task as a UI prototype (criterion 1), but uses three separate routes rather than one route, relies on a state param rather than a direction switch, and does not respect the route convention, though it labels the work throwaway.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "87dc44e724a66169861a2a5b912151c1e720e6351aa1f0c83bac3280a8c4cfa1",
      "answer_sha256": "87dc44e724a66169861a2a5b912151c1e720e6351aa1f0c83bac3280a8c4cfa1",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses all four points: it routes each direction to a separate path rather than variants on one route, uses no URL variant switch, and does not respect a known route convention, though it labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Uses separate routes per direction rather than one route, switches variants by path instead of a URL parameter, and cannot respect the unknown route convention, though it labels the prototype throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets only the throwaway labeling and deference to an unknown route convention; it never chooses a UI branch, uses three separate routes instead of variants on one route, and its direction switch is a UI widget rather than a URL variant parameter.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses all four criteria: no UI branch is chosen, variants are split across separate routes rather than one route, variants switch by path not URL parameter, and the route convention is not respected (placeholder used), though throwaway is labeled.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses all four points: no explicit UI branch choice, variants live on separate routes rather than one route, the switch is path-based rather than a URL-parameter variant switch, and the existing convention is unknown (placeholder used), though it is labeled throwaway.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "a18e862d9d194841515300df44acab47b9f699da1514c52b0c3a0194bc438bf4",
      "answer_sha256": "a18e862d9d194841515300df44acab47b9f699da1514c52b0c3a0194bc438bf4",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Proposes three separate routes rather than variants on one route, and uses paths instead of a URL-parameter variant switch. It explicitly does not respect the existing route convention, but it does label the prototype as throwaway and slated for deletion.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Labels the prototype as throwaway (delete after deciding), but puts variants on three sibling routes instead of one route, uses a switcher rather than a URL variant parameter, and does not respect an existing convention it never checked.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the UI-branch choice and, by treating the prototypes as throwaway with a delete-on-win lifecycle, plausibly the convention/throwaway point. Misses one-route variants (it proposes three sibling routes) and a variant-switch URL parameter (the query param only controls state).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Uses three separate routes instead of variants on one route, has no variant-selecting URL parameter, and does not follow the existing route convention; it does label the prototype as throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"The response uses three sibling routes instead of one route with variants, and its A/B/C switcher is route-based, not a variant URL parameter. It labels the work as throwaway but does not respect the convention, since it admits it cannot see it and does not pick a UI branch.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ui",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 5,
      "generation_hash": "1a07c66cb8ba65d31ab55fe43668876e1c966e5ced7119bc66feb3e8158e681d",
      "answer_sha256": "1a07c66cb8ba65d31ab55fe43668876e1c966e5ced7119bc66feb3e8158e681d",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Chooses a UI presentation branch implicitly, but puts each direction on its own route instead of one route, uses no variant URL parameter, and cannot respect the unknown convention; throwaway labelling is only partial.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses criterion 1 (no UI branch chosen), criterion 2 (uses three separate routes rather than variants on one route), and criterion 3 (variant switching is by route, with a state param and optional overlay rather than a simple variant URL parameter); criterion 4 is unmet because the convention is unknown and throwaway status is only conditional.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"The response puts each direction on its own route rather than one route, uses no variant URL switch, doesn't respect the unknown route convention, and doesn't choose a UI branch.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses all four criteria: it uses separate routes rather than variants on one route, relies on route paths not a variant URL switch, ignores the unknown existing convention, and does not label the work throwaway.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.0, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses criterion 2 because it uses one route per direction rather than variants on one route, and misses 3 and 4 since direction selection is path-based and throwaway status is only conditional; criterion 1 is also not clearly met.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "13055468902a401909d87f404f0f7425000c8af84c47ffc49fc541d7e8fba32c",
      "answer_sha256": "13055468902a401909d87f404f0f7425000c8af84c47ffc49fc541d7e8fba32c",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.75,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: states a logic assumption, asks concrete retry-state questions, and stays provisional. Misses 3 because it lists states without showing actual transitions.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the logic-oriented assumption (state-model question), concrete retry-state questions, and avoids presenting the assumption as confirmed; state transitions are only implied by the control list and event-driven questions, not explicitly shown.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-branch assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and frames the direction as provisional. Criterion 3 is only partly met: it lists states and events but never shows explicit transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the logic-oriented assumption, concrete retry-state questions, and not-confirmed framing; it lists states and triggers but never shows explicit from-to transition sequences, so the transitions criterion is missed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-oriented assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and labels the direction provisional. It only names states and implies transitions rather than showing them explicitly, so criterion 3 is missed.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "658dd75aab2cbde27e73c0ded1f84aff3e74c5e55b26db55cfbbc468486140de",
      "answer_sha256": "658dd75aab2cbde27e73c0ded1f84aff3e74c5e55b26db55cfbbc468486140de",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response states a logic/state-model assumption explicitly, names concrete retry-state questions (e.g., retryable errors, attempt/time-budget limits), shows transitions like idle → in-flight → waiting-to-retry → succeeded/failed-permanently/cancelled, and flags open items as unconfirmed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: it states a logic/state-model assumption explicitly. Criterion 2 met: it asks concrete retry-state questions about retryable errors and attempt/time limits. Criterion 3 met: it shows the transition chain idle → in-flight → waiting-to-retry → succeeded/failed/cancelled. Criterion 4 met: it frames the assumption as provisional and lists open items to confirm with the stakeholder.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: it states a logic/state-model assumption and rejects the UI branch. Criterion 2 met: it asks concrete retry-state questions such as which errors are retryable and which limit wins. Criterion 3 met: it shows the state transitions idle → in-flight → waiting-to-retry → succeeded/failed/cancelled. Criterion 4 met: it frames the assumption as provisional and lists open items to confirm with the stakeholder.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (states logic/state-model assumption explicitly), 2 (concrete retry question on which errors retry and which limit wins), and 4 (labels the assumption as provisional and lists open items to confirm); criterion 3 is only partly met since transitions appear as a single arrow-chain without clearly showing per-transition behavior.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met: states a logic/state-model assumption. Criterion 2 met: concrete retry-state questions on retryable errors and limits. Criterion 3 met: lists idle→in-flight→waiting-to-retry→succeeded/failed/cancelled transitions. Criterion 4 met: frames it as an assumption to confirm, with open items flagged.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "a7d335de0b9a48e7dc852431b700669349c316ccf36748667623b894d55c2625",
      "answer_sha256": "a7d335de0b9a48e7dc852431b700669349c316ccf36748667623b894d55c2625",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-oriented assumption, names concrete retry-state questions (exhaustion, cancellation mid-wait), and frames the assumption as provisional. It misses criterion 3 because it describes a transition log rather than showing any actual state transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-oriented assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and frames the assumption as unconfirmed. It misses criterion 3 because it describes a transition log but never shows any actual state transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-oriented assumption, asks concrete retry-state questions, and frames the assumption as unconfirmed. It misses criterion 3 because it describes a transition log feature without showing any actual state transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-oriented assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and frames the assumption as an assumption. It misses criterion 3 because it never shows actual state transitions, only describing a transition log the prototype would display.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic-oriented assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and frames the assumption as unconfirmed. It misses 3 because it describes a transition log rather than showing any state transitions.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "076807718327de8f357cc9a3de5edcfc0fbbacc293b39af8060f3db23c52ab34",
      "answer_sha256": "076807718327de8f357cc9a3de5edcfc0fbbacc293b39af8060f3db23c52ab34",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: states a logic/state-model assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and flags the assumption as unconfirmed. Misses 3: transitions are described in questions but never explicitly shown.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets logic-assumption, concrete retry-state questions, and not-confirmed framing (explicitly 'Assumption' and 'Open item'). Misses strict state-transition display: it lists events and state fields but never shows transitions between states.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets the logic-oriented assumption, concrete retry-state questions, and not-confirmed criteria, with an explicit open item. Misses criterion 3: it lists state fields and events but never shows actual state transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it states a logic/state-model assumption, names concrete retry-state questions, and flags the assumption for stakeholder confirmation. It only describes transitions in questions and never shows explicit state transitions, so criterion 3 is missed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 met (logic/state-model assumption stated) and criterion 4 met (assumption flagged as unconfirmed with an open item); criterion 2 met via concrete termination/backoff questions; criterion 3 missed because no explicit state transitions are shown, only a state dump description.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "cb0a411f723a471b464c518bca037041c035a5801ba203cf27e68e60186936ea",
      "answer_sha256": "cb0a411f723a471b464c518bca037041c035a5801ba203cf27e68e60186936ea",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 4 is met: the response explicitly labels its design as provisional and unconfirmed. Criteria 1-3 are missed: no logic-oriented assumption, no concrete retry-state question, and no state transitions are shown.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Only criterion 4 is met: the response clearly labels its reading as provisional and unconfirmed. It states no logic-oriented assumption, names no concrete retry-state question, and shows no state transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 4 is met: it states the assumption is provisional and unconfirmed. Criterion 1 is partly met (the 'alongside' design is a stated assumption) but not as a logic-oriented assumption. Criteria 2 and 3 are missed: no concrete retry-state question and no state transitions are shown.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Only criterion 4 is clearly met: the response labels its reading provisional and asks for stakeholder confirmation. It states no logic-oriented assumption, names no concrete retry-state question, and shows no state transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets only criterion 4 by explicitly flagging the assumptions as provisional and unconfirmed. It lacks a logic-oriented assumption, a concrete retry-state question, and any state transitions.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "78d35587e027c8e906ff8ef5a583125ba0521f71d7a5ae6378b4f0576a58cb3f",
      "answer_sha256": "78d35587e027c8e906ff8ef5a583125ba0521f71d7a5ae6378b4f0576a58cb3f",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by hedging that the module may not exist and treating the direction as exploratory. Misses criterion 1 (the stated assumption is environmental, not logic-oriented), criterion 2 (no concrete retry-state question), and criterion 3 (no state transitions shown).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is partly met: it states a design direction but not a logic-oriented assumption. Criterion 2 is met with a concrete retry-state question about where classification lives. Criterion 3 (state transitions) is missing. Criterion 4 is met by noting the stakeholder is unreachable and the direction is provisional.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the rubric's avoid-presenting-assumptions-as-confirmed point and arguably names concrete retry-state questions (attempt count, budget), but gives no state transitions and no clearly logic-oriented assumption.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets only the point on not presenting assumptions as confirmed (notes the module may not exist, 'exploratory'). Misses a logic-oriented assumption, shows no retry-state transitions, and its questions are mostly policy-level rather than concrete retry-state questions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets only the 'avoid presenting the assumption as confirmed' criterion: it hedges that the retry module may not exist. It states no logic-oriented assumption, names no concrete retry-state question, and shows no state transitions.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "fac4af27abf8bf8bd88695e641794b5844389c1d7292d5ad0089ab067734d78d",
      "answer_sha256": "fac4af27abf8bf8bd88695e641794b5844389c1d7292d5ad0089ab067734d78d",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by explicitly flagging assumptions as unverified and partly meets 1 with an assumption about retry behavior, but it has no concrete retry-state question and shows no state transitions (criteria 2 and 3 missed).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by flagging assumptions as unconfirmed. Criterion 1 is weak because the assumptions are behavioral rather than logic-oriented, criterion 2 has no concrete retry-state question, and criterion 3 is missed entirely since no state transitions are shown.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by explicitly flagging assumptions as unverified and plausibly meets criterion 1 with the stated retry-behavior assumption. Misses criterion 2 (no concrete retry-state question) and criterion 3 (no state transitions shown).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is partly met (assumptions stated, but not logic-oriented); criterion 2 is met by the concrete retry-state questions, criterion 3 is missed (no state transitions shown), and criterion 4 is met by the 'assumptions' framing rather than presenting them as confirmed, so the score lands at 0.25.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Explicitly avoids presenting assumptions as confirmed (criterion 4 met) and states retry-behavior assumptions, though not clearly logic-oriented; no concrete retry-state question is named and no state transitions are shown.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "111ce773a0395d58f41c320c34f0891bcac630f228f39185394fffef25cf97cc",
      "answer_sha256": "111ce773a0395d58f41c320c34f0891bcac630f228f39185394fffef25cf97cc",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets points 1 (states a retry-logic assumption) and 4 (framed as provisional). Misses 3, since no retry state transitions are shown, and 2 is weak, since its questions concern load and classification rather than concrete retry state.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states a clear assumption that the retry module is generic fixed/exponential backoff. Criterion 4 is met: it hedges and labels the direction provisional. Criterion 2 is only partly met, since its questions are broad rather than a concrete retry-state question. Criterion 3 is missed: no state transitions are shown.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the non-confirmation criterion by calling the module assumption provisional and states a plausible assumption. Misses retry-state questions about attempt counters or budget state, and shows no state transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the assumption criterion (states a generic backoff-based retry module as provisional) and the no-confirmed-assumption criterion. It misses the state-transition criterion entirely and the retry-state question is only loosely present, via attempt-cap and amplification questions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the assumption criterion (generic retry layer, stated as provisional) and avoids presenting it as confirmed. Misses the retry-state question and state transitions, which the response never gives.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "unclear",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "5b12163ddce183ab38e047df8f059388ba464b36701ae558ba8f5a8a0376b4e4",
      "answer_sha256": "5b12163ddce183ab38e047df8f059388ba464b36701ae558ba8f5a8a0376b4e4",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "```json\n{\n  \"score\": 0.25,\n  \"pass\": false,\n  \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 by flagging assumptions as unverified and provisional. Misses criterion 1, since its assumptions are scope-oriented rather than logic-oriented, and criterion 3, which shows no retry state transitions. Criterion 2 is at best borderline.\"\n}\n```",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 4 (explicitly flags assumptions as unverified and provisional) and criterion 2 (concrete retry-safety and budget questions). Misses criterion 1, since the stated assumptions concern scope rather than retry logic, and criterion 3, since no retry state transitions are shown.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met: it states clear assumptions about a sibling module and flag-gated behavior. Criterion 4 is met: it labels assumptions as unverified and the direction as provisional. Criterion 2 is partly met through concrete questions on retry safety and budgets, but it never names a specific retry-state question. Criterion 3 is missed: it describes no state transitions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Assumptions are scope/interface-oriented rather than logic-oriented (criterion 1 missed); retry-decision questions are concrete enough (criterion 2 met); no state transitions are shown (criterion 3 missed); assumptions are clearly flagged as unconfirmed (criterion 4 met).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the non-confirmation criterion by flagging assumptions and calling the direction provisional, and loosely names retry-state questions like stopping on permanent failures. It misses a logic-oriented assumption (its assumptions are scope and architecture) and shows no state transitions.\"}"
      ]
    }
  ]
}