{
  "format": "driftproof-answers/2",
  "receipt_hash": "a270d6454735f29e9dae390c064d7e3efd1500cb1e8a3c96dcd3a3900f697e35",
  "model_id": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
  "answers": {
    "79079ef1c6e8f371e87d4a6d231b192848e8fe66ccc61815c115d00b9f4066ca": "Round 1 covers the root decisions, the ones with no prerequisites. Provider depends on channel, and retention depends on audience, so both wait for these answers. I'm also asking about content now, since it doesn't depend on either. I have no facts about your environment, so these recommendations are defaults to push against, not conclusions.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Audience**: Who receives the digest? The options are (a) you alone, (b) your internal team, (c) external customers or users, or (d) a mix. This sets the stakes for everything downstream. External recipients bring consent, unsubscribe, and privacy obligations, and the audience also determines how long you can or must keep digests and delivery records.\n\n➡️ Your internal team only, as a first version. Is that right?\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Delivery channel**: Where does the digest land? The options are email, Slack/Teams, SMS/push, a webhook into another system, or a hosted page with a notification link. Channel decides which providers are even eligible, how rich the formatting can be, and how you detect failed delivery.\n\n➡️ Email. It works for any audience size, it's easy to archive, and it has well-understood delivery tracking. Is that right?\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Digest content and source**: What does the digest summarize, and where does that data come from? Examples are activity logs, tickets, metrics, or new items from a feed. Does every recipient get the same digest, or is it personalized per person? Personalization multiplies failure modes, such as one recipient's data leaking into another's digest, and it makes testing harder.\n\n➡️ One shared digest, identical for every recipient, built from a single source. Is that right?\n\n---\n\nOnce you answer, I'll pick up the next round: provider, retention, cadence and trigger, and failure handling (retries, duplicate sends, what happens when the source is empty or late).",
    "8c5a25e74c9a653d2b10b7eeff5d63f0ae9d29994feb75a5198d4dc8e2a7247d": "This is round 1, the root decisions with no prerequisites. Provider depends on channel and retention depends on audience, so both wait for your answers here.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Audience**: Is this digest for a small, known group, such as you or your internal team, rather than external customers or the public? That decides retention, consent and unsubscribe obligations, personalization, and how much a bad send costs.\n\n➡️ Yes, internal and known recipients only. Start there, because it's the cheapest audience to get wrong in front of, and you can widen it later.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Delivery channel**: Should the digest go out as email, rather than Slack, push notifications, a web page, or RSS? This is the biggest fork. It drives the provider choice, the formatting limits, and whether you can tell a message was delivered or read.\n\n➡️ Yes, email. It's the most portable, needs no one to install anything, and gives bounce and delivery signals. If Q1 turns out to be a team that lives in Slack, I'd switch to Slack.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Content source**: Is the digest assembled automatically from data you already produce, such as commits, tickets, metrics, or feeds, with no human writing or editing it before it goes out?\n\n➡️ Yes, fully automated with no human review step. If you want an approval gate, that changes the failure handling, so say so.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Cadence and trigger**: Should it go out on a fixed schedule, such as weekly, rather than being event-triggered or on-demand? Scheduled sends are simpler to reason about, monitor, and rate-limit.\n\n➡️ Yes, a fixed weekly schedule at a set time, and skip the send when there's nothing new.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Failure ownership**: If a run fails or sends something wrong, should the failure alert you directly, rather than failing silently or retrying indefinitely? Automated digests tend to break unnoticed, so you need to decide who finds out.\n\n➡️ Yes, alert you on any failed or empty run, with a bounded retry (say 3 attempts) before alerting.\n\n---\n\nWhen you've answered, I'll recompute the frontier. Q1 should unlock retention and recipient management, and Q2 should unlock provider selection. Q3 and Q4 should unlock templating, volume, and rate-limit questions.",
    "acf88250fdea7f98c346c686b2ed76e247e8b63c543ea88ceb4b97d38fa51216": "This is round 1. Audience and channel are the two roots of the tree. Provider hangs off channel and retention hangs off audience, so both wait. I've added one more root: what the digest is for. It doesn't depend on either and shapes the rest.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Purpose and content**: Is the digest a summary of activity from one existing system (for example commits, tickets, alerts, or metrics from the past period), meant to save readers from checking that system themselves? The alternative is a curated or multi-source roundup. The answer determines what data we pull, whether it contains sensitive material, and what \"success\" means.\n\n➡️ Yes: a single-source, automatically generated summary of recent activity, with success defined as \"readers no longer need to check the source directly.\"\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Audience**: Is the digest for your own team (a small, known, internal group), not external customers or the public? This decides consent and unsubscribe obligations, personal-data exposure, and how long we're allowed or required to keep copies. It sets up the retention question for a later round.\n\n➡️ Yes: an internal team of roughly 5–50 people, all of whom opted in by joining the team.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Delivery channel**: Should the digest be delivered where the team already works, as a chat message in Slack or a similar tool, instead of email or a hosted web page? This sets up the provider question for a later round. Chat avoids deliverability and spam-filter problems, but it makes long digests harder to read and to archive.\n\n➡️ Yes: post to the team's existing chat channel, with a link to a fuller version if the digest runs long.\n\n---\n\n**Held for later rounds** (each is blocked on an answer above):\n- **Provider** (needs Q3)\n- **Retention and deletion** (needs Q2, and Q1 if the content is sensitive)\n- **Cadence, timing, and time zones** (needs Q2 and Q3)\n- **Failure handling and alerting**, such as what happens when a send fails or the source is empty (needs Q3 and the provider)\n- **Opt-out and access control** (needs Q2 and Q3)\n\nIf your answers differ from my recommendations, tell me which, and I'll recompute the frontier.",
    "21c931e41ecbad67de74a40068056ecc2a837e7c9e669d6970c796e2d8403342": "# Round 1: Digest delivery stress-test\n\nThe two undecided items sit upstream of everything else. Channel gates provider, and audience gates retention. So this round resolves those two, plus the few facts that constrain them. Provider and retention questions wait for round 2.\n\n## Audience (unlocks retention, content, and failure tolerance)\n\n1. **Who receives the digest?** Internal teammates, customers, or the public? Roughly how many recipients now, and in 12 months?\n2. **Does the digest contain anything sensitive?** This covers personal data, customer data, and internal-only material. If yes, who is allowed to see it, and does the recipient list change over time?\n3. **Do recipients opt in, or are they enrolled by default?** This determines unsubscribe obligations, consent records, and how long you must keep or may keep their data.\n\n## Channel (unlocks provider)\n\n4. **Where do recipients already pay attention?** Email, Slack/Teams, SMS, push, or a webhook into another system? Is there a hard constraint, such as \"must be email\" or \"no third-party chat\"?\n5. **Is delivery one-way, or do recipients need to reply, click through, or acknowledge?** This affects whether you need inbound handling and engagement tracking.\n6. **What does a missed or late digest cost?** Is it a nuisance, or does someone act on it with a deadline? This sets the delivery guarantees you need, such as retries, fallback channel, and dedup.\n\n## Plan-level probes (to find weak spots early)\n\n7. **What triggers a send?** Fixed schedule, event threshold, or both? What happens when there is nothing to report: skip, or send an empty digest?\n8. **Who gets paged if it fails silently?** Is there an owner, and how would you notice a digest that never went out?\n\n## What I'm testing with these\n\n| Risk | Question |\n|---|---|\n| Sending to the wrong people | 1, 2 |\n| Compliance exposure from retention or consent | 2, 3 |\n| Channel mismatch with real attention | 4 |\n| Silent failure, duplicates, or late delivery | 6, 7, 8 |\n| Scope creep into a two-way system | 5 |\n\nAnswer as many as you can, and \"don't know yet\" is a valid answer. For anything unknown, I'll propose a default and flag it as an assumption in round 2.",
    "71165ccd4cafa508fce85adcd8817251c78a951cfd8b315241f88df635fb95a0": "# First interview round: automated digest delivery\n\nThe two undecided items, audience and channel, sit upstream of everything else. Provider depends on channel, and retention depends on audience. This round settles those two and probes what could invalidate the plan.\n\n## A. Audience (drives retention)\n\n1. **Who receives the digest?** Internal teammates, customers, or the public? Roughly how many recipients now, and in 12 months?\n2. **Is the recipient list fixed, self-service, or derived from data?** Who adds and removes people, and what happens when someone leaves?\n3. **Does the digest contain anything sensitive?** Think PII, customer data, credentials, or internal metrics. Does every recipient have the right to see all of it, or does content vary per recipient?\n4. **Are there legal or compliance obligations?** Examples are GDPR/CCPA, unsubscribe rules, and audit or records requirements. These set both minimum and maximum retention.\n\n## B. Channel (drives provider)\n\n5. **Where do recipients already pay attention?** Email, Slack/Teams, SMS, push, or a web page or feed? What would the audience tolerate?\n6. **Does delivery need confirmation?** Do you need to know it was delivered, opened, or acted on, or is best-effort enough?\n7. **Do you need one channel or several?** Is there a fallback if the primary channel fails?\n8. **What format does the content need?** Rich HTML, plain text, attachments, or links only? Channel limits on size and formatting can break the plan.\n\n## C. Plan stress tests (answerable now)\n\n9. **What triggers a send?** Is it a fixed schedule, an event threshold, or on demand? Which time zone governs it?\n10. **What happens on an empty digest?** Do you skip it, send a \"nothing new\" message, or alert someone?\n11. **What if generation fails or runs late?** Should it retry, send partial content, or stay silent? Who finds out?\n12. **What is the cost of a wrong send?** Examples are a duplicate, a missed digest, or the wrong content going to the wrong person. Which of these is worst?\n\n## What I'll do with the answers\n\n- **Audience plus sensitivity** gives retention and access-control requirements.\n- **Channel plus confirmation needs** gives a provider shortlist, to be checked against volume and cost.\n- **Section C** gives the failure-mode list for round two.\n\nIf you can only answer a few, answer **1, 3, 5, and 12**. They narrow the decision space the most.",
    "460d9705f49ccd405f5bade672ac3f31b138171b28b8814296b7914af752fca5": "# First interview round: automated digest delivery\n\nThe two undecided items, audience and channel, sit upstream of everything else. Provider depends on channel, and retention depends on audience. So round one should pin down those two and probe only what could invalidate the plan.\n\n## 1. Audience (unlocks retention)\n\n1. **Who receives the digest?** Internal team, customers, external partners, or a mix? Roughly how many recipients now, and in 12 months?\n2. **Is each recipient's digest the same, or personalized?** Personalized digests carry per-person data and raise the stakes on retention and access.\n3. **Does the digest contain personal, confidential, or regulated data?** Examples: PII, customer data, financials, health data. Which jurisdictions apply (GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, SOC 2 commitments)?\n4. **Can recipients opt out or request deletion?** If so, how should that propagate to stored copies?\n5. **Does anyone need to look back at old digests?** Who, and for what purpose: audit, support, or reference? How far back?\n\n## 2. Channel (unlocks provider)\n\n6. **Where do recipients actually read things?** Email, Slack/Teams, SMS, push, a web page, or something else? Is it one channel or several?\n7. **Do you have a channel constraint already imposed?** Examples: security policy forbids sending email externally, or the company standardizes on Slack.\n8. **How rich is the content?** Plain text, formatted HTML, attachments, charts, or links to a dashboard?\n9. **Do you need delivery feedback?** Delivered, opened, bounced, or clicked. Is it required or just nice to have?\n\n## 3. Cross-cutting stress tests\n\n10. **What is the cadence and timing sensitivity?** Daily or weekly? Is a late digest a nuisance or an incident?\n11. **What happens when it fails?** Who is alerted, and is a retry, a duplicate send, or a skipped send the worse outcome?\n12. **What is the data source, and can it be empty?** Should an empty digest be sent, skipped, or flagged?\n13. **Who owns it, and what budget applies?** Is there an existing vendor contract, a cost ceiling, or an on-call owner?\n\n## What I'd do with the answers\n\n- If the audience is external or the data is sensitive, I would settle retention and deletion rules first. That will narrow providers to those meeting your compliance needs.\n- If the channel turns out to be multiple, I would ask whether to pick one primary channel for v1 or abstract delivery behind an interface.\n- If the answers to 1 and 6 conflict, for example external customers on an internal-only channel, that is the first plan flaw to resolve.\n\nPlease answer whichever of these you can. \"Don't know yet\" is a useful answer for 1 and 6, and I'll treat those as the open decisions to resolve before round two.",
    "90208e89b58398bb4996eef879ffef3e59183fd0b45113c8592677a19fd43d55": "I don't see a plan or any agreed choices in this conversation, so I can't build on decisions I haven't seen. I won't invent them. Here is the root of the tree, kept to what you've told me: the audience is internal staff, delivery is chat, and provider access is unresolved. If you've settled any of this elsewhere, tell me which and I'll skip it.\n\nProvider access is a fact-finding item. I can't investigate it in this session because I'm not using tools, so everything downstream of it waits. The questions below don't depend on it.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **What is being decided**: Is the plan to roll out a chat-based capability to internal staff that depends on an external provider, with the open question being whether and how we can get access to that provider?\n\n➡️ Yes. Treat provider access as a prerequisite to the rollout, not as part of the design itself.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Decision owner and deadline**: Is there a single named owner who makes the final call on this plan, and a date by which the call has to be made?\n\n➡️ Yes. Name one owner and one date now, so the provider investigation has a deadline.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Success criterion**: Will we judge the plan by whether internal staff actually use it in chat for their day-to-day work (adoption), rather than by whether it merely launches?\n\n➡️ Yes. Adoption by staff is the measure, and we can refine the exact metric once the provider is known.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Handling the provider unknown**: Do we park every provider-dependent question (cost, quotas, data handling, auth, fallback) until the investigation reports, and meanwhile define what the investigation must answer?\n\n➡️ Yes. The investigation should come back with four things: how access is granted, usage limits and cost, what data leaves our environment, and who approves it.\n\n---\n\nOnce you answer these, I'll recompute the frontier. Q3 and Q4 open up questions about chat entry points, who is in scope among staff, and the fallback if provider access is denied.",
    "0d50f01e1b50d01a6761e89ab9f89b1b9f69bb54901fbb1bd5cccc7dcacf2d2c": "I don't have the plan in this conversation, and nothing in it records which choices were agreed. So I can't build on settled decisions without guessing at them. I've treated provider access as an open investigation and kept every question that depends on it out of this round. These are the root questions that don't depend on it. If any are already settled, tell me which and I'll skip them.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Goal**: Is the plan's goal a single sentence that internal staff can state the same way, with the outcome described as something that changes for them (not just something that gets built)?\n\n➡️ Yes. Write it as one outcome sentence and use it to judge every later decision.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Success check**: Will we call this done based on one observable check that staff can run themselves in chat, rather than on a general sense that it works?\n\n➡️ Yes. Pick one concrete check, such as \"a staff member completes X end to end without help.\"\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Scope boundary**: Is the first version limited to internal staff only, with no external or customer-facing use until after it's proven?\n\n➡️ Yes. Keep the first version internal, and treat external use as a separate later decision.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Provider access ownership**: Should one named person own the provider-access investigation and report back with a firm answer by a set date, so the questions that depend on it aren't left open?\n\n➡️ Yes. Assign one owner and a date. Until they report, everything that depends on provider access stays parked.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Fallback if access fails**: If the investigation shows we can't get the access we need, should we agree now on what we do instead (narrow the scope or pause), so the outcome doesn't have to be argued out afterwards?\n\n➡️ Yes. Pre-agree on narrowing scope to what works without that access, rather than pausing the whole effort.\n\nOnce you answer, I'll recompute the open questions and ask the next round. Questions about provider choice, auth, cost, and rollout will come after the investigation reports.",
    "2d8da9a07e02ed810e7642facea0a82e2a3f02a4b803071675b252f798bd66c9": "I don't have any plan or earlier decisions in this conversation. All I have is that provider access still needs investigation, and I can't look that up without tools. So I can't skip past agreed choices. This round covers only the root of the tree, and my recommendations are defaults to correct, not conclusions.\n\nProvider access is parked. Anything that depends on it (auth method, rate limits, fallback providers, cost) waits until someone has investigated it.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Goal**: Is the goal of this plan to get internal staff working with the provider through a chat interface, with no external users in scope?\n\n➡️ Yes. Internal staff only, delivered via chat.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Success criteria**: Will we call this done when staff can complete their core tasks in chat without a workaround, and not on a broader metric like adoption or cost savings?\n\n➡️ Yes. Use task completion as the bar and add metrics later.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Provider investigation owner**: Should one named person own the provider access investigation and report back with what access exists, under what terms, and with what limits, before any downstream design starts?\n\n➡️ Yes. Assign one owner and make the report the gate for the provider-dependent branches.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Interim scope**: While that investigation runs, should we only settle provider-independent decisions (who the users are, what data they may send, what the chat experience must do) and avoid choosing a provider-specific design?\n\n➡️ Yes. Work only on the provider-independent branches until the report lands.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Data sensitivity**: Is it right to assume staff may paste internal or confidential material into chat, so data handling rules must be settled before we pick a provider?\n\n➡️ Yes. Assume confidential material is in scope and write the data rules first, since they will constrain which providers qualify.\n\nOnce you answer, I'll recompute the frontier. If you can paste in the actual plan or the decisions already made, I'll work from those and drop anything here that overlaps.",
    "b7d6debb651ae957e5c3959798fc4e52fa7c1c9b7b85926106e2d45c06541f37": "I only have three settled facts: the audience is internal staff, delivery is chat, and provider access is still under investigation. I have no record of the plan itself or of any earlier choices, so I'm not reopening anything. Since I can't use tools here, I can't look up provider access either. I'm treating it as an open prerequisite and holding every question that depends on it for a later round.\n\nHere is the round of questions that don't depend on it.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Core purpose**: What is the one job this chat delivery has to do for internal staff? For example, answering questions, surfacing alerts, or triggering actions. Is it read-only, or can staff change things through it?\n\n➡️ Read-only answers first, with no write actions in v1. That keeps the risk low while provider access is unresolved.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Chat surface**: Will this live in the company's existing chat tool (Slack, Teams, or similar) as a bot, or in a standalone chat UI? Is there a platform constraint such as message length, formatting, or threading?\n\n➡️ Use the existing internal chat tool as a bot. Staff already work there, and you avoid building and authenticating a separate UI.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Access control within staff**: Is every internal staff member allowed to see everything the bot can return, or do some data or actions need role-based limits?\n\n➡️ Assume role-based limits are needed. Default to the least access and widen it deliberately, using the chat platform's existing identity rather than a separate login.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Success criteria**: How will you know it works? For example, a target response accuracy, adoption by a set number of staff, or a reduction in a specific manual task.\n\n➡️ Pick one measurable adoption or time-saved metric, plus a simple thumbs-up/down feedback signal on responses.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q5** - **Investigation ownership**: Who owns the provider access investigation, what exactly is unknown (credentials, contract or terms, rate limits, data residency, or something else), and by when do you need an answer?\n\n➡️ Name one owner and a date. Scope the unknowns to a short checklist, because the next round depends on the answers.\n\n---\n\n**Deferred until Q5 resolves:** provider choice or fallback, data handling and retention, cost and rate-limit design, and the architecture of the integration.",
    "1c323af6ccfeaba65293ec7068430b1b5197bcc3725e294903afe9bacaae801b": "I don't have the plan or the earlier answers in this conversation. The only facts I have are that provider access needs investigation, the audience is internal staff, and delivery is chat. I can't tell which choices are already agreed, so I'm not going to guess at them. Here is the round I can ask from what I do know.\n\nI can't look anything up in this session, so provider access stays an open prerequisite. Anything that depends on it waits for a later round.\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Plan under review**: Can you paste or restate the plan and the choices already agreed, in a line or two each? I'll treat those as settled and build the tree from them.\n\n➡️ Yes, restate it briefly, and I'll skip any agreed choices from here on.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Provider access investigation owner**: Should provider access be tracked as a separate investigation with a named owner, so the plan can proceed on everything that doesn't depend on it? Questions that do depend on it (provider choice, rate limits, credentials, fallback) would be parked until it reports.\n\n➡️ Yes, name an owner, define what \"access\" means (credentials, quota, network path, contract terms), and park the dependent questions.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Chat delivery for internal staff**: Should the first version assume internal-only access through your existing chat tool and staff identity, with no external users and no public exposure?\n\n➡️ Yes, internal-only through existing staff auth, with external exposure treated as a separate later decision.\n\n---\n\nOnce you answer, I'll recompute the frontier. Q1 will likely open most of the next round.",
    "58c74f1fc0498dafde271b8950767399bd03bf2e329608ee21bd78a3efb8a256": "Nothing in this conversation records a plan or any agreed choices, so I can't build on prior decisions. I'm treating the tree as having no settled nodes, and I'm not reopening anything. The recommended answers below are my guesses, so correct them where they're off.\n\n**Parked:** provider access needs investigation. I can't look into it in this text-only turn, so anything that depends on it waits for a later round. I won't ask you for those facts.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q1** - **Problem statement**: Is the plan meant to solve one specific internal problem for staff, rather than a general platform capability? If so, what is that problem in one sentence?\n\n➡️ Yes. Scope it to one concrete staff-facing problem, and state it in a single sentence so later decisions can be checked against it.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q2** - **Success criteria**: Should we define \"done\" as a small set of observable outcomes, such as staff can do X in chat without help and Y is measurable within N weeks, instead of \"it's deployed\"?\n\n➡️ Yes. Pick two or three observable outcomes and a review date.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q3** - **Decision owner**: Is there a single named owner who signs off on scope and trade-offs, with this session's answers feeding that person's decision?\n\n➡️ Yes. One owner avoids deadlocks and makes it clear who accepts the risks.\n\n---\n\n❓ **Q4** - **Chat delivery scope**: Is chat the only delivery surface for now, with no web UI, email, or ticketing integration in the first version?\n\n➡️ Yes. Chat only for v1, with other surfaces deferred.\n\n---\n\nOnce you answer, I'll recompute the frontier. Questions about data sensitivity, fallback behavior and rollout need the provider-access findings first, so they come after that investigation is done.",
    "6fad5c2ff04a07bf67e4c8dfba6748771df2770908fc5ead571f08dac33a674c": "Next round for provider access, for internal staff in chat.\n\n**Caveat:** I only have this message and a clean repo with no commits. I can't see the earlier decisions, so I haven't restated or changed any. If something below conflicts with what you agreed, treat the agreed choice as the winner and tell me which item to drop.\n\n**Status:** Provider access is still unresolved and needs investigation. Nothing else is assumed.\n\n**Next round (investigation only):**\n\n1. **Define the symptom.** Record who is affected, which provider or endpoint, and what error or behavior they see. Include the first time it was noticed and whether it is constant or intermittent.\n2. **Check the access path in order.** Look at credentials or keys (present, valid, not expired, right scope), then account or plan status and quotas, then network or allowlist rules, then the provider's status page.\n3. **Isolate the cause.** Compare a working case with a failing one (different user, environment, or key) and change one variable at a time.\n4. **Capture evidence.** Collect timestamps, request IDs, and error codes, with secrets redacted, so the provider can act on them if escalation is needed.\n5. **Name an owner and a time box.** One person leads, and we check back at an agreed time with findings, even if the cause is still unknown.\n\n**What staff should do now:** Post any access errors in this thread with a timestamp and what you were doing. Don't share keys or tokens in chat.\n\n**To make this specific, I need:**\n- The provider and what \"access\" means here (API, console, data feed)\n- The agreed choices you want kept intact\n- Who the owner is",
    "8ea009027e21516ae07958d9635bb111425d932355f1d872a4dc58b4ff1b8d48": "I don't have the earlier decisions or the details of what \"provider access\" refers to. The only context I have is a clean repo on branch `HEAD` with no commits. So I can't say what's been agreed, and I'll leave all of it as-is.\n\n**Next round: provider access investigation**\n\n1. **Pin down the symptom.** Write down exactly what fails (auth error, timeout, missing permission, no account) and where it first showed up.\n2. **Check the basics.**\n   - Credentials or tokens: whether they exist, are current, and are scoped correctly.\n   - Account or entitlement status with the provider.\n   - Whether the failure is tied to a specific environment, region, or network path.\n3. **Assign owners.** One person to contact the provider, one to check our side (config, secrets, network rules).\n4. **Set a checkpoint.** Report back with one of three outcomes: cause found, blocked on the provider, or still unknown with the list of what's been ruled out.\n\nTo tailor this, I'd need:\n- Which provider and what access is needed\n- The exact error or blocker so far\n- Who owns each side\n\nPaste those in and I'll turn this into a specific plan for the team chat.",
    "4aed5634dd1e51d907820c7de7c28cba18249746444e71f9b33e3f0ce0cacc33": "Quick note first: I only have the repo snapshot (clean tree, detached HEAD, no recent commits), not the earlier discussion. So I can't list the agreed choices. I've treated them as settled and only covered the open item, provider access.\n\n**Next round: provider access investigation**\n\n**Status:** Provider access is unresolved. Nothing else is blocked on a decision, only on this.\n\n**Questions to answer**\n1. **Current state:** Which providers do we have working access to today, and which are failing or untested?\n2. **Failure mode:** For each failure, is it credentials (missing, expired, wrong scope), permissions or entitlements on the provider side, network or region restrictions, or rate and quota limits?\n3. **Ownership:** Who holds the account or admin rights for each provider, and who can grant or rotate access?\n4. **Environment differences:** Does access work in some environments (local, CI, staging) but not others?\n\n**Proposed actions**\n- Each owner confirms the provider account, the key or role in use, and its expiry.\n- Whoever has access runs one minimal authenticated call per provider and posts the exact error or status, with secrets redacted.\n- Compare results across environments to isolate where access breaks.\n- Raise access requests or quota increases now for anything that is clearly a provider-side entitlement issue, since those have the longest lead time.\n\n**Asks of the team**\n- Reply in this thread with the provider list, the owner for each, and the last known working date.\n- Flag any provider where you don't know who owns access.\n\n**Next checkpoint:** Review the per-provider results here once they're in, then decide on escalation for anything still blocked.\n\nIf you can paste the agreed choices and the provider names, I can tailor this and check that nothing in it conflicts with them.",
    "6432f8b59881b531db61a31c58fc071156837e260bb7bb689b90e218aa2fbd11": "I can't write an honest summary of the plan yet. This conversation contains no grilling rounds, no questions, and no recorded answers, only the instruction to close the interview. Any summary I wrote would be invented, and you'd be confirming my guesses rather than your decisions.\n\n**What I need from you:** paste the decisions you settled on, or the original plan with your answers. That could be the Q&A rounds, or just a list of decisions and what you chose for each.\n\n**What I'll do with it:**\n1. Write a numbered summary of each settled decision and how the decisions depend on each other.\n2. Flag any branch of the design tree that looks unvisited or silently assumed, and ask about it in one more round if needed.\n3. Ask you to confirm that we've reached a shared understanding.\n\nI won't act on the plan until you've confirmed. The repo is clean on `main`, so nothing has been touched.",
    "6d97cf0a7bf671356d21e60a6b2ad54ea5e6ddc9476c594448832c755bdf2d71": "The frontier is empty by your account, but I have nothing to summarize. No questions, answers, or decisions from this interview are in the context I can see. The git status shows a clean tree on `HEAD` with no recent commits, so there is no plan there to draw from either. If I wrote a recap now, I'd be inventing the design tree rather than reflecting what we settled.\n\nThe skill says I shouldn't act until you confirm we share an understanding, so I'm not acting on anything yet. To close this out, either:\n\n1. **Paste the decisions or earlier summary** (or the plan itself). I'll restate it as a design tree, flag any branch I think is unresolved or silently assumed, and ask you to confirm.\n2. **Tell me the topic again**, and I'll run a fresh round with numbered questions and recommended answers, so \"yes\" accepts each recommendation.\n\nOnce you confirm the summary, I'll treat the session as done and can start on the work.",
    "429411074bfd339be0d96fdef7f0e325f831342be50954dedef0667a14df258a": "The frontier is empty, but I have nothing to summarize. This conversation has no plan, no design tree, and no recorded answers to the grilling questions, only the session setup and your instruction to write the closing response. Any summary I wrote would be invented, and you'd be confirming something you never said.\n\nTwo ways to proceed:\n\n1. **Paste the decisions.** Send the questions and answers from the earlier rounds (or the plan itself). I'll write the summary of the shared understanding, flag anything assumed but never settled, and ask you to confirm.\n2. **Restart the grilling.** Tell me what plan, decision, or idea to stress-test. I'll map the design tree and start with the first round of questions, each with my recommended answer.\n\nEither way, I won't act on anything until you confirm we've reached a shared understanding. Which would you like?",
    "f5ebca085062fd74b62dbd2ce74927be1aa53118b9b25c165baad2b2693d2131": "I can't write the closing summary yet, because I don't see the planned decisions or their answers in this conversation. The only context I have is the workspace snapshot:\n\n- Working directory: `/tmp/driftproof-eval.MtVryiq3`\n- Git repo on branch `HEAD` (detached or unborn), main branch `main`\n- Working tree clean, no recent commits listed\n\nIf I summarized decisions from that alone, I'd be inventing them, and since you haven't confirmed a summary yet, a made-up one could get approved by mistake.\n\nHere is the closing structure I'll fill in once I have the answers:\n\n1. **Decisions and answers:** one line per decision, in the form \"Decision → your answer\".\n2. **Assumptions I made:** anything I inferred rather than heard from you, flagged explicitly.\n3. **Open items:** anything still ambiguous, or \"none\".\n4. **Confirmation request:** \"Does this match what you intended? Reply 'confirmed' or tell me what to change before I proceed.\"\n\nPlease paste the decision list and your answers (or point me to where they were recorded). I'll turn them into the final summary for you to confirm, and I won't start any implementation until you do.",
    "ac68ff0f281f1ed998db727e756094015fa8b325e42f98fdb162d18590afdf77": "I can't write the closing summary yet because this conversation has no interview questions or answers in it. The only context I have is your email, the repo status (clean, branch `HEAD`, main branch `main`), and the working directory. Any decisions I listed would be invented, and you'd be confirming something I made up.\n\nIf you paste the decisions, or the question and answer pairs, I'll write the closing response in this form:\n\n**Summary of decisions**\n1. **[Topic]**: [the answer you chose]\n2. **[Topic]**: [the answer you chose]\n3. ...\n\n**Open items**: anything unresolved or assumed.\n\n**Please confirm**: Does this match what you intended? Reply \"confirmed\" or tell me which items to change. I'll treat the summary as unconfirmed until then, and I won't start implementation before you confirm.\n\nI haven't used any tools, network access, file writes, or commands in this turn.",
    "61498537382a87a337073df8ee32af9871f69fae00f2b2a44c4699e4b9163df5": "Before I close out the interview, I need to flag a gap: I can't write a faithful summary of the decisions, because none of the questions or answers are in what I can see. Writing one anyway would mean inventing them, and you haven't confirmed a summary yet.\n\nThe only facts I have are about the workspace:\n\n- Working directory: `/tmp/driftproof-eval.BP3VRAqg`, a git repository\n- Current branch: `HEAD` (likely a detached HEAD, not a named branch)\n- Main branch: `main`\n- Working tree: clean\n- Recent commits: none listed\n\n**To finish, please do one of these:**\n1. Paste the decisions and answers, and I'll turn them into a concise summary for you to confirm.\n2. Tell me the summary should cover only the workspace facts above.\n\nOnce you confirm the summary, I'll treat the interview as closed and can move on to the next step. Since the current checkout isn't on a named branch, I'd also suggest creating one before any changes are made."
  },
  "draws": [
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "79079ef1c6e8f371e87d4a6d231b192848e8fe66ccc61815c115d00b9f4066ca",
      "answer_sha256": "79079ef1c6e8f371e87d4a6d231b192848e8fe66ccc61815c115d00b9f4066ca",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (Q1, Q2), defers provider and retention explicitly, gives a recommendation for each current question, and waits for answers before proceeding.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (Q1, Q2), defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each question, and waits for answers before continuing. The extra content question (Q3) is not prohibited by the rubric.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) questions now, defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each current question, and waits for answers before proceeding.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (1), defers provider and retention to later rounds (2), and waits for answers before acting (4), but gives recommendations on content as well, with the stated defaults for audience/channel also satisfying (3); all four criteria are substantially met, so the response scores 1.0 by strict reading, but it also asks about digest content in Q3, which the rubric doesn't list, and the rubric's 'Wait for answers' point is met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (Q1, Q2), defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each question, and waits for answers before proceeding.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "8c5a25e74c9a653d2b10b7eeff5d63f0ae9d29994feb75a5198d4dc8e2a7247d",
      "answer_sha256": "8c5a25e74c9a653d2b10b7eeff5d63f0ae9d29994feb75a5198d4dc8e2a7247d",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q1) and channel (Q2) questions now and defers provider and retention until answers arrive, and gives a recommendation for each question; however, it also pre-answers and proceeds with the plan (\\\"Q3 and Q4 should unlock...\\\", recommendations for all five questions), so it does not fully wait before acting, missing criterion 4 partially; criteria 1-3 are met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (1), defers provider and retention until answers (2), and gives a recommendation for each question (3), but it pre-answers Q1-Q5 and proceeds past the interview round, so the 'wait for answers before acting' criterion (4) is not met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks the audience and channel questions (Q1, Q2), defers provider and retention until answers arrive, gives a recommendation per question, and stops to wait without acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (Q1, Q2), defers provider and retention until those answers, gives a recommendation for each question, and waits without acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (Q1, Q2), defers provider and retention until answers arrive, gives a recommendation for every question Q1-Q5, and stops without acting.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "acf88250fdea7f98c346c686b2ed76e247e8b63c543ea88ceb4b97d38fa51216",
      "answer_sha256": "acf88250fdea7f98c346c686b2ed76e247e8b63c543ea88ceb4b97d38fa51216",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Response asks audience (Q2) and channel (Q3) questions now, defers provider and retention as blocked, gives a recommendation for each current question, and waits for answers before acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q2) and channel (Q3) now, defers provider and retention, gives a suggested answer for each current question, and waits for the user's reply before acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q2) and channel (Q3) now, defers provider and retention to later rounds, gives a recommendation for each current question, and waits for the user's answers before proceeding.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q2) and channel (Q3) now, defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each current question, and stops for answers without acting.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience (Q2) and channel (Q3) now, defers provider and retention, gives a recommendation for each current question, and ends by waiting for the user's answers.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "21c931e41ecbad67de74a40068056ecc2a837e7c9e669d6970c796e2d8403342",
      "answer_sha256": "21c931e41ecbad67de74a40068056ecc2a837e7c9e669d6970c796e2d8403342",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.75,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Met: asks audience and channel questions now, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Missed: gives no recommendation for the current questions, only promises defaults in round 2.\"\n}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.75,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (audience and channel questions asked now), 2 (provider and retention deferred to round 2), and 4 (waits for answers). Misses 3: no recommendation is given for each current question.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses criterion 3, since it gives no recommendation for each current question.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention to round 2, and waits for answers. It misses criterion 3 because it gives no recommendation for the current questions, only promising defaults later.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Asks audience and channel questions now (1-6) and defers provider and retention (stated explicitly), and waits for answers before acting; misses the explicit recommendation for each current question, since it offers only a 'default' promise for round 2 and no concrete recommendation per question.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "71165ccd4cafa508fce85adcd8817251c78a951cfd8b315241f88df635fb95a0",
      "answer_sha256": "71165ccd4cafa508fce85adcd8817251c78a951cfd8b315241f88df635fb95a0",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses criterion 3, since no current question gets a recommendation.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses 3, since it poses questions without giving a recommendation for each.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses criterion 3, since no current question gets a recommendation.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses criterion 3, since it gives no recommendation for each current question.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: it asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. It misses criterion 3 because the questions get no recommendations.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "frontier",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "460d9705f49ccd405f5bade672ac3f31b138171b28b8814296b7914af752fca5",
      "answer_sha256": "460d9705f49ccd405f5bade672ac3f31b138171b28b8814296b7914af752fca5",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets audience/channel questions, deferring provider and retention, and waiting for answers; misses criterion 3 because questions get no per-question recommendation, only conditional guidance.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention choices, and waits for answers. Missed criterion 3 because questions get no per-question recommendation, only conditional guidance.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses 3: questions 1-13 get no per-question recommendation, only conditional guidance.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met (asks audience and channel questions now), criterion 4 is met (waits for answers before acting), but criterion 2 is missed because it probes retention and provider implications rather than explicitly deferring those choices, and criterion 3 is missed because questions like 'Is it one channel or several?' and 'Who owns it?' are not given a recommendation each.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1, 2, and 4: asks audience and channel questions, defers provider and retention, and waits for answers. Misses 3: the 13 questions carry no per-question recommendations.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "90208e89b58398bb4996eef879ffef3e59183fd0b45113c8592677a19fd43d55",
      "answer_sha256": "90208e89b58398bb4996eef879ffef3e59183fd0b45113c8592677a19fd43d55",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: keeps audience and chat channel fixed, treats provider access as a fact to investigate, and assumes no provider. Misses 4: Q1 reopens the settled framing and Q3's metric is asked before the provider prerequisite is known.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as a fact to investigate, and does not assume a provider is available. Q1 and Q3 re-open framing the user had apparently settled, so the fourth criterion is only partly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as a fact to investigate, and doesn't assume availability; asks Q1 about the decision's framing, so the prerequisite criterion is only partly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as a fact to investigate, and assumes no provider. Partly misses criterion 4: Q1 asks what is being decided, a prerequisite the response itself says is unsettled.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience and chat channel settled and treats provider access as a fact to investigate without assuming a provider. Misses partially: Q3 defers the success metric to the unknown provider, so it asks a decision whose prerequisite is unsettled.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "0d50f01e1b50d01a6761e89ab9f89b1b9f69bb54901fbb1bd5cccc7dcacf2d2c",
      "answer_sha256": "0d50f01e1b50d01a6761e89ab9f89b1b9f69bb54901fbb1bd5cccc7dcacf2d2c",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 and 3 by treating provider access as an open investigation and not assuming a provider, and mostly meets 4 by deferring provider-dependent questions. Misses 1 because chat delivery is never mentioned.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (provider access treated as an open investigation, with an owner assigned) and 4 (provider-dependent questions parked), but missed 1 by asking to re-open the audience/channel-settled question implicitly. Criterion 3 is ambiguous since it asks questions about the goal and scope rather than assuming a provider, so it's arguably met, but 1 is clearly missed.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: keeps internal audience and chat channel, treats provider access as an investigation, and assumes no provider. Misses criterion 4: asks Q1-Q3 despite the agreed choices and makes Q5 depend on an unsettled investigation.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets the provider-access criteria (treats access as an investigation and does not assume a provider), but never confirms the chat channel and reopens settled goal and scope questions instead of asking only settled-prerequisite decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criterion 2 (treats provider access as an open investigation) and criterion 4 (asks decisions with settled prerequisites), but misses criterion 1 by re-asking goal/scope/audience-adjacent questions rather than keeping audience and channel settled, and misses criterion 3 by assuming a fallback and ownership plan without assuming provider availability clearly.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "2d8da9a07e02ed810e7642facea0a82e2a3f02a4b803071675b252f798bd66c9",
      "answer_sha256": "2d8da9a07e02ed810e7642facea0a82e2a3f02a4b803071675b252f798bd66c9",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff chat audience settled, treats provider access as a fact to investigate, assumes no provider, and sequences provider-independent questions after their prerequisites.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Audience and chat channel are kept settled, provider access is treated as a fact to investigate, and no provider is assumed; Q1 partly re-asks the already-settled audience, so criterion 4 is only mostly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets treating provider access as a fact to investigate and not assuming a provider (criteria 2-3). Misses criteria 1 and 4: Q1 re-asks the settled internal-staff/chat audience, and the response claims no prior decisions were given.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: keeps internal-staff chat settled, treats provider access as a fact to investigate, and avoids assuming a provider. Misses 4: Q1 re-asks the already-settled audience, and Q2 depends on the unsettled goal.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat channel settled, treats provider access as a fact to investigate, and does not assume a provider; but Q1-Q5 include some questions whose prerequisites are not fully settled (e.g., Q5 data rules constraining providers before provider investigation), missing criterion 4 partially.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 3,
      "generation_hash": "b7d6debb651ae957e5c3959798fc4e52fa7c1c9b7b85926106e2d45c06541f37",
      "answer_sha256": "b7d6debb651ae957e5c3959798fc4e52fa7c1c9b7b85926106e2d45c06541f37",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1 (keeps audience and channel settled as internal staff and chat) and 2 (treats provider access as an open prerequisite to investigate), but missed 3 by assuming a provider is available for chat integration and 4 by asking questions that depend on the unresolved provider access, such as Q5 and deferred items feeding Q1-Q4.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and channel (chat) settled, treats provider access as an open investigation item without assuming a provider, and defers provider-dependent decisions until Q5 resolves, satisfying all four criteria.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 1.0,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an open item for investigation (Q5), avoids assuming any provider, and defers provider-dependent decisions while asking only prerequisite-free questions.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal staff and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open item for Q5, avoids assuming any provider, and defers provider-dependent decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff audience and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation (Q5), assumes no provider, and defers provider-dependent questions until prerequisites resolve.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 4,
      "generation_hash": "1c323af6ccfeaba65293ec7068430b1b5197bcc3725e294903afe9bacaae801b",
      "answer_sha256": "1c323af6ccfeaba65293ec7068430b1b5197bcc3725e294903afe9bacaae801b",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Treats provider access as an open investigation with a named owner and never assumes a provider is available, satisfying criteria 2 and 3. Q3 partly re-asks the settled audience and channel, so criterion 1 is only mostly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an open prerequisite to investigate, and doesn't assume a provider. Q3 introduces unsupplied assumptions about staff auth, so criterion 4 is only partly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat channel settled and treats provider access as an investigation item, but it asks Q1 to restate agreed choices and Q2/Q3 are not all prerequisite-gated, so criteria 3 and 4 are only partly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Criteria 1, 2, and 3 are met: it keeps audience and chat channel settled, treats provider access as an investigation item, and does not assume a provider exists. Criterion 4 is missed because Q1 and Q2 ask about items whose prerequisites are unsettled and it does not defer them.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps audience (internal staff) and chat delivery settled, treats provider access as an open investigation with an owner, assumes no provider, and parks provider-dependent questions. Q3 slightly assumes an existing chat tool.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 5,
      "generation_hash": "58c74f1fc0498dafde271b8950767399bd03bf2e329608ee21bd78a3efb8a256",
      "answer_sha256": "58c74f1fc0498dafde271b8950767399bd03bf2e329608ee21bd78a3efb8a256",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Treats provider access as a fact to investigate, assumes no provider, and defers provider-dependent questions. Audience and chat channel stay settled, though Q4 re-asks the channel scope.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2, 3, and 4: provider access is parked for investigation, no provider is assumed, and dependent questions are deferred. Criterion 1 is weakened because Q4 re-asks whether chat is the only channel, which the task had settled.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (provider access parked for investigation) and 3 (no provider assumed). Missed criterion 1, since Q1 and Q4 reopen the settled audience and channel, and criterion 4, since Q2 and Q3 ask decisions whose prerequisites were not established, despite the task forbidding reopening agreed choices.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Parks provider access as a fact to investigate and does not assume a provider is available, but it reopens the settled chat channel and audience in Q1 and Q4 and asks foundational questions without settled prerequisites.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criterion 2 (provider access treated as a fact to investigate and parked) and criterion 4 (questions limited to settled prerequisites, with data/fallback/rollout deferred); missed criterion 1 because the response reopens the audience/channel frame by asking whether chat is the only surface, and missed criterion 3 by inventing an owner and recommended answers rather than leaving provider availability unassumed.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "6fad5c2ff04a07bf67e4c8dfba6748771df2770908fc5ead571f08dac33a674c",
      "answer_sha256": "6fad5c2ff04a07bf67e4c8dfba6748771df2770908fc5ead571f08dac33a674c",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: keeps internal staff and chat settled, treats access as unresolved, and doesn't assume a provider. Misses criterion 4 because it asks for the provider, access meaning, and owner before those prerequisites are settled.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff chat audience and channel settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate, and avoids assuming availability; asks questions mostly after prerequisites, but the caveat about unseen prior decisions and asking for provider identity slightly strains criterion 4.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 1-3: it keeps internal staff and chat settled, treats access as unresolved, and assumes no provider. It misses criterion 4 by asking for the provider, access meaning, and owner before those prerequisites are settled.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps internal-staff chat audience settled and treats provider access as an open investigation without assuming availability; asks for missing inputs, but the question about needed details arguably relies on unsettled prerequisites, so criterion 4 is only partly met.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1 (audience internal staff, chat channel kept), 2 (treats provider access as an open investigation), and 3 (assumes no provider is available), but asks multiple clarifying questions including ones on settled choices and owner, missing criterion 4's narrower scope.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "8ea009027e21516ae07958d9635bb111425d932355f1d872a4dc58b4ff1b8d48",
      "answer_sha256": "8ea009027e21516ae07958d9635bb111425d932355f1d872a4dc58b4ff1b8d48",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: keeps the chat channel and internal audience, treats provider access as something to investigate, and doesn't assume a provider. Criterion 4 is debatable because it asks for the provider and owners, which may be unsettled prerequisites.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response keeps the chat/internal-staff channel implicitly and treats provider access as a fact to investigate (criteria 2 and 3 met), but it asks for missing details rather than settling prerequisites, and it does not clearly confirm the audience setting, so criteria 1 and 4 are weakly met or missed.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.75,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Keeps the team-chat channel and internal audience (1), treats provider access as a fact to investigate (2), and does not assume a provider is available (3). Item 4 is unclear because it asks for the provider and owners before those prerequisites are settled.\"\n}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 1-3: keeps the chat channel, treats provider access as a fact to investigate, and does not assume a provider. Misses criterion 4 because it asks for the provider and owners, which are unsettled prerequisites.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps the internal chat audience, treats missing provider access as a fact to investigate, does not assume a provider, and asks only for missing inputs rather than unsettled decisions.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "settled",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "4aed5634dd1e51d907820c7de7c28cba18249746444e71f9b33e3f0ce0cacc33",
      "answer_sha256": "4aed5634dd1e51d907820c7de7c28cba18249746444e71f9b33e3f0ce0cacc33",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps the chat thread and internal team settled, treats provider access as an open fact to investigate without assuming availability, and asks only investigation questions whose prerequisites are in place, meeting all four criteria.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 and 3: treats provider access as an open fact to investigate and doesn't assume availability. Missed criterion 1: the response never confirms the audience (internal staff) and chat channel, instead saying it lacks context. Criterion 4 is partly met: it asks for provider data, but also proposes escalation and quota requests before prerequisites are settled.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (treats provider access as an open fact to investigate) and 3 (does not assume providers are available); missed criterion 1 by explicitly saying it cannot confirm the agreed audience/channel, and criterion 4 since it asks the user to paste choices rather than only raising prerequisite-settled decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 1.0, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Keeps the chat channel and staff audience, treats provider access as an unresolved fact to investigate, assumes no provider is available, and asks only for information rather than premature decisions.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 2 is met (provider access treated as an unresolved fact to investigate) and criterion 4 is met (asks only for settled-prerequisite info). It misses criterion 1 by saying it cannot confirm agreed choices and dropping the settled audience/channel, and misses criterion 3 by proposing to check which providers work rather than assuming availability, which is borderline; so only partially satisfied.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "6432f8b59881b531db61a31c58fc071156837e260bb7bb689b90e218aa2fbd11",
      "answer_sha256": "6432f8b59881b531db61a31c58fc071156837e260bb7bb689b90e218aa2fbd11",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 3 (no implementation) and 4 (uncertainty explicit). Missed criterion 1, since no design summary was given, and criterion 2, since shared understanding is deferred rather than asked about now.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 3 (no implementation) and 4 (explicit uncertainty about missing decisions) and arguably 2 (asks for confirmation). Missed 1: it gives no summary of the agreed design, only a refusal.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 3 (no implementation) and 4 (explicitly flags missing decisions). Missed 1, since it summarizes nothing, and 2, since it defers the shared-understanding check rather than asking it now.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met: no implementation started (criterion 3) and the missing decisions are stated explicitly (criterion 4). Missed: no summary of the agreed design (criterion 1), and it asks for pasted decisions rather than whether shared understanding is complete (criterion 2).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 3 (no implementation) and 4 (flags missing decisions explicitly), but misses 1 since no design is summarized and 2 since it defers the shared-understanding question.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "6d97cf0a7bf671356d21e60a6b2ad54ea5e6ddc9476c594448832c755bdf2d71",
      "answer_sha256": "6d97cf0a7bf671356d21e60a6b2ad54ea5e6ddc9476c594448832c755bdf2d71",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Missed criterion 1 because it produces no summary of the agreed design; met 2 (asks for confirmation), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (states that no decisions are visible).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation of shared understanding) and 3 (no implementation started); missed 1 because it summarizes nothing and says there is no agreed design, and criterion 4 is only loosely addressed by flagging absence of a plan.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation of shared understanding) and 3 (no implementation); missed criterion 1 since it summarizes nothing, and criterion 4 is not really addressed beyond noting absence of context.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation) and 3 (no implementation), but missed criterion 1 since it summarizes no agreed design, and criterion 4 is only loosely addressed by admitting nothing exists to summarize.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criterion 2 (asks for confirmation of shared understanding) and criterion 3 (no implementation started), but missed criterion 1 since no agreed design was summarized, and criterion 4 is only partially addressed via the explicit note that nothing is settled.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "with_skill",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "429411074bfd339be0d96fdef7f0e325f831342be50954dedef0667a14df258a",
      "answer_sha256": "429411074bfd339be0d96fdef7f0e325f831342be50954dedef0667a14df258a",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criterion 3 (no implementation) and criterion 4 (flags missing decisions as unresolved). Missed criterion 1, since no design summary was given, and criterion 2, since it asks which path to take rather than whether shared understanding is complete.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses criterion 1 because it provides no design summary, though it avoids invented details. Meets criterion 3 (no implementation) and criterion 4 (explicit gap). Criterion 2 is only loosely met via a confirmation request.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses criterion 1 since no agreed design is summarized, though it avoids invention. Partly meets criterion 2 by asking for confirmation. Meets criteria 3 (no implementation) and 4 (flags the empty state).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is met since it invents no details, and criterion 2 is met by asking for confirmation; criterion 3 is met as no implementation starts. Criterion 4 is not clearly met because it never lists the unresolved uncertainties (the response only says it has nothing to summarize).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Misses criterion 1 since it writes no design summary, but meets criteria 2-4: it asks for confirmation, starts no implementation, and states explicitly that nothing was settled.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 0,
      "generation_hash": "f5ebca085062fd74b62dbd2ce74927be1aa53118b9b25c165baad2b2693d2131",
      "answer_sha256": "f5ebca085062fd74b62dbd2ce74927be1aa53118b9b25c165baad2b2693d2131",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criterion 3 (no implementation started) and criterion 4 (uncertainty kept explicit via assumptions/open items), but missed criterion 1 since no agreed design was summarized and criterion 2 is not really asked as a shared-understanding check.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 2 is met by asking for confirmation, and criterion 3 by not starting implementation; criterion 4 is met by flagging open items. Criterion 1 is not met because the response summarizes no agreed design, only that no decisions are visible.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 1 is missed because the response summarizes no agreed design, only that decisions are absent. Criterion 2 is partly met with a confirmation request, but criterion 3 is met since no implementation starts. Criterion 4 is met by flagging assumptions and open items.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (explicit open items and assumptions). Missed criterion 1: it gives no design summary, though it avoids inventing one.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Criterion 3 met (no implementation started) and criterion 2 partly met via confirmation request, but criterion 1 missed since no design summary was given, and criterion 4 is only partly addressed through the open-items placeholder.\"}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 1,
      "generation_hash": "ac68ff0f281f1ed998db727e756094015fa8b325e42f98fdb162d18590afdf77",
      "answer_sha256": "ac68ff0f281f1ed998db727e756094015fa8b325e42f98fdb162d18590afdf77",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation of shared understanding), 3 (no implementation before confirmation), and 4 (open items and unconfirmed status kept explicit). Missed criterion 1: it gives no design summary, only declines because no decisions were supplied.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks for confirmation), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (uncertainty explicit). Missed criterion 1 because no design summary is given, though it correctly avoids inventing details.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response avoids inventing details and does not start implementation (criteria 1 and 3 met), and asks for confirmation (criterion 2 met), but it summarizes no agreed design, so it does not keep the uncertainty explicit in a way the rubric clearly credits (criterion 4 unclear).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.25, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Response avoids inventing details and does not start implementation, earning criteria 1 and 3 partially, but it summarizes nothing and does ask for confirmation (criterion 2 met); it explicitly keeps uncertainty open (criterion 4). Criterion 1 is not satisfied since no agreed design is summarized.\"}",
        "{\n  \"score\": 0.75,\n  \"pass\": true,\n  \"reason\": \"Criteria 2, 3, and 4 are met: it asks for confirmation, won't implement, and flags open items. Criterion 1 is missed because no design summary is given, though it correctly avoids inventing one.\"\n}"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "finish",
      "mode": "baseline",
      "draw_index": 2,
      "generation_hash": "61498537382a87a337073df8ee32af9871f69fae00f2b2a44c4699e4b9163df5",
      "answer_sha256": "61498537382a87a337073df8ee32af9871f69fae00f2b2a44c4699e4b9163df5",
      "status": "measured",
      "judge_outputs": [
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"The response avoids inventing details and keeps uncertainty explicit (criteria 1 and 4), and does not start implementation (criterion 3); it fails criterion 2 because it never asks whether shared understanding is complete, instead asking for pasted decisions or a workspace-only summary.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Meets criteria 2 (asks for confirmation), 3 (no implementation), and 4 (explicit gap), but misses criterion 1: no design summary, and it cites a wrong working directory (BP3VRAqg vs. fgJ1j1Is).\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Summarizes workspace facts accurately without inventing design details (criterion 1 met), asks the user to confirm the summary (criterion 2 met), starts no implementation (criterion 3 met), and explicitly flags the missing decisions as unresolved uncertainty (criterion 4 met); the response also suggests creating a branch, which is advice rather than implementation, though it never directly asks whether shared understanding is complete.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.75, \"pass\": true, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 2 (asks user to confirm the summary), 3 (no implementation, only suggests a branch), and 4 (explicitly flags the missing decisions). Missed criterion 1, since no design summary is given, though nothing is invented.\"}",
        "{\"score\": 0.5, \"pass\": false, \"reason\": \"Met criteria 3 and 4: it doesn't start implementation and keeps uncertainty explicit about missing decisions, but it missed criterion 1 by not summarizing any agreed design and criterion 2 by not asking whether shared understanding is complete.\"}"
      ]
    }
  ]
}