From 040251f69c5c9c68589cdb59b27b03ae65d6647c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eric Bell <eric@polymorph.co>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 06:00:59 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] ran final detector before re-grading

---
 .../detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.inputs.json     |  8 ++++----
 .../detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.md              | 11 +++++++----
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.inputs.json b/worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.inputs.json
index 3da722f..febd9f3 100644
--- a/worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.inputs.json
+++ b/worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.inputs.json
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "version": 1,
-  "capturedAt": "2026-09-26T22:43:30.683Z",
+  "capturedAt": "2026-09-27T09:59:48.629Z",
   "capturedBy": "stamp",
   "inputs": {
     "prompt": "29e2eb28448679a65ae264372ddf7d993e5752d0f295bf5557cc5b1578265a29",
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@
     "workspacePatch": null,
     "gitref": "fcd8a9d",
     "graderGuidanceConsolidated": null,
-    "holisticRubric": "48bd240f8288fa8f0254f8ab6df851d0223f9e79c1cd09b5041cf5d99b17267d",
-    "atomicRubric": null,
+    "holisticRubric": "675edd50a8150fd65273036f2deb251190d7cbe0344c7ee24bebda1a8d5d4b6a",
+    "atomicRubric": "1b8f60cd46e1aa84062b2ef8ed3931cd0b3d6678f4b100e7d62f2e32516521cf",
     "rubricsYaml": null,
-    "graderContext": null
+    "graderContext": "666a029e8834f546a2a9a2ebff5555c0090fbd87da88e0523e773d5c5d0a110b"
   }
 }
diff --git a/worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.md b/worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.md
index d1a81c0..5cce9ca 100644
--- a/worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.md
+++ b/worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/detectors/detector-rubric-clarity.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 detector: detector-rubric-clarity
-verdict: clear
+verdict: minor-issues
 confidence: HIGH
 ---
 
@@ -10,12 +10,15 @@ Assessed: harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/tests/holistic-rubric.md
 
 ## Material ambiguities
 
-None found. Each criterion now gives separate positive and weak-response guidance for the code-repair and investigated-clarification paths. The local verification boundary is explicit, and the heavy-penalty triggers identify the code additions and fabricated verification they target. No reference-run grades exist yet to test for divergent application.
+None found. The two acceptable response paths are distinguished throughout the criteria, the local verification boundary is explicit, and the over-engineering penalty names the concrete additions that trigger it while stating that severity scales with how much was built. All four reference-run grades recognized that same behavior and scaled its severity according to the speculative infrastructure shipped. Those grades predate the rubric's current overall-score target, so they establish consistency of the trigger rather than application of that newer target.
 
 ## Copy-edit issues
 
-None found.
+- Ground Truth item 5 contains malformed Markdown in ``` ``pro_v2`/` ```; use `` `pro_v2/` ``. The same item says “the producer is suppose to send”; use “the producer is supposed to send.”
+- Broader Correctness says “without an documented upstream schema contract”; use “without a documented upstream schema contract.”
+- Common Sense says “avoiding wild goose chase”; use “avoiding a wild-goose chase.”
+- The Over-Engineering heavy penalty says “without verifying what the producer payload is or suppose to be sent,” which is grammatically broken. A clear replacement is “without verifying what payload the producer sends or is supposed to send.”
 
 ## Overall verdict
 
-**Clear.** The earlier uncertainty about scoring Path B without a code change is resolved across the criteria, and the previous grammar error is fixed. The rubric reads professionally and gives a grader concrete distinctions to apply to either path.
+**Minor issues.** No load-bearing wording would cause two reasonable graders to apply a scoring criterion or penalty differently. The rubric remains usable and professional, but the scattered grammar errors and malformed code span are worth polishing.