ran final detector before re-grading
This commit is contained in:
@@ -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"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user