after moving all to cipher

worker-toolkit-stocks-in-the-future/.claude/skills/detector-rubric-clarity/core.md

@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ Concretely, the patterns that gate scoring without supporting ground truth:
 - **Unclear pronoun referents in scoring-determining sentences.** "If the agent says this is fine, that's a B-tier response" — what is "this"? In a sentence that gates scoring, pronouns with multiple plausible antecedents make the call non-mechanical.
 - **Tier descriptions that overlap.** A-tier and B-tier descriptions that share most of their language without naming the specific difference that distinguishes them. The grader can't tell which tier a borderline answer belongs in.
 - **Conditional scope ambiguity.** "If A, then B unless C" sentences where the scope of "unless C" is unclear (does it modify B or the whole if-then?). Common in dense rubric prose.
-- **Deduction arithmetic the grading model can't apply.** Each scored axis — a behavioral dimension under the legacy standard, a criterion under the consolidated standard — is scored 0.0–1.0, and the overall score is the mean of the non-N/A axes minus any heavy penalties the guidance directs at "the overall score" (each applied after the mean is computed, floored at 0.0 — the arithmetic the resolved standard's grader system prompt defines) — there is no 0–100 scale anywhere; magnitudes are fractions. Check every numeric score value against that model. A cap, deduction, or tier boundary written outside [0, 1] when used as a score value ("Confidence ≤ 20", "subtract roughly 45 points") is inert or ambiguous as written: one grader rescales by ÷100, another ignores the clause, a third guesses. An instruction to subtract from "the overall score" IS applyable — the grader subtracts it from the computed mean, and a penalty naming both a dimension and the overall applies in both places by design — so never flag overall-directed penalties as such; flag their *magnitudes* when they're off-scale, and check the stacking rules below. Mixed scales in one document (some clauses on 0–1, others on 0–100) force the grader to guess clause-by-clause.
+- **Deduction arithmetic the grading model can't apply.** Each scored axis — a behavioral dimension under the legacy standard, a criterion under the consolidated standard — is scored 0.0–1.0, and the overall score is the mean of the non-N/A axes minus any heavy penalties the guidance directs at "the overall score" (each applied after the mean is computed, floored at 0.0 — the arithmetic the resolved standard's grader system prompt defines) — there is no 0–100 scale anywhere; magnitudes are fractions. Under the consolidated standard, current doctrine phrases penalties with **no magnitude at all** — "apply a heavy penalty to <criterion>" — and the grader sizes the subtraction; a magnitude-free penalty is the sanctioned phrasing, never flag it as unapplyable (an explicit fraction in an older consolidated doc is applied as stated — also not a finding). Check every numeric score value against that model. A cap, deduction, or tier boundary written outside [0, 1] when used as a score value ("Confidence ≤ 20", "subtract roughly 45 points") is inert or ambiguous as written: one grader rescales by ÷100, another ignores the clause, a third guesses. An instruction to subtract from "the overall score" IS applyable — the grader subtracts it from the computed mean, and a penalty naming both a dimension and the overall applies in both places by design — so never flag overall-directed penalties as such; flag their *magnitudes* when they're off-scale, and check the stacking rules below. Mixed scales in one document (some clauses on 0–1, others on 0–100) force the grader to guess clause-by-clause.
 - **Penalty machinery the grading model can't apply: hard gates, caps, and pins.** Dealbreakers belong in a rubric as heavy point deductions, not as hard gates, score caps, or pinned values ("hard gate: overall ≤ 0.3", "pin Confidence at 0.1"). A rubric built on gate/cap/pin machinery uses a shape the grading model does not support, leaving each grader to improvise a translation — flag it and suggest re-expressing each gate as a heavy deduction on the axes it concerns.
 - **Deduction stacking ambiguity.** When a rubric attaches two effects to one defect (a deduction plus a floor, or two separately-stated deductions), it must say whether they're one penalty or two. Wording that can be read either way splits graders: some apply both halves, some drop one. (A single penalty naming both an axis and the overall score is not this — the grader system prompt defines that pairing: the axis subtraction attributes the failure, the overall subtraction applies after the mean.)
 - **Overlapping deductions without a count-once rule.** Two separately-stated deductions that can both fire on the same single defect. Unless the rubric says which one applies — or that the second fires only when it represents a genuinely distinct miss — graders double-count inconsistently.
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ Magnitude is never the materiality test for arithmetic divergence. When the grad
 When reading the resolved guidance file, walk it in this order:
 
 1. **Scoring structure first.** A legacy doc defines tiers (A+ through D, or pass/fail); a consolidated doc defines a section per criterion, each with its own scoring guidance. Read the scoring bands back-to-back and ask: can I tell, from these descriptions alone, where a borderline answer would land? If two adjacent bands share most of their language without naming a specific distinguishing fact, that's material ambiguity. Apply the test to whatever scoring structure the resolved standard uses — a consolidated doc without a tier ladder, or a legacy doc without per-criterion sections, is following its own standard, not exhibiting an issue.
-2. **Heavy deductions next.** "If the agent does X, subtract roughly N." Is "X" defined with enough specificity that a grader can mechanically check whether the agent did it? If "X" is "dismisses the concern" or "overstates the risk" without examples of what dismissing/overstating look like, that's material ambiguity. Then ask whether the trigger handles the middle case: responses that partially satisfy it (mention-but-mischaracterize, hedge-but-surface) — an all-or-nothing trigger over gradable behavior leaves the partial case to grader improvisation. Then check the *number*: is it on the 0.0–1.0 scale, and expressed as something the scoring model supports — a heavy deduction on named axis scores (dimensions or criteria, per the resolved standard) and/or the overall score (the grader system prompt defines overall-directed subtractions: applied after the axis mean, floored at 0.0), not legacy gate/cap/pin machinery? Finally check the deduction set as a whole for stacking and overlap: can two deductions be read as both firing on one defect?
+2. **Heavy deductions next.** "If the agent does X, subtract roughly N." Is "X" defined with enough specificity that a grader can mechanically check whether the agent did it? If "X" is "dismisses the concern" or "overstates the risk" without examples of what dismissing/overstating look like, that's material ambiguity. Then ask whether the trigger handles the middle case: responses that partially satisfy it (mention-but-mischaracterize, hedge-but-surface) — an all-or-nothing trigger over gradable behavior leaves the partial case to grader improvisation. Then check the *number*, when one is stated (consolidated-standard guidance now normally states none — a magnitude-free "apply a heavy penalty" is the sanctioned phrasing, not ambiguity): is it on the 0.0–1.0 scale, and expressed as something the scoring model supports — a heavy deduction on named axis scores (dimensions or criteria, per the resolved standard) and/or the overall score (the grader system prompt defines overall-directed subtractions: applied after the axis mean, floored at 0.0), not legacy gate/cap/pin machinery? Finally check the deduction set as a whole for stacking and overlap: can two deductions be read as both firing on one defect?
 3. **"What a good response says" / "What a bad response says" pairs.** Are the criteria in these sentences load-bearing for tier placement? If yes, apply the same ambiguity test. Vague criteria here propagate into the tier definitions.
 4. **The document against itself.** With the tiers and deductions fresh, sweep for cross-section contradictions: does a section's closing rule match its lead sentence; does any tier bullet endorse behavior another section deducts for; do two sections give incompatible answers on whether one finding suffices; does every stated deduction value agree everywhere it's quoted? Internal contradiction is material ambiguity by definition — two graders anchor on different halves.
 5. **The grades, when present.** Read `reference-runs/*/grade.md` and check each heavy deduction and tier boundary for consistent application across runs (see Inputs). Divergence that traces to a specific sentence upgrades that sentence from "arguably fine" to confirmed material ambiguity.