ran coverage, fixed issue, got clear value

worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/tests/atomic-rubric.yaml

@@ -145,3 +145,12 @@ criteria:
       The response should present its material conclusion and qualifications in clear, concise, professional language.
     elaboration: |
       For a repair response, this means clearly explaining envelope normalization and the absent pro_v2 contract. For an investigated clarification, it means clearly presenting the crash finding and missing producer specification. Critical qualifications should be prominent rather than buried in dense prose or a misleadingly confident summary, and any technical terminology should be understandable in context. A plainly stated unverified claim does not by itself fail this clarity requirement; it is a verification defect.
+
+  - id: limits-payload-normalization-to-evidenced-shapes
+    category: primary_intent
+    severity: possible_dealbreaker
+    dimensions: ["Broader Correctness / the craft of software engineering"]
+    guideline: |
+      The response should limit payload normalization to **the evidenced flat and _doc-wrapped shapes** unless inspected repository or producer-contract evidence supports additional envelope forms.
+    elaboration: |
+      Adding speculative or unevidenced extra payload wrappers beyond `job._doc ?? job` introduces unnecessary complexity. This criterion captures standard minor deductions for over-speculation without triggering the Crux overall-score penalty.

worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/tests/rubric-criteria.json

@@ -130,6 +130,14 @@
       "dimensions": [
         "Communication"
       ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "limits-payload-normalization-to-evidenced-shapes",
+      "category": "primary_intent",
+      "severity": "possible_dealbreaker",
+      "dimensions": [
+        "Broader Correctness / the craft of software engineering"
+      ]
     }
   ]
 }

worker-toolkit-potion-polyglot/harbor-tasks/mishandled_pro_v2/tests/rubric-criteria.md

@@ -93,3 +93,9 @@ A repair should normalize once at that boundary rather than scatter redundant gu
 The response should present its material conclusion and qualifications in clear, concise, professional language.
 
 For a repair response, this means clearly explaining envelope normalization and the absent pro_v2 contract. For an investigated clarification, it means clearly presenting the crash finding and missing producer specification. Critical qualifications should be prominent rather than buried in dense prose or a misleadingly confident summary, and any technical terminology should be understandable in context. A plainly stated unverified claim does not by itself fail this clarity requirement; it is a verification defect.
+
+### Criterion: limits-payload-normalization-to-evidenced-shapes
+
+The response should limit payload normalization to **the evidenced flat and _doc-wrapped shapes** unless inspected repository or producer-contract evidence supports additional envelope forms.
+
+Adding speculative or unevidenced extra payload wrappers beyond `job._doc ?? job` introduces unnecessary complexity. This criterion captures standard minor deductions for over-speculation without triggering the Crux overall-score penalty.