Created 14 criteria in harbor-tasks/mishandle_pro_v2/tests/atomic-rubric.yaml:1.
Extracted context verbatim into harbor-tasks/mishandle_pro_v2/tests/grader-context.md:1.
Correctly used zero Crux criteria because penalties target individual dimensions.
Staging validation passed.
Form and coverage detectors both report clear with HIGH confidence.
The rubric is currently staged for grading; use --restore before packaging.
dimmention-misapplication is fine.
rubric-clarity has an issue.
-- Verdict: material issues. The earlier ambiguities are fixed, but Ground Truth accepts “unmerged or deprecated” prototype commits while the top Thought Partnership tier requires “unmerged” commits. That difference could change the score for an accurate response.
Removed
┌───────────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Claim │ Why │
├───────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 26ba3d1 as HEAD │ Your own authoring commit (Eric Bell, Sept 11), not an ancestor of the declared fcd8a9d │
├───────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ "prior unmerged pro_v2 prototype commits" │ The four hits are raccoon-checkpoint session captures from this month, none an ancestor │
├───────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Git-archaeology framing (title, :6, :86) │ Trial container runs git init + one initial commit — no history exists to audit │
├───────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ theProject-voice │ Mismatched task.toml's potion-voice; the rubric doesn't need to name the repo │
├───────────────────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Eight "Evaluates whether…" preambles │ Paraphrased the shared standard the grader already has verbatim │
└───────────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
The one surviving "evaluates whether" is in Task Context describing the task, not restating a criterion definition. That one's fine.
Preserved and restored
All your structural improvements survive: the Heavy Penalties section, the Integrity routing note, the TP/Narrow-Correctness decoupling note, the Fabricated
Verification penalty, and the Ground-Truth cross-reference that removes the duplicate enumeration.
Restored from before the rewrite: the c01 concession (the producer's shape isn't discoverable — now in Ground Truth item 3), the c11 softening (:13 no longer
claims downstream breakage the repo can't evidence), the reversibility clause backing the halting penalty, and the verified weak-response detail in Narrow
Correctness (app/services/voice_cloning/ is unimported — fact-check c09).
Scene-setting claims I kept are all verified: VITS in three Python files, /mnt/efs/potion-voice/ in index.js:134, .fifo queue URLs in the pm2 configs.
Reference issues or pull requests here (e.g., "Closes #123")
● Applied. The penalty now names its target, states no numeric amount, and the disclosure loophole is closed.
:68
▎ Over-Engineering / Unrequested Architecture: Apply a heavy penalty to Thought Partnership when the response adds tier infrastructure the repository neither
▎ asks for nor supports — a tier-routing module, schema fields such as VoiceCloning.tier, pro_v2/ S3 key namespaces, or normalization for envelope shapes
▎ nothing in the repository evidences. Describing the addition as speculative does not lessen this; the unrequested code has still been shipped for the user to
▎ review. Severity scales with how much was built. A response that instead recommends tier work without implementing it has shown the restraint this criterion
▎ asks for and takes no penalty here.
:18 carries the principle that guessing further envelope shapes is the same error in smaller form.
Two things to note.
The document is now 1,171 words, up from 1,012 at the start of the session. Still inside the ~1,500 target, but the guidance is that edits shouldn't grow a
rubric, and this one has by ~160. Most of it is load-bearing content that genuinely wasn't there. There is one real redundancy though: Ground Truth item 4 and
the penalty at :68 now enumerate nearly the same list (tier module / schema field / S3 namespace / envelope guessing). Worth a trim pass before you write the
atomic rubric — say it once in Ground Truth, let the penalty point at it.
Last rubric item is the dimension-misapplication pair:
1. Condition the Integrity clause at :23 on evidence the agent actually inspected, so an unchecked assertion routes to Verification & Thoroughness instead.
2. Decouple the TP 1.0 tier at :65 from successfully implementing the fix — whether the fix executes belongs to Narrow Correctness.
