DolphinBench

Test 116

Jan 1, 2028 / 4 facts

YAML

Request

Route the two open Lantern internal-platform questions to their current owners in separate Slack DMs: which usage components belong in cost semantics, and which metrics-router operating limit and supporting evidence apply. State my own role boundary in both messages.

Required memory

Fact 210

Alex Valdez owns only the shared cross-system contract and failure-mode review for the Lantern authority-boundary rehearsal.

Source evidence (1)

003470Jul 21, 2026 / 14:18 UTC-04:00

The authority-boundary session is done. Hema authorized an internal-only rehearsal comparing a Lantern-centered combined payload with a reference model that leaves published responsibility in the owner map and pipeline limits and cost in Cardinality Guardrails. Product Engineering owns implementation; I own only the shared cross-system contract and failure-mode review; Cyrus owns the Cardinality Guardrails authority interface and cost semantics; Wes owns the metrics-router operating-limit mapping; and Iris owns interpretation and adoption criteria. No rehearsal output may enter the Harbor Health or Mosaic Commerce customer path. Add “Lantern operating-evidence and rehearsal review” to my calendar for Friday, September 18, 2026, from 10:30 to 11:15 AM with me, Iris, Hema, Cyrus, Wes, and Product Engineering, and record those ownership assignments and the internal-only, unchanged-customer-path boundary.

Message 003470 in history

Fact 211

Cyrus owns the Cardinality Guardrails authority interface and cost semantics for the Lantern authority-boundary rehearsal.

Source evidence (1)

003470Jul 21, 2026 / 14:18 UTC-04:00

The authority-boundary session is done. Hema authorized an internal-only rehearsal comparing a Lantern-centered combined payload with a reference model that leaves published responsibility in the owner map and pipeline limits and cost in Cardinality Guardrails. Product Engineering owns implementation; I own only the shared cross-system contract and failure-mode review; Cyrus owns the Cardinality Guardrails authority interface and cost semantics; Wes owns the metrics-router operating-limit mapping; and Iris owns interpretation and adoption criteria. No rehearsal output may enter the Harbor Health or Mosaic Commerce customer path. Add “Lantern operating-evidence and rehearsal review” to my calendar for Friday, September 18, 2026, from 10:30 to 11:15 AM with me, Iris, Hema, Cyrus, Wes, and Product Engineering, and record those ownership assignments and the internal-only, unchanged-customer-path boundary.

Message 003470 in history

Fact 212

Wes owns the metrics-router operating-limit mapping for the Lantern authority-boundary rehearsal.

Source evidence (1)

003470Jul 21, 2026 / 14:18 UTC-04:00

The authority-boundary session is done. Hema authorized an internal-only rehearsal comparing a Lantern-centered combined payload with a reference model that leaves published responsibility in the owner map and pipeline limits and cost in Cardinality Guardrails. Product Engineering owns implementation; I own only the shared cross-system contract and failure-mode review; Cyrus owns the Cardinality Guardrails authority interface and cost semantics; Wes owns the metrics-router operating-limit mapping; and Iris owns interpretation and adoption criteria. No rehearsal output may enter the Harbor Health or Mosaic Commerce customer path. Add “Lantern operating-evidence and rehearsal review” to my calendar for Friday, September 18, 2026, from 10:30 to 11:15 AM with me, Iris, Hema, Cyrus, Wes, and Product Engineering, and record those ownership assignments and the internal-only, unchanged-customer-path boundary.

Message 003470 in history

Fact 219

For Lantern’s internal platform cycle, Wes’s metrics-router responsibilities expand to include operating evidence.

Source evidence (1)

003524Sep 24, 2026 / 11:32 UTC-04:00

The 10:30–11:15 AM Lantern continuation and platform-boundary decision meeting is complete. After reviewing the June 16–September 15 operating evidence and the separate reference-only rehearsal, Hema and Theo authorized Harbor Health and Mosaic Commerce, and no other accounts, to continue from October 1, 2026 through March 31, 2027 with read-only access through the shared authorization wrapper. The renewed term does not activate before October 1. Access remains limited to provenance-backed deploy movement, published service ownership, timestamped incident-load summaries, and explicit unknown states. No additional account, cost data, CSV export, raw incident text, internal room metadata, employee identifier or comparison, inferred or unpublished ownership, internal-only fallback data, write capability, release-readiness judgment, or employee-performance interpretation is authorized. An authorization-wrapper bypass, adapter call after denial, cross-tenant material, stale or missing source rendered as anything other than explicit unknown, deploy event without required provenance, unpublished ownership, incident-load summary without its source timestamp, exposure of an excluded field, or loss of read-only enforcement immediately suspends both accounts pending correction and a successful rerun of the affected safety check. Latency and other errors do not independently suspend access unless they cause one of those violations. Hema also accepted the reference-only model as the starting point for an internal platform cycle beginning October 1, 2026; that cycle does not begin early. Lantern remains the explanation layer, Cardinality Guardrails remains the authority for pipeline limits and cost signals, and the owner map remains the authority for published responsibility. The shared integration uses canonical published service identity and exactly `tenant_id`, `canonical_service_id`, `authority_type`, `authority_record_id`, and `source_timestamp`, with no copied authority payload or writeback. I own the shared contract and failure-mode boundaries. Iris owns interpretation and adoption criteria, Cyrus owns the Cardinality Guardrails authority interface and cost semantics, Wes owns metrics-router control mappings and operating evidence, and Product Engineering owns Lantern implementation. Customer exposure of this reference-only integration still requires separate later authorization. I need a durable decision record for the October operating handoff rather than another update to the completed evidence-review document.

Message 003524 in history

Expected tool calls

  • send_slack_dm

Grading

1. field_equals / send_slack_dm
{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "tool": "send_slack_dm",
  "action_id": "route_guardrails_cost",
  "path": "result.ok",
  "value": true,
  "check_id": "alex_116_00"
}
2. field_equals / send_slack_dm
{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "tool": "send_slack_dm",
  "action_id": "route_metrics_evidence",
  "path": "result.ok",
  "value": true,
  "check_id": "alex_116_01"
}
3. field_equals / send_slack_dm
{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "action_id": "route_guardrails_cost",
  "path": "result.user",
  "value": "cyrus",
  "tool": "send_slack_dm",
  "check_id": "alex_116_02"
}
4. field_llm_judge / send_slack_dm
{
  "type": "field_llm_judge",
  "action_id": "route_guardrails_cost",
  "path": "result.message",
  "criterion": "The DM asks Cyrus which usage components are included in the Cardinality Guardrails cost semantics, while saying Alex is not taking that ownership.",
  "tool": "send_slack_dm",
  "check_id": "alex_116_03"
}
5. field_equals / send_slack_dm
{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "action_id": "route_metrics_evidence",
  "path": "result.user",
  "value": "wes",
  "tool": "send_slack_dm",
  "check_id": "alex_116_04"
}
6. field_llm_judge / send_slack_dm
{
  "type": "field_llm_judge",
  "action_id": "route_metrics_evidence",
  "path": "result.message",
  "criterion": "The DM asks Wes which metrics-router operating-limit mapping applies and what operating evidence supports it, while saying Alex is not taking that ownership.",
  "tool": "send_slack_dm",
  "check_id": "alex_116_05"
}
Complete grading specification
{
  "type": "tool_trace",
  "config": {
    "check_version": 2,
    "today": "2028-01-01",
    "assertions": [
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "tool": "send_slack_dm",
        "action_id": "route_guardrails_cost",
        "path": "result.ok",
        "value": true,
        "check_id": "alex_116_00"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "tool": "send_slack_dm",
        "action_id": "route_metrics_evidence",
        "path": "result.ok",
        "value": true,
        "check_id": "alex_116_01"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "action_id": "route_guardrails_cost",
        "path": "result.user",
        "value": "cyrus",
        "tool": "send_slack_dm",
        "check_id": "alex_116_02"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_llm_judge",
        "action_id": "route_guardrails_cost",
        "path": "result.message",
        "criterion": "The DM asks Cyrus which usage components are included in the Cardinality Guardrails cost semantics, while saying Alex is not taking that ownership.",
        "tool": "send_slack_dm",
        "check_id": "alex_116_03"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "action_id": "route_metrics_evidence",
        "path": "result.user",
        "value": "wes",
        "tool": "send_slack_dm",
        "check_id": "alex_116_04"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_llm_judge",
        "action_id": "route_metrics_evidence",
        "path": "result.message",
        "criterion": "The DM asks Wes which metrics-router operating-limit mapping applies and what operating evidence supports it, while saying Alex is not taking that ownership.",
        "tool": "send_slack_dm",
        "check_id": "alex_116_05"
      }
    ]
  }
}
App stateDownload JSON
Source file

tests/alex/116.yaml

SHA-256: dd43c99dc9218f5cac5cf6a3ab7cfee060fdea8f1974c929739e721477db5679