Test 116 for Morgan Chen

Request

Email finance@scaffold.dev with the risk-register classification for the August 2023 AWS us-west-2 NAT egress blip. There is no later leakage reported.

Required memory

Fact 134

On August 28, 2023, Marcus reported that production traffic and alarms were normal and that he found no customer impact from the AWS cost blip.

Source evidence (1)

000700Aug 28, 2023 / 08:52 UTC-07:00

Marcus found the source of the AWS cost blip. Discord DM Date: 2023-08-28 From: Marcus To: Morgan Chen 08:41 Marcus: Heads-up on the AWS cost blip before finance sees a weird line item. I tracked the us-west-2 non-prod NAT egress spike to a load-test runner that got left on after the Aug 17 test window. 08:42 Marcus: It stayed up Aug 17–20 and kept pushing outbound traffic. Current estimate is roughly $1.9k extra spend from that mistake. 08:43 Marcus: Production wasn't involved — prod traffic looks normal, alarms were normal, and I don't see any customer impact. 08:44 Marcus: My recommendation is to delete the runner now and add a narrow non-prod egress guardrail alert so we catch this earlier next time. 08:44 Marcus: I don't think this needs to turn into architecture or spend-plan work unless the next cost report still shows leakage, but wanted to flag it and get a quick okay. Please DM Marcus in the current internal team chat. Tell him I’m good with deleting the non-prod runner now and adding the narrow non-prod egress guardrail alert. Also confirm we’re treating this as non-prod only, with production not involved, and not turning it into architecture or spend-plan work unless the next cost report still shows leakage.

Message 000700 in history

Fact 135

Morgan requested that Marcus be sent a DM in the current internal team chat confirming approval to delete the non-prod runner immediately and add the narrow non-prod egress guardrail alert, and confirming that the incident is being treated as non-prod only, with production not involved and no architecture or spend-plan work unless the next cost report shows leakage.

Source evidence (1)

000700Aug 28, 2023 / 08:52 UTC-07:00

Marcus found the source of the AWS cost blip. Discord DM Date: 2023-08-28 From: Marcus To: Morgan Chen 08:41 Marcus: Heads-up on the AWS cost blip before finance sees a weird line item. I tracked the us-west-2 non-prod NAT egress spike to a load-test runner that got left on after the Aug 17 test window. 08:42 Marcus: It stayed up Aug 17–20 and kept pushing outbound traffic. Current estimate is roughly $1.9k extra spend from that mistake. 08:43 Marcus: Production wasn't involved — prod traffic looks normal, alarms were normal, and I don't see any customer impact. 08:44 Marcus: My recommendation is to delete the runner now and add a narrow non-prod egress guardrail alert so we catch this earlier next time. 08:44 Marcus: I don't think this needs to turn into architecture or spend-plan work unless the next cost report still shows leakage, but wanted to flag it and get a quick okay. Please DM Marcus in the current internal team chat. Tell him I’m good with deleting the non-prod runner now and adding the narrow non-prod egress guardrail alert. Also confirm we’re treating this as non-prod only, with production not involved, and not turning it into architecture or spend-plan work unless the next cost report still shows leakage.

Message 000700 in history

Expected tool calls

send_email

Grading

1. field_equals / send_email

{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "tool": "send_email",
  "path": "result.ok",
  "value": true,
  "check_id": "morgan_116_00",
  "action_id": "morgan_116_send_email"
}

2. field_equals / send_email

{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "path": "result.to",
  "value": "finance@scaffold.dev",
  "tool": "send_email",
  "check_id": "morgan_116_01",
  "action_id": "morgan_116_send_email"
}

3. field_llm_judge / send_email

{
  "type": "field_llm_judge",
  "path": "result.body",
  "criterion": "Classifies it as non-production cost hygiene with no production involvement or customer impact. Does not reopen architecture or spending-plan work absent continued leakage in a later cost report.",
  "tool": "send_email",
  "check_id": "morgan_116_02",
  "action_id": "morgan_116_send_email"
}

Complete grading specification

{
  "type": "tool_trace",
  "config": {
    "check_version": 2,
    "today": "2026-09-14",
    "assertions": [
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "tool": "send_email",
        "path": "result.ok",
        "value": true,
        "check_id": "morgan_116_00",
        "action_id": "morgan_116_send_email"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "path": "result.to",
        "value": "finance@scaffold.dev",
        "tool": "send_email",
        "check_id": "morgan_116_01",
        "action_id": "morgan_116_send_email"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_llm_judge",
        "path": "result.body",
        "criterion": "Classifies it as non-production cost hygiene with no production involvement or customer impact. Does not reopen architecture or spending-plan work absent continued leakage in a later cost report.",
        "tool": "send_email",
        "check_id": "morgan_116_02",
        "action_id": "morgan_116_send_email"
      }
    ]
  }
}