Test 167 for Morgan Chen

Request

On docs/sep-evidence-archive#47, correct any overstatement of the August 2023 Mercury preview-state clarification's approved scope and release condition.

Required memory

Fact 132

On August 17, 2023, Morgan Chen stated conditional support for the Mercury v0.2 copy-only clarification only if the current release-readiness reviewers confirm that it adds no risk.

Source evidence (1)

000685Aug 17, 2023 / 10:24 UTC-07:00

This preview-state copy thread needs one careful answer. Figma comments — Mercury activation surface v0.2 Frame: Onboarding / preview state Thread started: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 [09:18 -0700] Priya: @Jake @Leo After Anna's Evergreen observation, I'm proposing a copy-only clarification in the preview state: "Preview data helps you explore the workspace. To finish setup, connect a real source or run your first live sync." Intent is to make it harder for preview-only users to read this state as completed setup. No CTA change, no state rename, no metric-definition change. Are we comfortable letting this into v0.2 if eng / release-readiness thinks it's truly low risk? [09:26 -0700] Jake: From product side this is clearer than what we have now and matches how we're already explaining it in support. Fine with it if this stays literal and doesn't turn into a new step, new event, or backdoor definition change. I do not want preview to suddenly read as activation. [09:34 -0700] Leo Park: Direction seems right. My only caution is late-stage risk: if this creates layout churn at narrow widths or touches any tracking/state mapping, it should wait. If it fits existing frames and existing event names, I don't see a platform issue. [09:41 -0700] Priya: It fits the current container in my latest frames. I'm not reopening CTA direction or state structure; this would be copy only. [10:02 -0700] Anna Martinez: +1 that the confusion is real. One Evergreen user clearly behaved as if sample preview meant setup was finished. I am not asking to count preview as activation. [10:11 -0700] Marcus: I want one QA pass at 320px and on the invited-member entry path before I call it safe for the release train, but if there's no overflow and no tracking change this reads like polish, not a new feature. [10:16 -0700] Priya: Got it. I'll leave this in comments until we have Morgan's read plus the release-readiness sanity check. Draft a pasteable Figma reply for me, but don’t post it. I’m okay with the copy-only clarification only if the current release-readiness reviewers confirm it adds no risk. Make clear there is no metric-definition change, no CTA or state-structure change, and anything larger than copy polish stays out of Mercury v0.2.

Message 000685 in history

Fact 133

Morgan Chen requested a pasteable but unposted Figma reply about the Mercury v0.2 preview-state clarification that includes the release-readiness condition, the metric-definition, CTA, and state-structure boundaries, and the exclusion of work larger than copy polish.

Source evidence (1)

000685Aug 17, 2023 / 10:24 UTC-07:00

This preview-state copy thread needs one careful answer. Figma comments — Mercury activation surface v0.2 Frame: Onboarding / preview state Thread started: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 [09:18 -0700] Priya: @Jake @Leo After Anna's Evergreen observation, I'm proposing a copy-only clarification in the preview state: "Preview data helps you explore the workspace. To finish setup, connect a real source or run your first live sync." Intent is to make it harder for preview-only users to read this state as completed setup. No CTA change, no state rename, no metric-definition change. Are we comfortable letting this into v0.2 if eng / release-readiness thinks it's truly low risk? [09:26 -0700] Jake: From product side this is clearer than what we have now and matches how we're already explaining it in support. Fine with it if this stays literal and doesn't turn into a new step, new event, or backdoor definition change. I do not want preview to suddenly read as activation. [09:34 -0700] Leo Park: Direction seems right. My only caution is late-stage risk: if this creates layout churn at narrow widths or touches any tracking/state mapping, it should wait. If it fits existing frames and existing event names, I don't see a platform issue. [09:41 -0700] Priya: It fits the current container in my latest frames. I'm not reopening CTA direction or state structure; this would be copy only. [10:02 -0700] Anna Martinez: +1 that the confusion is real. One Evergreen user clearly behaved as if sample preview meant setup was finished. I am not asking to count preview as activation. [10:11 -0700] Marcus: I want one QA pass at 320px and on the invited-member entry path before I call it safe for the release train, but if there's no overflow and no tracking change this reads like polish, not a new feature. [10:16 -0700] Priya: Got it. I'll leave this in comments until we have Morgan's read plus the release-readiness sanity check. Draft a pasteable Figma reply for me, but don’t post it. I’m okay with the copy-only clarification only if the current release-readiness reviewers confirm it adds no risk. Make clear there is no metric-definition change, no CTA or state-structure change, and anything larger than copy polish stays out of Mercury v0.2.

Message 000685 in history

Expected tool calls

post_pr_comment

Grading

1. field_equals / post_pr_comment

{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "tool": "post_pr_comment",
  "path": "result.ok",
  "value": true,
  "check_id": "morgan_167_00",
  "action_id": "morgan_167_post_pr_comment"
}

2. field_equals / post_pr_comment

{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "path": "result.comment.pr_id",
  "value": "docs/sep-evidence-archive#47",
  "tool": "post_pr_comment",
  "check_id": "morgan_167_01",
  "action_id": "morgan_167_post_pr_comment"
}

3. field_llm_judge / post_pr_comment

{
  "type": "field_llm_judge",
  "path": "result.comment.body",
  "criterion": "The comment must state the actual approved scope: copy-only preview clarification, with no activation-definition, CTA, or state-structure change. It must also state that release-readiness reviewers need to confirm no added risk before inclusion. Merely saying preserve the approved scope or follow the release condition without identifying them fails. Conditional approval is not confirmed shipping.",
  "tool": "post_pr_comment",
  "check_id": "morgan_167_02",
  "action_id": "morgan_167_post_pr_comment"
}

Complete grading specification

{
  "type": "tool_trace",
  "config": {
    "check_version": 2,
    "today": "2026-09-14",
    "assertions": [
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "tool": "post_pr_comment",
        "path": "result.ok",
        "value": true,
        "check_id": "morgan_167_00",
        "action_id": "morgan_167_post_pr_comment"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "path": "result.comment.pr_id",
        "value": "docs/sep-evidence-archive#47",
        "tool": "post_pr_comment",
        "check_id": "morgan_167_01",
        "action_id": "morgan_167_post_pr_comment"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_llm_judge",
        "path": "result.comment.body",
        "criterion": "The comment must state the actual approved scope: copy-only preview clarification, with no activation-definition, CTA, or state-structure change. It must also state that release-readiness reviewers need to confirm no added risk before inclusion. Merely saying preserve the approved scope or follow the release condition without identifying them fails. Conditional approval is not confirmed shipping.",
        "tool": "post_pr_comment",
        "check_id": "morgan_167_02",
        "action_id": "morgan_167_post_pr_comment"
      }
    ]
  }
}