Test 064 for Riley Tanaka

Request

Create a short internal two-lane routing card for CS auto-nudge explanations and escalations. Use the current authority boundaries from our prior decisions, make the two routes easy to scan, and keep it focused on explanation routing rather than turning it into a broader role or authority map.

Required memory

Fact 116

Owen owns routine CS auto-nudge operating explanation.

Source evidence (1)

003012Jun 13, 2025 / 14:30 UTC-05:00

The formal first-live CS auto-nudge operating review is complete. Close the living review note with the accepted result and authority boundaries, send the participant summary, and create the June 17 implementation checkpoint from 10:00am to 10:30am Central with me, Owen, Ines, Daniela, and Customer Success. Owen closed the ledger at 1,184 unique evaluated decisions. Fifty-three stale or conflicting decisions failed closed, including the 12 affected by the May 20 source delay, and 1,131 proceeded or were suppressed using current state. Holds and fresh-check outcomes remain in audit history without adding to the primary denominator. No decision had a different external-system-authority, connector-authentication, entitlement, qualifying-human-admin, or Customer Success-work status from the corresponding reporting and lifecycle views, and no customer correction was required. External-system authority remains verified readiness to perform the connector’s required owner-level permission or network-allowlist action, not permission for automated contact. Priya accepted Owen’s recommendation to retire the parallel legacy decision path on June 17. The path remains available through that scheduled change and has not been retired early; Daniela’s engineering rollback control remains intact. Owen owns routine operating explanation. I retain disputed semantics, cross-surface consequences, customer-correction and incident-stop decisions, and executive claims. The ledger, owner sections, and my final pass are complete, and Priya’s decision is made.

Message 003012 in history

Fact 117

Riley Tanaka requested that the living first-live CS auto-nudge review note be closed with the accepted result and authority boundaries: Owen's ledger closed at 1,184 unique evaluated decisions, with 53 stale or conflicting decisions failing closed, including 12 affected by the May 20 source delay, and 1,131 proceeding or being suppressed using current state; holds and fresh-check outcomes remain in audit history but are excluded from the primary denominator; no reviewed status differed from the corresponding reporting and lifecycle views; no customer correction was required; external-system authority means verified readiness to perform the connector's required owner-level permission or network-allowlist action, not permission for automated contact; Priya accepted retirement of the parallel legacy path on June 17, 2025, with the path available until then and Daniela's rollback control intact; Owen owns routine operating explanation; and Riley retains disputed semantics, cross-surface consequences, customer-correction and incident-stop decisions, and executive claims.

Source evidence (2)

003012Jun 13, 2025 / 14:30 UTC-05:00

The formal first-live CS auto-nudge operating review is complete. Close the living review note with the accepted result and authority boundaries, send the participant summary, and create the June 17 implementation checkpoint from 10:00am to 10:30am Central with me, Owen, Ines, Daniela, and Customer Success. Owen closed the ledger at 1,184 unique evaluated decisions. Fifty-three stale or conflicting decisions failed closed, including the 12 affected by the May 20 source delay, and 1,131 proceeded or were suppressed using current state. Holds and fresh-check outcomes remain in audit history without adding to the primary denominator. No decision had a different external-system-authority, connector-authentication, entitlement, qualifying-human-admin, or Customer Success-work status from the corresponding reporting and lifecycle views, and no customer correction was required. External-system authority remains verified readiness to perform the connector’s required owner-level permission or network-allowlist action, not permission for automated contact. Priya accepted Owen’s recommendation to retire the parallel legacy decision path on June 17. The path remains available through that scheduled change and has not been retired early; Daniela’s engineering rollback control remains intact. Owen owns routine operating explanation. I retain disputed semantics, cross-surface consequences, customer-correction and incident-stop decisions, and executive claims. The ledger, owner sections, and my final pass are complete, and Priya’s decision is made.

Message 003012 in history

004079Mar 5, 2027 / 08:05 UTC-06:00

Send a text-only email to the electricity supplier with subject `Unexpected $9.95 plan service fee on Cherrywood electricity statement` and this exact body: `Hello, my latest statement includes a separate $9.95 plan service fee. My active fixed plan runs through August 12, 2027 and has no monthly plan fee. The statement otherwise shows 721 kWh at the contracted $0.138 per kWh rate. Please identify the contractual basis for this fee or correct the statement, and confirm the result in writing. Thank you, Riley Tanaka.`

Message 004079 in history

Expected tool calls

create_doc

Grading

1. field_equals / create_doc

{
  "type": "field_equals",
  "tool": "create_doc",
  "action_id": "create_routing_card",
  "path": "result.ok",
  "value": true,
  "check_id": "riley_064_00"
}

2. field_llm_judge / create_doc

{
  "type": "field_llm_judge",
  "tool": "create_doc",
  "action_id": "create_routing_card",
  "path": "args",
  "criterion": "The title clearly identifies the document as a routing card or guide for CS auto-nudge explanations and escalations.\n\nThe body is a compact, easy-to-scan card with two clearly distinguishable routes: one for routine operating explanations and one for matters requiring escalation. Missing either route fails.\n\nThe routine operating-explanation route clearly directs CS auto-nudge operating explanations to Owen and does not assign those routine explanations to Riley.\n\nThe escalation route clearly directs disputed semantics, cross-surface consequences, and executive claims to Riley. All three categories must be covered, and the card must not give Owen final authority over them.",
  "check_id": "riley_064_01"
}

Complete grading specification

{
  "type": "tool_trace",
  "config": {
    "check_version": 2,
    "today": "2028-01-01",
    "semantic_judge_version": 2,
    "assertions": [
      {
        "type": "field_equals",
        "tool": "create_doc",
        "action_id": "create_routing_card",
        "path": "result.ok",
        "value": true,
        "check_id": "riley_064_00"
      },
      {
        "type": "field_llm_judge",
        "tool": "create_doc",
        "action_id": "create_routing_card",
        "path": "args",
        "criterion": "The title clearly identifies the document as a routing card or guide for CS auto-nudge explanations and escalations.\n\nThe body is a compact, easy-to-scan card with two clearly distinguishable routes: one for routine operating explanations and one for matters requiring escalation. Missing either route fails.\n\nThe routine operating-explanation route clearly directs CS auto-nudge operating explanations to Owen and does not assign those routine explanations to Riley.\n\nThe escalation route clearly directs disputed semantics, cross-surface consequences, and executive claims to Riley. All three categories must be covered, and the card must not give Owen final authority over them.",
        "check_id": "riley_064_01"
      }
    ]
  }
}