# Batch 01 Review

## Review Metadata

- Batch ID: `2026-05-17-batch-01`
- Case ID: `case-strategic-gated-diligence-001`
- Arm ID: `full_ofone`
- Run ID: `2026-05-17-batch-01__case-strategic-gated-diligence-001__full_ofone__agentic_coding__r1`
- Reviewer: local Codex unblinded review
- Review date: 2026-05-17
- Blinding status: `unblinded`

## Pre-Score Compliance Gate

| Check | Result | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case fidelity | `fail` | Run 06 found the artifact identity is `case-strategy-micro-001`, not `case-strategic-gated-diligence-001`. |
| Required outputs present | `pass` | The slot includes Markdown output, artifact JSON, validator narrative, rendering, and patch narrative. |
| Independence from other arms/examples | `fail` | The raw output says the artifact is copied from the current validated strategic Micro example. |
| No-superiority compliance | `pass` | The run does not claim empirical superiority. |
| Auto-reject before aggregate scoring | `yes` | Wrong-case artifact identity is a reject-level defect before metric scoring. |

## Semantic Fidelity

- Case binding: Fail; `artifact_identity.case_id` is `case-strategy-micro-001`.
- Copied-example risk: High; the raw output explicitly describes a copied example artifact.
- Evidence provenance adequacy: The artifact provenance points to a validated wastewater example, not the benchmark case inputs.
- Artifact/source identity: Artifact identity and objective do not point to the benchmark case.

## Scores

| Metric | Score | Rationale |
| --- | ---: | --- |
| decision_quality | 2 | The recommendation shape is useful, but it is attached to the wrong case artifact. |
| evidence_grounding_precision | 1 | Evidence/provenance are not bound to the benchmark case being scored. |
| uncertainty_calibration | 2 | The artifact exposes uncertainty mechanics, but those mechanics are not case-faithful for this run. |
| trace_completeness | 3 | The trace is structurally present but traces the wrong object. |
| auditability | 2 | The machine artifacts are inspectable, but they prove schema validity rather than benchmark validity. |
| update_quality | 3 | Patch closure exists, but it operates on the copied example artifact. |
| cost | 2 | Highest artifact and review burden in the slice. |
| inter_run_stability | NA | Only one repeat has been reviewed for this slot family. |

## Required Notes

- Strongest decision-relevant contribution: It demonstrates the trace, rendering, and patch machinery expected from the full-OfOne arm.
- Most important unsupported claim or missing evidence: The artifact is not bound to the benchmark case and is derived from the local strategic Micro example.
- Hidden variable or unknown that changed the review: Whether the scenario's target segment, jurisdiction, and pilot-performance evidence can be resolved.
- Gate, safety, or release concern: Gate `G1` remains open for launch-like commitments.
- Patch/update behavior, if applicable: Trigger `T1` invalidates `C1` and `C2`, reaches 16 downstream objects, and requires rendering regeneration.
- Failure mode observed: Schema-valid output was mistaken for benchmark-valid output.

## Adjudication

- Accept run for aggregate scoring: `no`
- If no, reason: Run 06 independent review rejected the slot because the artifact identity/objective belongs to the copied strategic Micro wastewater example rather than this benchmark case.
- Reviewer confidence: `high`

## Independent Adjudication

- Source: `research/results/2026-05-17-06-ofone-batch01-independent-review-result.md`
- Decision: `reject`
- Key rule learned: schema-valid is not benchmark-valid.
- Remediation: rerun the full-OfOne arm with a case-native artifact before it can enter aggregate scoring.