# Batch 01 Review

## Review Metadata

- Batch ID: `2026-05-17-batch-01`
- Case ID: `case-strategic-gated-diligence-001`
- Arm ID: `light_structured`
- Run ID: `2026-05-17-batch-01__case-strategic-gated-diligence-001__light_structured__frontier_reasoning__r1`
- Reviewer: local Codex unblinded review
- Review date: 2026-05-20
- Blinding status: `unblinded`

## Pre-Score Compliance Gate

| Check | Result | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case fidelity | `pass` | The structured answer is bound to `case-strategic-gated-diligence-001` and preserves the diligence-versus-launch distinction. |
| Required outputs present | `pass` | It provides a structured answer, key risks/unknowns/evidence gaps, and a recommendation or next step. |
| Independence from other arms/examples | `pass` | No copied OfOne artifact or other-arm dependency is present. |
| No-superiority compliance | `pass` | It makes no benchmark or method-superiority claim. |
| Auto-reject before aggregate scoring | `no` | No pre-score reject condition was found. |

## Semantic Fidelity

- Case binding: Pass; raw Markdown metadata and answer target the benchmark case.
- Copied-example risk: Low.
- Evidence provenance adequacy: Public launch, deployment, and risk-governance sources are used for general support; missing case-specific evidence remains explicit.
- Artifact/source identity: Raw Markdown output, conversation URL, downloaded export, review file, and run metadata all identify the benchmark run and `case-strategic-gated-diligence-001`.

## Scores

| Metric | Score | Rationale |
| --- | ---: | --- |
| decision_quality | 4 | Gives a clear conditional-go recommendation for reversible diligence while keeping operational launch closed. |
| evidence_grounding_precision | 4 | Separates sparse case facts from general external launch-governance sources and names missing case-specific evidence. |
| uncertainty_calibration | 4 | Treats assumptions as provisional and makes launch-blocking unknowns explicit. |
| trace_completeness | 3 | Tables improve traceability for knowns, assumptions, blockers, ownership, and update paths, but there are no typed object IDs or dependency graph by design. |
| auditability | 3 | The report is reviewable and source-noted, though not reconstructable as a validated OfOne artifact. |
| update_quality | 3 | Identifies updates that would change or tighten the recommendation, but does not compute artifact-level patch closure. |
| cost | 2 | Deep Research produced stronger source grounding but at higher runtime/search cost than local lightweight text arms. |
| inter_run_stability | NA | This is the first reviewed frontier-reasoning repeat for this light-structured slot family. |

## Required Notes

- Strongest decision-relevant contribution: It separates reversible diligence from operational launch and turns missing ownership/evidence into explicit gate blockers.
- Most important unsupported claim or missing evidence: It cannot assess launch readiness without actual system scope, audience, blast radius, rollback proof, monitoring thresholds, compliance exposure, and release authority.
- Hidden variable or unknown that changed the review: Whether the proposed move can remain isolated, reversible, and monitored rather than drifting into a de facto launch.
- Gate, safety, or release concern: The launch gate remains closed until named owners, reviewers, release authority, rollback/deactivation criteria, and monitoring are documented.
- Patch/update behavior, if applicable: New evidence should patch the recommendation blocker by blocker; reassurance or partial testing without ownership/rollback evidence should not flip the recommendation.
- Failure mode observed: Lightweight structure improves reviewability, but the output remains prose/table-based rather than a typed, validated, patchable OfOne artifact.

## Adjudication

- Accept run for aggregate scoring: `yes`
- If no, reason:
- Reviewer confidence: `medium`