# OfOne Post-Run06 Hardening Context

Date: 2026-05-17

## Purpose

This context brief supports ChatGPT Deep Research / GPT-5.5 Pro review of the OfOne repository after Run 06 was harvested and integrated.

The review target is narrow: verify whether the benchmark workflow hardening added after Run 06 is sufficient, internally consistent, and ready for the next Batch 01 slice.

## Current Public State

- Repo: https://github.com/CryptoJym/ofone-skillchain
- Pages: https://cryptojym.github.io/ofone-skillchain/
- Baseline implementation commit under review: `579b14902c401611309322fdd89e1d136c8bae05`
- This review packet may be published by a later commit so the prompt, context, tracker, and status ledger are visible on GitHub Pages. Treat the later packet commit as publication/status wiring unless it changes the implementation surfaces listed below.
- Package/artifact line: `0.6.0`
- Current status: Run 06 integrated; Batch 01 remains `in_progress`.

Local maintainer verification before this packet was prepared:

- `npm run research:check` passed.
- `npm run benchmark` passed.
- `npm run pages:check` passed against GitHub Pages after commit `579b14902c401611309322fdd89e1d136c8bae05`.

Treat these as repo-maintainer claims to audit, not as proof.

## What Run 06 Found

Run 06 independently reviewed the first Batch 01 slice:

- `case-strategic-gated-diligence-001`
- `agentic_coding`
- repeat `1`
- arms: `direct_answer`, `light_structured`, `full_ofone`

Run 06 adjudication:

- `direct_answer`: accept for later aggregate scoring
- `light_structured`: accept for later aggregate scoring
- `full_ofone`: reject from aggregate scoring

Core finding:

> Schema-valid is not benchmark-valid.

The full-OfOne artifact validated as a typed OfOne artifact, but its `artifact_identity.case_id` was `case-strategy-micro-001`, not `case-strategic-gated-diligence-001`. It was a copied example artifact, not a case-native benchmark artifact.

Run 06 result:

- https://cryptojym.github.io/ofone-skillchain/research/results/2026-05-17-06-ofone-batch01-independent-review-result.md

## What Was Implemented After Run 06

Commit `579b14902c401611309322fdd89e1d136c8bae05` integrated the Run 06 blockers:

- benchmark-case binding checks for full-OfOne artifacts
- pre-score compliance gates with auto-reject semantics
- immutable machine-generated validator and patch artifacts
- semantic-fidelity fields in review records
- excluded-run log
- matrix state semantics clarifying overlapping completed/reviewed/excluded states
- updated summary and failure-analysis records
- updated README, benchmark docs, validation model, and GitHub Pages links

Primary implementation surfaces:

- https://cryptojym.github.io/ofone-skillchain/scripts/ofone-benchmark.mjs
- https://cryptojym.github.io/ofone-skillchain/benchmarks/runs/2026-05-17-batch-01/manifest.json
- https://cryptojym.github.io/ofone-skillchain/benchmarks/runs/2026-05-17-batch-01/execution-matrix.json
- https://cryptojym.github.io/ofone-skillchain/benchmarks/reviews/2026-05-17-batch-01-review-template.md
- https://cryptojym.github.io/ofone-skillchain/benchmarks/results/2026-05-17-batch-01-excluded-runs.md
- https://cryptojym.github.io/ofone-skillchain/docs/validation-model.md

## Current Benchmark State

Batch 01 predeclares 90 run slots:

- 5 cases
- 3 arms
- 2 model families
- 3 repeats

Current first-slice state:

- 3 raw outputs exist.
- 3 local unblinded reviews exist.
- 1 independent review exists.
- 2 first-slice slots are aggregate-eligible.
- 1 first-slice slot is excluded from aggregate scoring.
- No aggregate score table exists.
- No empirical superiority claim is supported.

The current release guard should block performance claims and superiority claims.

## Review Boundaries

Do:

- inspect the current public repo and Pages artifacts
- test the logic from public files where possible
- evaluate whether Run 06 recommendations were actually absorbed
- identify concrete implementation gaps before the next slice
- decide whether the next benchmark slice can run now

Do not:

- reopen broad OfOne ontology unless a concrete benchmark defect requires it
- claim empirical superiority
- treat local maintainer checks as independent proof
- recommend abstract expansion without a repo-actionable change

## Desired Review Posture

The project is in recursive hardening mode:

```text
implement -> verify locally -> publish -> Deep Research review -> harvest -> adjudicate -> implement accepted high-value findings -> repeat
```

This run should either:

- confirm that the current post-Run06 workflow is ready for the next benchmark slice, or
- identify the smallest concrete blocker set that should be implemented first.