2.9 KiB
2.9 KiB
| artifact_type | name | source_artifact | source_path | author | created | status | based_on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ccpe-source-judgment-report | draft | CCPE System |
Original Source Judgment Report: {Artifact Name}
1. Source Artifact
Name:
Path:
Version:
Author:
Original Format:
Target Migration:
2. Judgment Purpose
Goal:
Why judgment is needed:
Intended reviewer:
3. Current Classification
Primary:
Secondary components:
Operating mode:
Depth vs automation:
Target platform:
4. Findings Summary
| Finding | Category | Severity | Recommended Handling |
|---|---|---|---|
Severity:
S = Blocks migration until source decision is made.
A = Major issue likely to affect output quality or platform safety.
B = Moderate issue; wrapper or source repair may be enough.
C = Minor issue; document or defer.
Categories:
source defect
platform incompatibility
kernel feature
ambiguous finding
5. Finding Details
5.1 {Finding Name}
Category:
Severity:
Evidence:
Why it may be a problem:
Why it may be intentional:
Impact if preserved verbatim:
Impact if repaired in source:
Impact if patched only in wrapper:
Recommended handling:
6. Kernel Force Protection
Elements that must not be flattened:
Distinctive terms to preserve:
Useful severity or strangeness:
Original workflow pressure:
Output behavior to preserve:
7. Source Decision Options
7.1 Use Source As-Is
When acceptable:
Risks:
Wrapper requirements:
7.2 Patch Only In Wrapper
Conflicts wrapper can resolve:
Risks:
Required wrapper clauses:
7.3 Repair Source First
Recommended source version:
Minimal repair scope:
Forbidden repair actions:
Regression check needed:
7.4 Enter Refinement Lane
Why Fast Migration is insufficient:
Refinement target:
A/B comparison needed:
8. Recommended Decision
Decision:
Rationale:
Human confirmation needed:
Second judgment by original CCPE agent:
9. Prompt For Original CCPE Agent Review
Use this block when sending the judgment report to the original CCPE agent on its native platform.
Please review this Original Source Judgment Report.
Your task:
1. Identify which findings are true source defects.
2. Identify which findings are platform incompatibilities that can be patched by wrapper rules.
3. Identify which findings are intentional kernel features that should be preserved.
4. Identify which findings are ambiguous and need human judgment.
5. Recommend whether the source should be used as-is, patched only in wrapper, repaired first, or moved into Refinement Lane.
Do not rewrite the prompt yet.
Return a decision-oriented review with evidence.
10. Final Human Decision
Chosen decision:
Chosen source version:
Allowed wrapper patches:
Source repairs approved:
Refinement required:
Decision date: