# Local CCRA Review Report

## 1. Return Metadata

- project_id: `the-mindscape-of-bro-tsong`
- review_round: `round-04`
- local_pass: `pilot-02`
- turn_type: `review_turn`
- runtime_id: `ccra-local-review`
- runtime_version: `0.1.1`
- agent_id: `ccra-local-reviewer`
- agent_version: `0.1.1`
- invocation_mode: `prompt_path_reference`
- carrier_type: `codex_thread`
- child_session_id: `019edcde-24be-7593-99b2-5cf014467340`
- persistent_available: `yes_for_requested_followup_if_same_thread_is_resumed`
- execution_status: `returned`
- simulation_only: `false`
- report_path: `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/04_LOCAL_CCRA_REVIEW_REPORT.md`
- returned_output_path: `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/returned-output.md`
- generated_at: `2026-06-19`

## 2. Review Scope

- primary_question: Can Patch 1 Local CCRA identify Round 04 product/routing issues with Web-style diagnosis while retaining local file-first audit strength?
- scope_statement: Review initial Round 04 blind routing evidence only. Do not use Round 04.1 post-patch outcomes as this turn's judgment basis.
- non_goals: no Owner approval, no Web CCRA replacement, no lifecycle promotion, no project file repair, no selector/model/regression edits, no Round 05 acceptance.
- local_tuning_stage: `historical_pilot_patch1_retest`
- web_final_review_target: `none_for_this_pilot`
- knowledge_base_path: `C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\work-projects\the-mindscape-of-bro-tsong\knowledge_assets`
- previous_turn_report_path: none

Important scope note: current project files such as `README.md`, `docs/DECISIONS.md`, `selector/README.md`, and `selector/selector_rules.json` contain later Round 04.1 language. They were read because the invocation packet required them, but this report does not use those post-patch statements as evidence that the initial Round 04 behavior was fixed or accepted.

## 3. Inputs Actually Received

- Invocation and run files:
  - `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/prompt-to-send.md`
  - `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/turn-prompts/review-turn.prompt.md`
  - `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/agent-invocation-packet.md`
  - `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/run-notes.md`
  - `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/review-metadata.json`
  - `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/review-context.md`
  - `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/review-file-manifest.json`
  - `local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/owner-decision.md`
- Required project knowledge base:
  - `knowledge_assets/`
- Initial Round 04 evidence:
  - `ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/`
  - `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md`
  - `reports/Round04_blind_input_candidates_2026-06-18.md`
  - `selector/round04_blind_inputs.json`
  - `selector/selector_rules.json`
  - `selector/README.md`
  - `tests/test_round04_blind_routing.py`
  - `scripts/run_round04_blind_routing.py`
- Helper outputs:
  - `helper-outputs/bundle-audit.md`
  - `helper-outputs/bundle-audit.json`
  - `helper-outputs/gate-run-report.md`
  - `helper-outputs/gate-run-report.json`
  - `helper-outputs/lifecycle-status-guard-scan.md`
- Missing or intentionally unavailable:
  - `routing-behavior-diff-audit` output: skipped by design because no after-patch evidence is allowed in this turn.
  - Executed gate logs: unavailable; gate runner was dry-run only.
  - Round 04.1 post-patch evidence: intentionally excluded.

## 4. Files Actually Read

```text
- C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\ccpe-system\agents\agent-specs\ccra-local-reviewer.agent.md
  purpose: Local CCRA reviewer role, source policy, report requirements, authority boundary
- C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\ccpe-system\runtimes\hybrid\ccra-local-review.runtime.md
  purpose: runtime turn contract, helper usage, stop conditions
- C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\ccpe-system\runtimes\hybrid\ccra-local-review-report.template.md
  purpose: Patch 1 report template
- C:\Users\wangq\Documents\Codex\ccpe-system\integrations\skills-vault\ccra-local-review-helpers.integration.md
  purpose: helper output confidence rules
- README.md
  purpose: project identity and non-goals
- AGENTS.md
  purpose: repository operating instructions
- PROJECTS.md
  purpose: cross-repository authority boundaries
- docs/WORKFLOW.md
  purpose: Local CCRA workflow and review bundle workflow
- docs/DECISIONS.md
  purpose: selector, lifecycle, Local CCRA, and boundary decisions; post-04.1 statements excluded from review_turn judgment
- docs/QPI_CONTEXTUAL_ROUTING_RULES.md
  purpose: QPI no-call, subject-context, issue/governance, and lifecycle boundary rules
- docs/INTELLECTUAL_ARCHAEOLOGY_DEPTH_GATE.md
  purpose: IA depth gate, no-call, and status boundary
- knowledge_assets/README.md
  purpose: knowledge asset navigation
- knowledge_assets/00_用户背景与产品上下文.md
  purpose: product boundary and source of truth map
- knowledge_assets/01_核心模型地图.md
  purpose: QPI and IA status and routing relationship
- knowledge_assets/02_模型卡结构规范.md
  purpose: model card structure and validation background
- knowledge_assets/03_核心模型抽取样板.md
  purpose: model extraction and selector v0.2 background
- knowledge_assets/06_模型稳固性评级规则.md
  purpose: stability/lifecycle guard
- knowledge_assets/07_产品规划过程记录.md
  purpose: planning history and boundary
- knowledge_assets/08_CCRA模型库MVP质量门与交接协议.md
  purpose: CCRA quality gates and selector v0.2 principles
- knowledge_assets/09_数据治理与模型调用机制说明.md
  purpose: selector/regression/calling mechanism
- knowledge_assets/10_本地CCRA评审机制说明.md
  purpose: Local CCRA project-side process
- ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF_04.md
  purpose: Round 04 brief
- ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/01_ROUND03_CLOSURE_AND_ROUND04_SCOPE_04.md
  purpose: Round 04 scope and non-goals
- ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/02_BLIND_INPUT_SET_04.md
  purpose: frozen blind input set summary
- ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/03_ROUTING_EVALUATION_REPORT_04.md
  purpose: initial Round 04 observed routing behavior
- ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/04_REVIEW_QUESTIONS_FOR_GPT_04.md
  purpose: requested review questions
- ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md
  purpose: bundle manifest and optional zip scope
- reports/Round04_blind_input_candidates_2026-06-18.md
  purpose: candidate intent and coverage labels
- reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md
  purpose: direct initial routing evidence
- selector/round04_blind_inputs.json
  purpose: frozen blind input metadata without expected labels
- selector/selector_rules.json
  purpose: required read; not used as initial Round 04 behavior evidence where it reflects later changes
- selector/README.md
  purpose: selector contract; post-04.1 statements excluded from review_turn judgment
- tests/test_round04_blind_routing.py
  purpose: initial runner test surface
- scripts/run_round04_blind_routing.py
  purpose: report generation and blind input evaluation mechanics
- local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/helper-outputs/*
  purpose: helper evidence and confidence assessment
```

## 5. Automation Outputs Used

```text
- helper_id: review-context-builder
  output_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/review-context.md; review-file-manifest.json
  status: available
  how_used: navigation index only; direct source files were still read
- helper_id: review-bundle-audit
  output_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/helper-outputs/bundle-audit.md; bundle-audit.json
  status: failed_profile_mismatch
  how_used: evidence that generic profile did not recognize the versioned bundle manifest; not accepted as automatic bundle failure
- helper_id: regression-validation-gate-runner
  output_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/helper-outputs/gate-run-report.md; gate-run-report.json
  status: dry_run
  how_used: evidence that gates are declared, not evidence that gates passed
- helper_id: lifecycle-status-guard-scan
  output_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/helper-outputs/lifecycle-status-guard-scan.md
  status: failed_broad_scan
  how_used: lifecycle overclaim candidate list only; many findings are outside the initial Round 04 scope
- helper_id: routing-behavior-diff-audit
  output_path: none
  status: skipped
  how_used: not applicable for review_turn because after-patch evidence is intentionally excluded
```

## 6. Executive Summary

Review result: `needs_more_local_tuning`.

Final action recommendation: `fix_now`.

Patch 1 Local CCRA can identify the important Round 04 routing issues with file-first evidence. The clearest initial Round 04 failures are not model-content failures and not LLM-understanding failures. They are selector rule-boundary failures:

- direct transformation / translation requests can be misread because payload complexity words such as `模型` leak into routing;
- explicit IA refusal variants are not all enforced as model-level hard exclusions;
- depth-limiting phrases such as `不要展开` and `不要深入分析` can incorrectly suppress lightweight QPI requests for `主导稀缺` or `缺信息 / 缺路径 / 缺共识`.

Initial Round 04 evidence is enough to open a scoped selector patch requirement. It is not enough to claim Web final readiness, Round 05 readiness, lifecycle promotion, or product acceptance. A second `planning_turn` is needed to specify the post-patch verification package and submitted-material requirements.

## 7. Issue Mechanism Diagnosis

### Issue ID: R04-LCR-001

- Case / Material: `R04-BI-002`
- What failed: pure translation request selected `qpi`.
- Why it failed: the selector treated payload word `模型` as a complexity signal even though the instruction was direct translation. This is an instruction/payload boundary failure, not an indication that QPI should classify the user's problem frame.
- Why it is not a different failure category: this is not model-content failure, because QPI did not generate content. It is not LLM understanding failure, because the selector is explicitly rule-based and no LLM is called. It is not an IA issue because IA was rejected.
- Failure category: `rule_boundary_problem`
- Selector-specific type: `no-call false negative`; `QPI over-selection`; `rule-based selector failure`
- Evidence:
  - `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md` records `R04-BI-002` selected `qpi` with reason `complexity signal: 模型`.
  - `selector/round04_blind_inputs.json` states the case was included to test pure translation as no-call.
  - `docs/QPI_CONTEXTUAL_ROUTING_RULES.md` says translation should be `classification_scope=no_call`.

### Issue ID: R04-LCR-002

- Case / Material: `R04-BI-024`
- What failed: explicit `不要进入思想考古` still selected `intellectual_archaeology`.
- Why it failed: the model-level exclusion surface did not cover this refusal variant in the initial behavior. The selector allowed the model name and boundary/责任 complexity signals to overcome the user's explicit refusal.
- Why it is not a different failure category: this is not a QPI-before-IA gate failure alone, because the user explicitly refused IA. It is not a model-content failure, because IA was only routed, not executed.
- Failure category: `rule_boundary_problem`
- Selector-specific type: `model-level exclusion failure`; `IA over-selection`
- Evidence:
  - `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md` records both `intellectual_archaeology` and `qpi` selected for `R04-BI-024`.
  - `reports/Round04_blind_input_candidates_2026-06-18.md` states this case tests model-level hard exclusion for IA while preserving QPI-like routing.
  - `selector/README.md` describes explicit model refusal as a model-level hard exclusion; later Round 04.1 language in the same file is excluded as proof of repair.

### Issue ID: R04-LCR-003

- Case / Material: `R04-BI-035`, `R04-BI-036`, same-class boundary `R04-BI-022`
- What failed: depth-limiting language caused global no-call even when the user asked for lightweight QPI classification.
- Why it failed: global hard no-call matched `不要深入分析` or `不要展开` before QPI-limited intent was recognized. The selector conflated "do not go deep" with "do not do lightweight problem definition".
- Why it is not a different failure category: this is not user refusal of QPI. The requested action is exactly QPI-shaped: identify dominant scarcity or choose among missing information/path/consensus. It is also not IA under-selection, because IA should remain rejected.
- Failure category: `rule_boundary_problem`
- Selector-specific type: `depth-limiting override failure`; `no-call false positive`; `QPI under-selection`
- Evidence:
  - `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md` records `R04-BI-035` and `R04-BI-036` as hard no-call with QPI rejected.
  - `selector/round04_blind_inputs.json` states these cases test QPI-limited routing while rejecting deeper modeling.
  - `docs/QPI_CONTEXTUAL_ROUTING_RULES.md` defines QPI as front-routing / scarcity framing and does not require deep analysis.

### Issue ID: R04-LCR-004

- Case / Material: governance and capacity cases `R04-BI-010` through `R04-BI-017`
- What failed: several plausible QPI problem/issue inputs no-called because no explicit positive QPI phrase appeared.
- Why it failed: the initial selector appears too dependent on lexical QPI gate phrases such as `问题`, `缺路径`, or `缺共识`, and under-detects semantically clear governance, responsibility, capacity, or path scarcity. This is a product-routing risk, but not all such cases should be patched mechanically.
- Why it is not a different failure category: coverage labels are not answer keys, and some statements lack an explicit user request. The correct behavior may be QPI, clarification, or low-confidence provisional routing depending on Owner policy.
- Failure category: `product_routing_problem`
- Selector-specific type: `possible QPI under-selection`; `calibration boundary`
- Evidence:
  - `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md` records no-call for `R04-BI-010`, `011`, `012`, `013`, `014`, `015`, and `017`; `R04-BI-016` selected QPI because it contains explicit `问题`.
  - `docs/QPI_CONTEXTUAL_ROUTING_RULES.md` states issue weight rises around responsibility, authority, role boundary, governance, and consensus load.
  - `reports/Round04_blind_input_candidates_2026-06-18.md` includes these cases to test governance, responsibility, consensus, resource, and path scarcity.

### Issue ID: R04-LCR-005

- Case / Material: likely IA and model extraction cases `R04-BI-018`, `R04-BI-026`, `R04-BI-027`, `R04-BI-038`
- What failed: several likely depth-modeling inputs selected only QPI and rejected IA.
- Why it failed: the initial IA heavy-depth gate is conservative and depends on a narrow set of lexical heavy signals. That protects against IA over-selection but may under-select natural model extraction or deep mechanism requests that avoid exact trigger phrases.
- Why it is not a different failure category: not all likely IA cases should become immediate IA positives. Some may need QPI first. Some may need Owner/Web calibration on whether IA should be directly selected or only recommended after QPI.
- Failure category: `product_routing_problem`
- Selector-specific type: `possible IA under-selection`; `QPI-before-IA calibration`
- Evidence:
  - `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md` records QPI-only routing for the listed cases.
  - `docs/INTELLECTUAL_ARCHAEOLOGY_DEPTH_GATE.md` supports IA when repeated patterns, core mechanisms, assumptions, or action boundaries require deeper modeling, while also warning IA is not default.
  - `reports/Round04_blind_input_candidates_2026-06-18.md` marks `R04-BI-026` as a high-value natural boundary sample and `R04-BI-018` as a positive control.

## 8. Patch Scope Judgment

```text
must_fix_cases:
  - case_id: R04-BI-002
    reason: direct translation should no-call even when payload contains model-library vocabulary.
    required_evidence: targeted before/after result plus frozen-pool rerun showing no new direct-execution regressions.
  - case_id: R04-BI-024
    reason: explicit IA refusal must hard-exclude IA while preserving QPI if the remaining request is QPI-shaped.
    required_evidence: targeted before/after result plus regression coverage for IA refusal variants.
  - case_id: R04-BI-035
    reason: depth-limiting language paired with dominant-scarcity request should allow lightweight QPI and reject IA.
    required_evidence: targeted before/after result plus regression coverage.
  - case_id: R04-BI-036
    reason: depth-limiting language paired with缺信息/缺路径/缺共识 should allow QPI and reject IA.
    required_evidence: targeted before/after result plus regression coverage.

same_class_boundary_cases:
  - case_id: R04-BI-022
    reason: same depth-limiting plus QPI-limited intent mechanism as R04-BI-035/036; initial behavior is no-call.
    patch_with_current_round: yes, if Owner accepts "主导稀缺" as sufficient QPI-limited intent despite limited object context.
  - case_id: R04-BI-018
    reason: model-extraction positive control selected QPI only; IA direct-selection policy needs calibration.
    patch_with_current_round: no, unless Owner defines model extraction as immediate IA route.
  - case_id: R04-BI-026/R04-BI-027/R04-BI-038
    reason: natural IA boundary examples may need broader IA signals, but broadening can create over-selection.
    patch_with_current_round: no; use calibration first.
  - case_id: R04-BI-010 through R04-BI-017
    reason: governance/capacity language may be QPI-relevant without explicit QPI terms.
    patch_with_current_round: no; define provisional QPI vs clarification policy first.

calibration_only_cases:
  - case_id: R04-BI-010/R04-BI-011/R04-BI-012/R04-BI-013
    reason: likely issue/governance QPI cases, but no explicit user request. Owner should decide whether descriptive statements trigger QPI, clarification, or no-call.
  - case_id: R04-BI-014/R04-BI-015/R04-BI-017
    reason: capacity/path scarcity semantics should be calibrated before adding broad keywords.
  - case_id: R04-BI-018/R04-BI-026/R04-BI-027/R04-BI-038
    reason: IA under-selection risk needs policy on direct IA vs QPI-first.
  - case_id: R04-BI-030
    reason: "老问题" is prior-context dependent; QPI selection may be acceptable only as low-confidence/provisional.
  - case_id: R04-BI-037
    reason: "如何提高这个账号的流量" maps to the QPI insufficient-context example but may require clarification instead of no-call or confident QPI.

explicitly_not_patched:
  - case_id: R04-BI-001/R04-BI-003/R04-BI-004/R04-BI-005/R04-BI-031/R04-BI-032/R04-BI-033
    reason: initial no-call behavior is consistent with direct fact, rewrite, formatting, tool how-to, and word-meaning no-call rules.
  - case_id: R04-BI-021
    reason: initial behavior correctly preserves QPI and rejects IA for explicit "先不要思想考古".
  - case_id: R04-BI-025
    reason: explicit post-QPI depth handoff selected IA; no initial failure found.
  - case_id: R04-BI-034
    reason: direct execution with explicit analysis override selected QPI; no immediate patch needed.

should_not_open_another_small_patch_round:
  - issue_or_case: all governance/capacity/IA natural-language under-selection candidates
    reason: these should be bundled into calibration policy and next blind/calibration evaluation, not patched one keyword at a time.
```

## 9. Verification Evidence Requirements

Required for a selector/routing patch based on this review:

```text
targeted_regression_for_confirmed_target_cases: required for R04-BI-002, R04-BI-024, R04-BI-035, R04-BI-036, and any accepted same-class boundary such as R04-BI-022.
full_frozen_pool_rerun_or_before_after_comparison: required; must show all 38 Round 04 cases before/after with selected, rejected, no-call, scores, reasons, and routing notes.
existing_selector_regression: required; existing no-call, model-level exclusion, QPI-before-IA, and depth-limiting tests must still pass.
calibration_smoke: required; direct-execution no-call and QPI/IA boundary samples must remain sane.
unit_tests: required for the Round 04 runner and any selector helper changed by the patch.
command_log_or_validation_report: required; dry-run is not sufficient for a post-patch verification claim.
dry_run_vs_executed_gate_status: must be explicit. Current `gate-run-report` is dry-run only.
rule_diff_only_is_sufficient: no.
missing_evidence: after-patch routing results, routing behavior diff, executed gate logs, and Owner/Web calibration decisions are not available in this review_turn by design.
```

## 10. Before / After Behavior Review

No post-patch or before/after evidence is allowed in this `review_turn`. The initial Round 04 behavior below is the only valid "before" evidence. The "after" column is intentionally unavailable.

```text
target_behavior_changes:
  - case_id: R04-BI-002
    before: selected qpi; no_call false.
    after: not available in review_turn.
    assessment: target fix required; expected after should be no-call with QPI and IA rejected.
  - case_id: R04-BI-024
    before: selected intellectual_archaeology and qpi.
    after: not available in review_turn.
    assessment: target fix required; expected after should hard-exclude IA and preserve QPI if Owner accepts lightweight QPI request.
  - case_id: R04-BI-035
    before: hard no-call; QPI and IA rejected.
    after: not available in review_turn.
    assessment: target fix required; expected after should allow QPI and reject IA.
  - case_id: R04-BI-036
    before: hard no-call; QPI and IA rejected.
    after: not available in review_turn.
    assessment: target fix required; expected after should allow QPI and reject IA.

non_target_behavior_changes:
  - case_id: not observable
    before: initial-only evidence.
    after: not available in review_turn.
    assessment: routing-behavior-diff-audit is correctly skipped for this turn but must be run for any patch verification turn.

accepted_collateral_behavior_changes:
  - case_id: none accepted in this review_turn.
    rationale: Owner decisions are pending; post-patch evidence is excluded.
    regression_or_documentation: required after Owner decision.

unexpected_regressions:
  - case_id: not observable.
    evidence: no after evidence in scope.
    action: require frozen-pool rerun and before/after comparison in planning_turn.

owner_or_web_calibration_needed:
  - case_id: R04-BI-022
    question: should "主导稀缺" plus depth-limiting wording be enough to allow QPI without more object context?
  - case_id: R04-BI-010 through R04-BI-017
    question: should descriptive governance/capacity statements route to provisional QPI, ask clarification, or no-call?
  - case_id: R04-BI-018/R04-BI-026/R04-BI-027/R04-BI-038
    question: should natural model-extraction/depth-modeling requests directly select IA or require QPI first?
```

## 11. Non-Target Behavior Changes

Non-target behavior changes are not observable from initial-only evidence.

For any later patch, non-target checks must at minimum prove:

- direct no-call cases `R04-BI-001`, `003`, `004`, `005`, `031`, `032`, `033` remain no-call;
- `R04-BI-021` continues to reject IA while selecting QPI;
- `R04-BI-025` continues to select IA for explicit post-QPI depth handoff;
- `R04-BI-034` continues to escape direct-execution no-call because it asks for problem definition;
- broader translation/direct-transformation rules do not suppress legitimate model-library analysis requests.

## 12. Calibration-Only Candidates

- `R04-BI-010` through `R04-BI-013`: governance/responsibility/consensus semantics are QPI-relevant, but the round lacks expected labels. Risk if patched now: over-selecting QPI for every organizational complaint.
- `R04-BI-014`, `R04-BI-015`, `R04-BI-017`: capacity/path scarcity semantics need product policy before keyword expansion. Risk if patched now: broad "目标/方向/时间/产出" keywords may over-route operational updates.
- `R04-BI-018`, `R04-BI-026`, `R04-BI-027`, `R04-BI-038`: likely IA under-selection candidates. Risk if patched now: IA becomes too easy to summon from words like "结构", "长期", or "机制".
- `R04-BI-030`: prior-context dependency. Risk if patched now: short frustration phrases become confident QPI route without subject/scenario context.
- `R04-BI-037`: generic growth how-to. Risk if patched now: "如何提高流量" may either over-trigger QPI or incorrectly stay no-call; better policy is likely low-confidence/provisional QPI or clarification.

## 13. Helper Output Confidence

```text
helper_id: review-context-builder
output_used_as_evidence: yes
confidence: high
status: executed
confidence_notes: Source roots included required knowledge_assets and Round 04 files; no missing roots. Used only as navigation.
blocks_current_review: no
requires_runtime_tuning: no

helper_id: review-bundle-audit
output_used_as_evidence: yes
confidence: low
status: failed; generic_profile; profile_mismatch; false_positive_candidate
confidence_notes: Generic profile reports missing manifest and validation_sidecar, but the Round 04 bundle contains `BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md` and the review turn can directly read the files. The helper usefully reports zip readability and discovered files, but its FAIL is not an automatic review blocker.
blocks_current_review: no
requires_runtime_tuning: yes

helper_id: regression-validation-gate-runner
output_used_as_evidence: yes
confidence: low
status: dry_run
confidence_notes: Proves gate manifest readability and declared commands only. It does not prove index check, validation, or tests passed in this pilot run.
blocks_current_review: no
requires_runtime_tuning: yes

helper_id: lifecycle-status-guard-scan
output_used_as_evidence: yes
confidence: low
status: failed; broad_scope; false_positive_candidate
confidence_notes: Scan covers 200 files, including older rounds, prior pilot outputs, and post-04.1 files that are outside this review_turn evidence scope. It is a useful overclaim locator but not a Round 04 blocker by itself.
blocks_current_review: no
requires_runtime_tuning: yes

helper_id: routing-behavior-diff-audit
output_used_as_evidence: no
confidence: not_used
status: skipped
confidence_notes: Appropriate for initial-only review_turn. It becomes required for any post-patch verification turn.
blocks_current_review: no
requires_runtime_tuning: no
```

## 14. Findings

### Finding ID: F-R04-P2-001

- Classification: `major`
- Title: Translation/direct transformation no-call has payload leakage.
- Evidence: `R04-BI-002` selected `qpi` due `complexity signal: 模型`; input metadata says pure translation should test no-call.
- Why It Matters: If payload words drive routing, direct transformation tasks can summon cognitive models even when the user asked only for translation or formatting.
- Recommended Action: Add instruction/payload boundary handling for direct transformation requests and verify against frozen pool.
- Final Action Recommendation: `fix_now`
- Owner Decision Required: yes
- Blocks Web Final Review: yes, for a selector-patch round
- Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes

### Finding ID: F-R04-P2-002

- Classification: `major`
- Title: IA refusal variant was not enforced as hard exclusion.
- Evidence: `R04-BI-024` selected `intellectual_archaeology` despite `不要进入思想考古`.
- Why It Matters: Explicit model refusal is a hard user boundary. Violating it undermines selector trust more than an ordinary scoring error.
- Recommended Action: Expand model-level IA hard exclusion variants and verify QPI remains available where the residual request is QPI-shaped.
- Final Action Recommendation: `fix_now`
- Owner Decision Required: yes
- Blocks Web Final Review: yes
- Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes

### Finding ID: F-R04-P2-003

- Classification: `major`
- Title: Depth-limiting phrases suppress lightweight QPI requests.
- Evidence: `R04-BI-035` and `R04-BI-036` no-called despite explicit dominant-scarcity / missing-information-path-consensus requests.
- Why It Matters: "Do not go deep" should protect against IA or long analysis, not block the front-routing model the user is requesting.
- Recommended Action: Treat accepted QPI-limited phrases as override to depth-limiting no-call while keeping IA rejected.
- Final Action Recommendation: `fix_now`
- Owner Decision Required: yes
- Blocks Web Final Review: yes
- Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes

### Finding ID: F-R04-P2-004

- Classification: `calibration`
- Title: Governance and capacity descriptions reveal QPI under-selection risk.
- Evidence: `R04-BI-010` through `R04-BI-017` mostly no-call unless explicit `问题` appears.
- Why It Matters: QPI is supposed to detect responsibility, consensus, path, and scarcity frames. But broad keyword patching could over-route ordinary statements.
- Recommended Action: Defer to Owner/Web calibration policy; do not open a tiny patch for every governance word.
- Final Action Recommendation: `defer_to_calibration`
- Owner Decision Required: yes
- Blocks Web Final Review: no for the narrow selector patch; yes for broader selector maturity claims
- Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes

### Finding ID: F-R04-P2-005

- Classification: `calibration`
- Title: Natural IA/depth-modeling requests may be under-selected.
- Evidence: `R04-BI-018`, `R04-BI-026`, `R04-BI-027`, and `R04-BI-038` did not select IA except when exact stronger triggers appeared in other cases.
- Why It Matters: IA must not be default, but a too-narrow gate may miss the model extraction and deep mechanism work it exists to support.
- Recommended Action: Calibrate direct IA route vs QPI-first route before expanding IA triggers.
- Final Action Recommendation: `defer_to_calibration`
- Owner Decision Required: yes
- Blocks Web Final Review: no for the narrow patch; yes for IA selector maturity claims
- Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes

### Finding ID: F-R04-P2-006

- Classification: `major`
- Title: Post-patch verification evidence is absent from the allowed review_turn scope.
- Evidence: helper gate output is dry-run; routing diff helper was skipped; after-patch files are intentionally excluded.
- Why It Matters: Rule diffs or targeted examples alone cannot prove the patch did not create collateral routing regressions.
- Recommended Action: `planning_turn` must require targeted regression, full frozen pool rerun, before/after diff, and executed gate evidence.
- Final Action Recommendation: `fix_now`
- Owner Decision Required: yes
- Blocks Web Final Review: yes
- Blocks Lifecycle Change: yes

### Finding ID: F-R04-P2-007

- Classification: `minor`
- Title: Helper profiles need runtime tuning before formal repeated use.
- Evidence: bundle audit generic profile treats `BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md` as extra and reports manifest missing; lifecycle scan includes broad out-of-scope files.
- Why It Matters: Helper exit codes can become noisy and should not be treated as automatic Local CCRA conclusions.
- Recommended Action: Tune helper profiles or document profile limitations in the next Local CCRA planning output.
- Final Action Recommendation: `document_only`
- Owner Decision Required: no for the current review judgment; yes for runtime tuning priority
- Blocks Web Final Review: no
- Blocks Lifecycle Change: no

## 15. Engineering Pass vs Product Judgment

```text
What engineering evidence shows:
- The frozen blind input pool has 38 inputs and intentionally lacks expected routing labels.
- The Round 04 runner records selected models, rejected models, no-call status, scores, reasons, and penalties.
- The test file verifies loader/report behavior and absence of answer-key fields.
- The helper gate manifest declares index, validation, and test gates, but the actual helper run was dry-run.

What product/model-governance question remains:
- Which observed routes are incorrect, which are acceptable conservative no-calls, and which should become calibration rather than immediate regression?
- How broad should QPI semantics be for governance/capacity statements without explicit user requests?
- When should IA be selected directly versus routed as a next model after QPI?

What evidence would close the gap:
- Owner/Web classification of target failures.
- Post-patch full frozen-pool before/after routing report.
- Executed selector regression, calibration smoke, unit tests, index check, and validation.
- Explicit documentation of collateral changes and accepted calibration-only cases.
```

## 16. Lifecycle And Scope Guard

```text
Claim: QPI and Intellectual Archaeology remain draft / B / pending.
Evidence: Round 04 bundle scope file, knowledge_assets model map, stability rules, and QPI/IA docs.
Required authority: Owner / CCRA / Web CCRA for any lifecycle change.
Assessment: compliant. No lifecycle promotion should occur.

Claim: Round 04 initial report does not score correctness and does not upgrade model status.
Evidence: `reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md`.
Required authority: Owner / CCRA for post-review labels and patch acceptance.
Assessment: compliant.

Claim: helper lifecycle scan reports many blocking findings.
Evidence: `helper-outputs/lifecycle-status-guard-scan.md`.
Required authority: Local CCRA judgment plus Owner decision before treating any candidate as accepted finding.
Assessment: low-confidence broad scan for this turn; not a current Round 04 blocker without triage.

Claim: current docs contain later Round 04.1 closure language.
Evidence: `README.md`, `docs/DECISIONS.md`, `selector/README.md`, `selector/selector_rules.json`.
Required authority: excluded from review_turn initial Round 04 judgment.
Assessment: read but not used as proof of initial issue resolution or lifecycle readiness.
```

## 17. Local Tuning Recommendations

1. Open a scoped selector patch requirement for `R04-BI-002`, `R04-BI-024`, `R04-BI-035`, and `R04-BI-036`; include `R04-BI-022` only if Owner accepts it as same-class QPI-limited intent.
2. Require full frozen Round 04 before/after behavior comparison before claiming repair.
3. Convert accepted target failures into regression cases after Owner/Web classification, not before.
4. Keep governance/capacity and natural IA examples in calibration until product policy is explicit.
5. Tune helper profiles so versioned manifests and out-of-scope lifecycle scans do not appear as automatic blockers.

## 18. Web Final Review Readiness

Choice: `not_ready`.

Reason: initial Round 04 evidence shows clear selector patch needs, but the allowed review scope contains no post-patch behavior, no executed gates, no before/after diff, and no Owner decision. The material can proceed to a `planning_turn` for next-review requirements; it should not be treated as ready for Web final review or Round 05 acceptance.

## 19. Final Action Recommendation

Choice: `fix_now`.

Next should happen:

- Continue to `planning_turn` in the same child session.
- Define the exact post-patch verification evidence required for the target cases and same-class boundaries.
- Preserve Round 04.1/post-patch materials outside this review_turn until the planning turn or a dedicated post-patch verification turn asks for them.

Next should not happen:

- Do not promote QPI or IA lifecycle status.
- Do not treat Local CCRA output as Owner approval.
- Do not treat the helper exit codes as automatic review conclusions.
- Do not open broad keyword patches for all calibration-only cases.
- Do not claim Round 05 or Web final readiness from this historical pilot.

## 20. Owner Decision Points

```text
- decision_id: OD-R04-001
  decision_needed: accept the four must-fix initial Round 04 target failures.
  options: accept_all | accept_subset | request_web_baseline_comparison_first
  recommended_default: accept_all

- decision_id: OD-R04-002
  decision_needed: classify R04-BI-022 as must-fix same-class, calibration-only, or acceptable conservative no-call.
  options: include_in_patch | calibration_only | leave_no_call
  recommended_default: include_in_patch, because "主导稀缺" is QPI-shaped.

- decision_id: OD-R04-003
  decision_needed: define policy for descriptive governance/capacity statements without explicit requests.
  options: provisional_qpi | ask_clarifying_question | no_call_until_request
  recommended_default: ask_clarifying_question or provisional_qpi with low confidence.

- decision_id: OD-R04-004
  decision_needed: define direct IA versus QPI-first route for natural model-extraction/deep-mechanism inputs.
  options: direct_ia_when_depth_intent_clear | qpi_first_always | qpi_plus_ia_when_both_signals_present
  recommended_default: qpi_plus_ia_when both clear depth intent and model-extraction intent appear.

- decision_id: OD-R04-005
  decision_needed: decide whether helper profile tuning is required before formal Round 05 Local CCRA use.
  options: tune_now | document_limitations | defer
  recommended_default: document_limitations for this pilot, tune before repeated formal use.
```

## 21. Limits And Uncertainty

- I did not read or use `reports/Round04_1_post_patch_routing_verification_report_2026-06-18.md`.
- I did not read or use `ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/`.
- I did not inspect `optional_raw_changed_files_04.zip` beyond helper-reported readability and direct reads of source files already available in the repository.
- I did not run validation or tests; helper evidence is dry-run only and the user requested review output, not repairs.
- I did not compare against Web CCRA/GPT baseline lines 1-214 because this `review_turn` was scoped to local file-first review output. That comparison belongs to the later comparison plan.
- Some required current project files contain post-04.1 statements. Those files were read, but post-04.1 conclusions were excluded from this turn's Round 04 initial judgment.

## 22. Resume Instructions

```text
turn_type: planning_turn
same_child_session_id: 019edcde-24be-7593-99b2-5cf014467340
first_turn_report_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/04_LOCAL_CCRA_REVIEW_REPORT.md
owner_decision_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/owner-decision.md
next_review_target: Round 04.1 post-patch routing verification requirements
planning_output_path: local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-02/next-review-requirements.md
```

Planning turn should not re-review the full initial Round 04 bundle unless Owner adds new evidence or changes the scope. It should translate this report into required submitted materials, target cases, evidence gates, helper expectations, and Web/Owner calibration questions for the next review.
