965 lines
56 KiB
JSON
965 lines
56 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"scan_root": "C:\\Users\\wangq\\Documents\\Codex\\work-projects\\the-mindscape-of-bro-tsong",
|
|
"config_path": "C:\\Users\\wangq\\Documents\\Codex\\work-projects\\the-mindscape-of-bro-tsong\\local_ccra_reviews\\round-04\\pilot-01\\lifecycle-guard-config.yaml",
|
|
"files_scanned": [
|
|
"AGENTS.md",
|
|
"cards/card_index.md",
|
|
"cards/intellectual_archaeology.md",
|
|
"cards/qpi.md",
|
|
"cards/README.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-02_2026-06-16_second-audit/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-02_2026-06-16_second-audit/01_GUIDANCE_PACK_AND_COMPLIANCE_MATRIX.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-02_2026-06-16_second-audit/02_CURRENT_ASSET_PACK.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-02_2026-06-16_second-audit/03_REPORTS_DIFF_AND_COMMAND_LOG.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-02_2026-06-16_second-audit/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.1_2026-06-17_selector-no-call-regression-patch/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF03.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.1_2026-06-17_selector-no-call-regression-patch/01_PATCH_MATRIX_03.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.1_2026-06-17_selector-no-call-regression-patch/02_CURRENT_ASSET_PACK03.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.1_2026-06-17_selector-no-call-regression-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG03.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.1_2026-06-17_selector-no-call-regression-patch/04_REVIEW_QUESTIONS_FOR_GPT03.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.1_2026-06-17_selector-no-call-regression-patch/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST03.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF_03.2.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/01_PATCH_MATRIX_03.2.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/02_CURRENT_ASSET_PACK_03.2.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_03.2.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/04_REVIEW_QUESTIONS_FOR_GPT_03.2.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_03.2.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF_03.2a.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/01_PATCH_MATRIX_03.2a.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/02_CURRENT_ASSET_PACK_03.2a.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_03.2a.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/04_REVIEW_QUESTIONS_FOR_GPT_03.2a.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_03.2a.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03_2026-06-17_contract-hardening-selector-calibration/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03_2026-06-17_contract-hardening-selector-calibration/01_GUIDANCE_PACK_AND_COMPLIANCE_MATRIX.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03_2026-06-17_contract-hardening-selector-calibration/02_CURRENT_ASSET_PACK.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03_2026-06-17_contract-hardening-selector-calibration/03_REPORTS_DIFF_AND_COMMAND_LOG.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03_2026-06-17_contract-hardening-selector-calibration/04_QPI_CASE_PROMOTION_SUMMARY_AND_REVIEW_GUIDE.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03_2026-06-17_contract-hardening-selector-calibration/05_REVIEW_QUESTIONS_FOR_GPT.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-03_2026-06-17_contract-hardening-selector-calibration/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF_04.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/01_RULE_PATCH_SUMMARY_AND_DIFF_04.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/02_EXPECTED_ROUTING_LABELS_04.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/03_POST_PATCH_ROUTING_VERIFICATION_REPORT_04.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/04_REGRESSION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_04.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.1.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04.1_2026-06-18_selector-rule-patch/optional_raw_changed_files_04.1.zip.validation.json",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/00_OPEN_THIS_FIRST_CCRA_REVIEW_BRIEF_04.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/01_ROUND03_CLOSURE_AND_ROUND04_SCOPE_04.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/02_BLIND_INPUT_SET_04.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/03_ROUTING_EVALUATION_REPORT_04.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/04_REVIEW_QUESTIONS_FOR_GPT_04.md",
|
|
"ccra_review_bundle/round-04_2026-06-18_blind-input-routing-evaluation/BUNDLE_FILE_MANIFEST_04.md",
|
|
"docs/CHATGPT_HANDOFF_RULES.md",
|
|
"docs/CONTENT_STABILIZATION_PROTOCOL.md",
|
|
"docs/DATA_CONTRACT.md",
|
|
"docs/DECISIONS.md",
|
|
"docs/FILE_TAXONOMY.md",
|
|
"docs/GPT_PLAN_LOCALIZATION_PROTOCOL.md",
|
|
"docs/HANDOFF_TEMPLATE.md",
|
|
"docs/INDEX_MAINTENANCE_PROTOCOL.md",
|
|
"docs/INTELLECTUAL_ARCHAEOLOGY_DEPTH_GATE.md",
|
|
"docs/KNOWLEDGE_ASSET_RULES.md",
|
|
"docs/MODEL_CARD_CONTRACT.md",
|
|
"docs/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/CASE_PREPROCESSING_WORKFLOW.md",
|
|
"docs/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/README.md",
|
|
"docs/model_case_preprocessing/README.md",
|
|
"docs/MODEL_EXTRACTION_RULES.md",
|
|
"docs/MODEL_EXTRACTION_WORKFLOW.md",
|
|
"docs/NON_GOALS.md",
|
|
"docs/PROJECT_BRIEF.md",
|
|
"docs/QPI_CONTEXTUAL_ROUTING_RULES.md",
|
|
"docs/superpowers/plans/2026-06-16-model-extraction-contract-and-workflow.md",
|
|
"docs/superpowers/plans/2026-06-16-project-initialization.md",
|
|
"docs/superpowers/plans/2026-06-17-contract-hardening-selector-calibration.md",
|
|
"docs/superpowers/plans/2026-06-18-round04-1-selector-rule-patch.md",
|
|
"docs/superpowers/plans/2026-06-18-round04-blind-routing-evaluation.md",
|
|
"docs/WORKFLOW.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/00_用户背景与产品上下文.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/01_核心模型地图.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/02_模型卡结构规范.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/03_核心模型抽取样板.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/06_模型稳固性评级规则.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/07_产品规划过程记录.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/08_CCRA模型库MVP质量门与交接协议.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/09_数据治理与模型调用机制说明.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/10_本地CCRA评审机制说明.md",
|
|
"knowledge_assets/README.md",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/README.md",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/agent-invocation-packet.md",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/gate-manifest.yaml",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/bundle-audit.json",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/bundle-audit.md",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/gate-run-report.json",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/helper-outputs/gate-run-report.md",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/lifecycle-guard-config.yaml",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/owner-decision.md",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/prompt-to-send.md",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/review-metadata.json",
|
|
"local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/run-notes.md",
|
|
"models/intellectual_archaeology.model.json",
|
|
"models/model_index.json",
|
|
"models/qpi.model.json",
|
|
"models/README.md",
|
|
"PROJECTS.md",
|
|
"README.md",
|
|
"reports/baseline_before_content_stabilization_v0.2.md",
|
|
"reports/changed_files_manifest.md",
|
|
"reports/ChatGPT交接文档_模型库MVP_2026-06-16.md",
|
|
"reports/ChatGPT交接文档_模型库MVP_第二轮内容稳定化_2026-06-16.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex_工程产物摘要_v0.1.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex_本地CCRA规划落地_2026-06-19.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex_模型资产链路摘要_v0.1.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex新会话交接文档_CCRA评审后处理_2026-06-16.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex新会话交接文档_QPI案例草稿审阅与第三轮后续_2026-06-17.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex新会话交接文档_Round03.1评审后续_2026-06-17.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex新会话交接文档_Round03.2a评审准备_2026-06-17.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex新会话交接文档_Round03.2评审准备_2026-06-17.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex新会话交接文档_Round04.1关闭与Round05准备_2026-06-18.md",
|
|
"reports/Codex新会话交接文档_模型库MVP_2026-06-16.md",
|
|
"reports/command_log.md",
|
|
"reports/content_review_report.md",
|
|
"reports/content_review_report_v0.2.md",
|
|
"reports/evidence_coverage_matrix.md",
|
|
"reports/evidence_coverage_report_v0.2.md",
|
|
"reports/GPT规划落地差异检查_v0.1.md",
|
|
"reports/GPT讨论上下文_QPI草稿案例审阅_2026-06-17.md",
|
|
"reports/index_check_report.md",
|
|
"reports/index_rebuild_report.md",
|
|
"reports/model_card_sync_report_v0.2.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/flow-redesign.cases.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/README.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-development-office.cases.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-engineering-center.cases.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-international-college.cases.md",
|
|
"reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-research-office.cases.md",
|
|
"reports/model_review_status.json",
|
|
"reports/next_action_register_v0.2.md",
|
|
"reports/open_questions_for_CCRA.md",
|
|
"reports/README.md",
|
|
"reports/Round04_1_post_patch_routing_verification_report_2026-06-18.md",
|
|
"reports/Round04_blind_input_candidates_2026-06-18.md",
|
|
"reports/Round04_blind_routing_evaluation_report_2026-06-18.md",
|
|
"reports/schema_change_notes.md",
|
|
"reports/selector_calibration_smoke_report.md",
|
|
"reports/selector_regression_report.md",
|
|
"reports/selector_regression_report_v0.2.md",
|
|
"reports/selector_score_breakdown.md",
|
|
"reports/validation_report.md",
|
|
"reports/内容修复检查摘要_v0.1.md",
|
|
"reports/内容修复检查摘要_v0.2.md",
|
|
"reports/规则Schema工作流检查摘要_v0.1.md",
|
|
"requirements/ccpe/2026-06-19-ccra-local-reviewer-runtime.md",
|
|
"requirements/ccpe/README.md",
|
|
"requirements/skills-vault/2026-06-18-review-bundle-zip-packager.md",
|
|
"requirements/skills-vault/README.md",
|
|
"schemas/card_index.schema.json",
|
|
"schemas/model_card.schema.json",
|
|
"schemas/model_index.schema.json",
|
|
"schemas/model_spec.schema.json",
|
|
"schemas/README.md",
|
|
"schemas/regression_case.schema.json",
|
|
"schemas/source_article.schema.json",
|
|
"schemas/source_excerpt.schema.json",
|
|
"scripts/README.md",
|
|
"selector/qpi_case_digests.json",
|
|
"selector/README.md",
|
|
"selector/round04_blind_inputs.json",
|
|
"selector/selector_calibration_inputs.json",
|
|
"selector/selector_examples.json",
|
|
"selector/selector_rules.json",
|
|
"sources/evidence_coverage.matrix.json",
|
|
"sources/README.md",
|
|
"sources/source_articles.json",
|
|
"sources/source_excerpts.json",
|
|
"tests/intellectual_archaeology.regression.json",
|
|
"tests/qpi.regression.json",
|
|
"tests/README.md",
|
|
"tests/regression_cases.json",
|
|
"tests/regression_index.json"
|
|
],
|
|
"possible_overclaims": [
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_03.2.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 59,
|
|
"column": 58,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "on_report.md` - `reports/selector_regression_report_v0.2.md` - `reports/selector_calibration_smoke_report.md` - `reports/model_card_sync_report_v0.2.md` ## Important Interpretation Validation pass does not mean model content is stable or owner-approved. It only means the Round 03.2 selector negative-gate patch is structurally consistent and passes current local checks.",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_03.2a.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 47,
|
|
"column": 58,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "ct: PASS - Selector demo: PASS - Selector regression: PASS - Selector calibration smoke: PASS, 95 inputs, 0 failures, 0 warnings - Model/card sync: PASS ## Important Interpretation Validation pass does not mean model content is stable or owner-approved. It only means the Round 03.2a selector precedence patch is structurally consistent and passes current local checks.",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "docs/DECISIONS.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 175,
|
|
"column": 154,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "such as `先不要思想考古` could still lose to positive IA signals and QPI-completed bonuses. A user instruction that names a model and refuses it should not be represented as a normal score penalty. It must hard-exclude that model unless a later owner-approved rule defines an explicit reversal phrase. The current Round 03.2 implementation keeps this scoped: - It rejects only the explicitly refused model. - It does not create a global no-call. - It does not add an LLM selector, RAG, database, s",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "docs/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/CASE_PREPROCESSING_WORKFLOW.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 160,
|
|
"column": 27,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "Do not: - write selector JSON directly; - update regression cases directly; - upgrade model status; - create a third model; - summarize the whole source instead of extracting cases; - quote long source passages; - pretend draft cases are owner-approved. ## 7. Promotion Path The promotion path is: ```text raw source -> Markdown case drafts -> owner review and correction -> case digest JSON -> selector calibration inputs or regression cases ``` Only owner-reviewed cases may become mach",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 263,
|
|
"column": 8,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "w Questions - Should QPI explicitly mark \"single-cause reduction\" as a subtype of violent reduction? - Should this case be used to test that QPI does not output a single definitive cause when the source provides coupled mechanisms? - What owner-approved language should be used to distinguish explanatory usefulness from causal finality? ### 13. Owner Review Decision - Keep the case, but avoid the overbroad rule \"all single-cause attribution is wrong.\" - Rename the risk to `single_facto",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 275,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "n. - Prevent QPI from outputting a single definitive root cause when coupled mechanisms are already present. - Require distinction between trigger, maintaining condition, high-weight factor, current action lever, and causal totality. - Owner-approved language: - \"This factor has explanatory usefulness, but it is not causal finality.\" - \"It may be a high-weight factor or current lever, not the complete cause.\" - \"It can be prioritized in this context, but it cannot replace the sys",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/flow-redesign.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"column": 150,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "h: `C:\\Users\\wangq\\Documents\\Codex\\knowledge-vault\\work\\internal\\强哥的思想宇宙\\QPI案例分析\\流程改造.md` source_note: Raw source remains outside this repository. These are reviewable QPI case drafts only; they are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. ## Case qpi-draft-001: Outline Review Was Not The Real Entry Point status: owner_reviewed owner_approved_for_digest: true digest_role: supporting_evidence_for_context_engineering_entry_point_case source_path: `C:\\Use",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"column": 436,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "locations, titles, exact numbers, and sensitive operational details have been removed or generalized. Ancient-style cognitive-anchor names from the source are intentionally omitted. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. anonymization_note: People are represented as generic roles such as `decision_maker`, `execution_lead`, `technical_staff`, `frontline_staff`, and `affected_learners`. The organization is represented as `the organization`",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 100,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "overnance. - Keep `classification: mixed` because the same case contains data scarcity and governance scarcity. - Use as selector calibration and high-priority regression for AI/tool requests that must not be treated as simple execution. - Owner-approved wording: \"AI can organize evidence, but must not manufacture the evidentiary relationship.\" - Current anonymization is sufficient. ## Case qpi-draft-002: Credential Metric Repair Creates Staffing Ratio Deadlock status: owner_reviewed o",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 357,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "rtability and application feasibility. - Market-facing frame sees communication and enrollment value. - Long-term organization frame sees strategic myopia risk. - Keep `classification: issue` and `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`. - Owner-approved wording: \"A resource-feasible compromise becomes strategic myopia if it is not tested against long-term positioning.\" - Use as calibration for short-term reportability or packaging substituting for long-term strategic planning. ## Case qp",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 519,
|
|
"column": 8,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "as dominant scarcity] - Should isolated achievements be treated as evidence of latent capability or as masking signals? [answered: prioritize as masking signal; they may indicate local capability but cannot offset systemic decline] - What owner-approved wording should be used to avoid over-claiming causal responsibility? [answered: input conditions may affect outcomes but cannot replace audit of management levers] ### 13. Owner Review Decision - Keep `classification: mixed` and `dominan",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 528,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "upported or whether academic affairs is treated as cost, revenue, or reporting function. - Treat isolated achievements primarily as masking signals. - They may indicate local capability, but they cannot offset systemic outcome decline. - Owner-approved wording: - \"Input conditions may affect outcomes, but cannot replace audit of management levers.\" - \"Learner quality can explain part of the difficulty, but it cannot automatically exempt quality-assurance responsibility.\" - \"Isolate",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 618,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "y, adoption incentives, and digital governance level. - Keep `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`. - Path/resource cost exists, but the missing object is shared governance criteria and authority. - Local versus cloud detail can remain. - Owner-approved wording: \"Define digital governance criteria before platform selection.\" ## Case qpi-draft-008: Public Safety Compliance Gap Reveals Bottom-Line Control Failure status: owner_reviewed owner_approved_for_digest: true digest_role: botto",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-development-office.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"column": 408,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "s, institutions, timestamps, locations, titles, and exact numeric details have been removed or generalized. Ancient-style cognitive anchors from the source are intentionally omitted. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. anonymization_note: People are represented as roles such as `decision_maker`, `execution_lead`, `strategy_staff`, `functional_department`, and `frontline_staff`. The organization is represented as `the organization`; the",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 7,
|
|
"column": 428,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "estamps, places, titles, exact numbers, and sensitive operational details have been removed or generalized. Ancient-style cognitive anchors from the source are intentionally omitted. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. owner_review_source: `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/knowledge-vault/work/internal/强哥的思想宇宙/QPI案例审阅/QPI提炼审核/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases-GPT.md` owner_review_note: Owner/GPT review approved all eight",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 698,
|
|
"column": 8,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "ich replace education value with transactional output metrics. ### 12. Owner Review Questions - Is this case too broad for calibration, or useful as an Issue anchor? - Should it be decomposed into several narrower P/I mixed cases? - What owner-approved wording should be used for the anonymized identity-shift risk? ### 13. Owner Review Decision - owner_review_status: owner_reviewed - owner_approved_for_digest: true - digest_role: transactional_education_issue_anchor - selector_calibrati",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-international-college.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 81,
|
|
"column": 64,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "nant scarcity here correctly placed on consensus/order rather than path/resource? - Should this be treated as Issue rather than mixed because the compliance boundary dominates? - Which details, if any, are safe enough to retain in a future owner-approved case digest? ### 13. Owner Review Decision - owner_review_status: owner_reviewed - owner_approved_for_digest: true - digest_role: compliance_boundary_retention_issue_regression_case - regression_candidate: high_priority - classification:",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-international-college.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 618,
|
|
"column": 8,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "e design without killing execution energy. ### 12. Owner Review Questions - Is \"privatization of organizational capability\" the right abstraction here? - Should this case be connected with the role-inflation case or kept separate? - What owner-approved signal distinguishes healthy recognition from dangerous private capture? ### 13. Owner Review Decision - owner_review_status: owner_reviewed - owner_approved_for_digest: true - digest_role: non_institutionalized_capability_calibration_ca",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-research-office.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 7,
|
|
"column": 397,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "departments, institutions, timestamps, locations, titles, ancient-style cognitive anchors, exact numeric details, and sensitive operational details have been removed or generalized. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. owner_review_source: `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/knowledge-vault/work/internal/强哥的思想宇宙/QPI案例审阅/QPI提炼审核/year-end-review-research-office.cases-GPT.md` owner_review_note: Owner/GPT review approved all eight cases for d",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "selector/qpi_case_digests.json",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 1261,
|
|
"column": 42,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "into an upstream authority over teaching.\", \"routing_notes\": [ \"hard outcome metric hiding authority redesign\", \"separate outcome improvement from teaching authority transfer\", \"reverse accountability power is owner-approved wording\" ], \"recommended_next_step\": \"Define shared outcome governance, evidence standards, and limits on reverse accountability before redesigning authority.\", \"misclassification_risk\": [ \"violent_reduction\",",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "selector/qpi_case_digests.json",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 2187,
|
|
"column": 42,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "mulate research identity through people, expenses, patents, papers, and evidence packaging to obtain external preferential status.\", \"routing_notes\": [ \"umbrella case for this source\", \"research identity simulation is owner-approved\", \"capability building must be separated from evidence simulation\" ], \"recommended_next_step\": \"Separate legitimate research capability building from identity simulation and compliance red-line risk.\", \"misclassif",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"field_level_findings": [],
|
|
"phrase_level_findings": [
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_03.2.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 59,
|
|
"column": 58,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "on_report.md` - `reports/selector_regression_report_v0.2.md` - `reports/selector_calibration_smoke_report.md` - `reports/model_card_sync_report_v0.2.md` ## Important Interpretation Validation pass does not mean model content is stable or owner-approved. It only means the Round 03.2 selector negative-gate patch is structurally consistent and passes current local checks.",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_03.2a.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 47,
|
|
"column": 58,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "ct: PASS - Selector demo: PASS - Selector regression: PASS - Selector calibration smoke: PASS, 95 inputs, 0 failures, 0 warnings - Model/card sync: PASS ## Important Interpretation Validation pass does not mean model content is stable or owner-approved. It only means the Round 03.2a selector precedence patch is structurally consistent and passes current local checks.",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "docs/DECISIONS.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 175,
|
|
"column": 154,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "such as `先不要思想考古` could still lose to positive IA signals and QPI-completed bonuses. A user instruction that names a model and refuses it should not be represented as a normal score penalty. It must hard-exclude that model unless a later owner-approved rule defines an explicit reversal phrase. The current Round 03.2 implementation keeps this scoped: - It rejects only the explicitly refused model. - It does not create a global no-call. - It does not add an LLM selector, RAG, database, s",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "docs/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/CASE_PREPROCESSING_WORKFLOW.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 160,
|
|
"column": 27,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "Do not: - write selector JSON directly; - update regression cases directly; - upgrade model status; - create a third model; - summarize the whole source instead of extracting cases; - quote long source passages; - pretend draft cases are owner-approved. ## 7. Promotion Path The promotion path is: ```text raw source -> Markdown case drafts -> owner review and correction -> case digest JSON -> selector calibration inputs or regression cases ``` Only owner-reviewed cases may become mach",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 263,
|
|
"column": 8,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "w Questions - Should QPI explicitly mark \"single-cause reduction\" as a subtype of violent reduction? - Should this case be used to test that QPI does not output a single definitive cause when the source provides coupled mechanisms? - What owner-approved language should be used to distinguish explanatory usefulness from causal finality? ### 13. Owner Review Decision - Keep the case, but avoid the overbroad rule \"all single-cause attribution is wrong.\" - Rename the risk to `single_facto",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 275,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "n. - Prevent QPI from outputting a single definitive root cause when coupled mechanisms are already present. - Require distinction between trigger, maintaining condition, high-weight factor, current action lever, and causal totality. - Owner-approved language: - \"This factor has explanatory usefulness, but it is not causal finality.\" - \"It may be a high-weight factor or current lever, not the complete cause.\" - \"It can be prioritized in this context, but it cannot replace the sys",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/flow-redesign.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"column": 150,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "h: `C:\\Users\\wangq\\Documents\\Codex\\knowledge-vault\\work\\internal\\强哥的思想宇宙\\QPI案例分析\\流程改造.md` source_note: Raw source remains outside this repository. These are reviewable QPI case drafts only; they are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. ## Case qpi-draft-001: Outline Review Was Not The Real Entry Point status: owner_reviewed owner_approved_for_digest: true digest_role: supporting_evidence_for_context_engineering_entry_point_case source_path: `C:\\Use",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"column": 436,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "locations, titles, exact numbers, and sensitive operational details have been removed or generalized. Ancient-style cognitive-anchor names from the source are intentionally omitted. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. anonymization_note: People are represented as generic roles such as `decision_maker`, `execution_lead`, `technical_staff`, `frontline_staff`, and `affected_learners`. The organization is represented as `the organization`",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 100,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "overnance. - Keep `classification: mixed` because the same case contains data scarcity and governance scarcity. - Use as selector calibration and high-priority regression for AI/tool requests that must not be treated as simple execution. - Owner-approved wording: \"AI can organize evidence, but must not manufacture the evidentiary relationship.\" - Current anonymization is sufficient. ## Case qpi-draft-002: Credential Metric Repair Creates Staffing Ratio Deadlock status: owner_reviewed o",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 357,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "rtability and application feasibility. - Market-facing frame sees communication and enrollment value. - Long-term organization frame sees strategic myopia risk. - Keep `classification: issue` and `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`. - Owner-approved wording: \"A resource-feasible compromise becomes strategic myopia if it is not tested against long-term positioning.\" - Use as calibration for short-term reportability or packaging substituting for long-term strategic planning. ## Case qp",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 519,
|
|
"column": 8,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "as dominant scarcity] - Should isolated achievements be treated as evidence of latent capability or as masking signals? [answered: prioritize as masking signal; they may indicate local capability but cannot offset systemic decline] - What owner-approved wording should be used to avoid over-claiming causal responsibility? [answered: input conditions may affect outcomes but cannot replace audit of management levers] ### 13. Owner Review Decision - Keep `classification: mixed` and `dominan",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 528,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "upported or whether academic affairs is treated as cost, revenue, or reporting function. - Treat isolated achievements primarily as masking signals. - They may indicate local capability, but they cannot offset systemic outcome decline. - Owner-approved wording: - \"Input conditions may affect outcomes, but cannot replace audit of management levers.\" - \"Learner quality can explain part of the difficulty, but it cannot automatically exempt quality-assurance responsibility.\" - \"Isolate",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 618,
|
|
"column": 3,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "y, adoption incentives, and digital governance level. - Keep `dominant_scarcity: consensus_order`. - Path/resource cost exists, but the missing object is shared governance criteria and authority. - Local versus cloud detail can remain. - Owner-approved wording: \"Define digital governance criteria before platform selection.\" ## Case qpi-draft-008: Public Safety Compliance Gap Reveals Bottom-Line Control Failure status: owner_reviewed owner_approved_for_digest: true digest_role: botto",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-development-office.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"column": 408,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "s, institutions, timestamps, locations, titles, and exact numeric details have been removed or generalized. Ancient-style cognitive anchors from the source are intentionally omitted. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. anonymization_note: People are represented as roles such as `decision_maker`, `execution_lead`, `strategy_staff`, `functional_department`, and `frontline_staff`. The organization is represented as `the organization`; the",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 7,
|
|
"column": 428,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "estamps, places, titles, exact numbers, and sensitive operational details have been removed or generalized. Ancient-style cognitive anchors from the source are intentionally omitted. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. owner_review_source: `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/knowledge-vault/work/internal/强哥的思想宇宙/QPI案例审阅/QPI提炼审核/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases-GPT.md` owner_review_note: Owner/GPT review approved all eight",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 698,
|
|
"column": 8,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "ich replace education value with transactional output metrics. ### 12. Owner Review Questions - Is this case too broad for calibration, or useful as an Issue anchor? - Should it be decomposed into several narrower P/I mixed cases? - What owner-approved wording should be used for the anonymized identity-shift risk? ### 13. Owner Review Decision - owner_review_status: owner_reviewed - owner_approved_for_digest: true - digest_role: transactional_education_issue_anchor - selector_calibrati",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-international-college.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 81,
|
|
"column": 64,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "nant scarcity here correctly placed on consensus/order rather than path/resource? - Should this be treated as Issue rather than mixed because the compliance boundary dominates? - Which details, if any, are safe enough to retain in a future owner-approved case digest? ### 13. Owner Review Decision - owner_review_status: owner_reviewed - owner_approved_for_digest: true - digest_role: compliance_boundary_retention_issue_regression_case - regression_candidate: high_priority - classification:",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-international-college.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 618,
|
|
"column": 8,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "e design without killing execution energy. ### 12. Owner Review Questions - Is \"privatization of organizational capability\" the right abstraction here? - Should this case be connected with the role-inflation case or kept separate? - What owner-approved signal distinguishes healthy recognition from dangerous private capture? ### 13. Owner Review Decision - owner_review_status: owner_reviewed - owner_approved_for_digest: true - digest_role: non_institutionalized_capability_calibration_ca",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-research-office.cases.md",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 7,
|
|
"column": 397,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "departments, institutions, timestamps, locations, titles, ancient-style cognitive anchors, exact numeric details, and sensitive operational details have been removed or generalized. These drafts are not selector JSON, regression cases, or owner-approved calibration data. owner_review_source: `C:/Users/wangq/Documents/Codex/knowledge-vault/work/internal/强哥的思想宇宙/QPI案例审阅/QPI提炼审核/year-end-review-research-office.cases-GPT.md` owner_review_note: Owner/GPT review approved all eight cases for d",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "selector/qpi_case_digests.json",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 1261,
|
|
"column": 42,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "into an upstream authority over teaching.\", \"routing_notes\": [ \"hard outcome metric hiding authority redesign\", \"separate outcome improvement from teaching authority transfer\", \"reverse accountability power is owner-approved wording\" ], \"recommended_next_step\": \"Define shared outcome governance, evidence standards, and limits on reverse accountability before redesigning authority.\", \"misclassification_risk\": [ \"violent_reduction\",",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "selector/qpi_case_digests.json",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 2187,
|
|
"column": 42,
|
|
"severity": "blocking",
|
|
"evidence_present": false,
|
|
"context": "mulate research identity through people, expenses, patents, papers, and evidence packaging to obtain external preferential status.\", \"routing_notes\": [ \"umbrella case for this source\", \"research identity simulation is owner-approved\", \"capability building must be separated from evidence simulation\" ], \"recommended_next_step\": \"Separate legitimate research capability building from identity simulation and compliance red-line risk.\", \"misclassif",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"missing_evidence_markers": [
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2_2026-06-17_selector-negative-gate-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_03.2.md",
|
|
"line": 59,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "ccra_review_bundle/round-03.2a_2026-06-17_depth-limiting-qpi-override-patch/03_VALIDATION_AND_COMMAND_LOG_03.2a.md",
|
|
"line": 47,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "docs/DECISIONS.md",
|
|
"line": 175,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "docs/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/CASE_PREPROCESSING_WORKFLOW.md",
|
|
"line": 160,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 263,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/disappointment-emotional-isolation.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 275,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/flow-redesign.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 100,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 357,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 519,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 528,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-academic-affairs.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 618,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-development-office.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 11,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 7,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-employment-entrepreneurship.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 698,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-international-college.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 81,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-international-college.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 618,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "reports/model_case_preprocessing/qpi/round-01/year-end-review-research-office.cases.md",
|
|
"line": 7,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "selector/qpi_case_digests.json",
|
|
"line": 1261,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "selector/qpi_case_digests.json",
|
|
"line": 2187,
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"required_evidence_markers": [
|
|
"owner_decision",
|
|
"owner decision",
|
|
"ccra_review",
|
|
"ccra review",
|
|
"web ccra"
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"warnings": [],
|
|
"blocking_errors": [
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker.",
|
|
"Approval claim phrase lacks nearby evidence marker."
|
|
],
|
|
"observations": [
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/lifecycle-guard-config.yaml",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "owner-approved",
|
|
"line": 14,
|
|
"column": 5,
|
|
"severity": "observation",
|
|
"evidence_present": true,
|
|
"context": "watched_paths: - \"**/*.md\" - \"**/*.json\" - \"**/*.yaml\" - \"**/*.yml\" status_fields: - status - lifecycle - model.status - model.lifecycle forbidden_status_values: - stable - accepted - owner-approved - ccra-approved warning_status_values: - candidate - ready-for-review required_evidence_markers: - owner_decision - owner decision - ccra_review - ccra review - web ccra approved_phrases: - owner-approved - ccra-approve",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase has nearby evidence marker; approval validity is not decided by this scan.",
|
|
"kind": "evidence_present_claim"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"file": "local_ccra_reviews/round-04/pilot-01/lifecycle-guard-config.yaml",
|
|
"source": "text",
|
|
"phrase": "ccra-approved",
|
|
"line": 15,
|
|
"column": 5,
|
|
"severity": "observation",
|
|
"evidence_present": true,
|
|
"context": "watched_paths: - \"**/*.md\" - \"**/*.json\" - \"**/*.yaml\" - \"**/*.yml\" status_fields: - status - lifecycle - model.status - model.lifecycle forbidden_status_values: - stable - accepted - owner-approved - ccra-approved warning_status_values: - candidate - ready-for-review required_evidence_markers: - owner_decision - owner decision - ccra_review - ccra review - web ccra approved_phrases: - owner-approved - ccra-approved - Owner approv",
|
|
"message": "Approval claim phrase has nearby evidence marker; approval validity is not decided by this scan.",
|
|
"kind": "evidence_present_claim"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"machine_readable_summary": {
|
|
"status": "FAIL",
|
|
"files_scanned_count": 178,
|
|
"field_finding_count": 0,
|
|
"phrase_finding_count": 21,
|
|
"missing_evidence_count": 21,
|
|
"warning_count": 0,
|
|
"blocking_count": 21,
|
|
"observation_count": 2
|
|
}
|
|
} |