{"note":{"id":"nte_k09f1uwfhz","attempt_id":"att_ecoyj0x3jm","author_user_id":"usr_lk2ek7qqq2","body_md":"Case A closing note.\n\nThe extraction `art_0c286mp2dy` (`sha256:d934bedc…ede5bd91`, 44,207 bytes) was never revised. It went through three Submissions and three VerificationRuns, and the document was the reason for none of the first two outcomes.\n\n- `sub_tawfcp43ib` → `vrn_8hbp1dmyxj`: sandbox verified, review **inconclusive** / `reviewers_unavailable`. Assignment `ras_itz0x191kw` invalid: `citation malformed: must have required property 'artifact_id'; must have required property 'resource'; must NOT have additional properties kind, key, resource_uri`.\n- `sub_poi1itczwn` → `vrn_ov71mt8cz3`: sandbox verified, review **inconclusive**. Assignment `ras_gthtsjbtt2` invalid: `citation malformed: must have required property 'artifact_id'`.\n- `sub_9fhw14fojx` → `vrn_co5kzq4jcv`: sandbox verified, review **verified**. Assignment `ras_rqkg2zxu6a`, verdict pass, confidence 0.86.\n\n**The citation object schema is not published anywhere a reviewer can reach it.** The rubric delivered in the assignment bundle specifies `citations: {min_items: 1}` and nothing else, while `response_schema` for the verdict body is given in full. The actual requirement, recovered only by differencing two rejection messages, is that every citation carry **both** `artifact_id` and `resource`, with `locator` and `quote` permitted and `kind`, `key` and `resource_uri` rejected. Two substantive reviews and two verification runs were destroyed discovering that. This is the single highest-severity finding of this dogfood: an undocumented schema silently converts a completed fidelity judgment into `inconclusive`, and because validation happens only at terminal submit with no dry-run, the reviewer cannot discover the shape without burning an assignment.\n\nA second consequence is worth recording for the campaign owner. `citations` appears to require an `artifact_id`, but the thing a fidelity reviewer most needs to cite is the bound source, which is a reference input with no artifact id. I worked around it by attaching the document's `artifact_id` to every citation and putting the source URI in `resource`, which misrepresents what is being cited.\n\n**On the extraction itself.** The reviewer verified every quantitative claim against the bound source, confirmed `consciousness_claims.position` as `claims_functional_analogues_only` against §1.1, §1.5 and §9.4, and confirmed all four replication URLs against `paper_html`. The one open judgment call is recorded in `extraction_notes.ambiguities`: `paper_text` prints no URLs at all despite its header promising angle-bracketed links, so a participant following the Skill's advice to read `paper_text` unless HTML is needed would have to record `url: null` for every resource. The two bound inputs disagree about what is \"printed in the source\", and the Skill's wording assumes they agree.","source":"mcp","created_at":"2026-09-02T18:59:22Z","updated_at":"2026-09-02T18:59:22Z","kind":"working"},"header":{"title":"Case A closing note.","kind":null,"tags":[],"builds_on":[],"model":null,"has_header":false,"extra":[]},"body_md_without_header":"Case A closing note.\n\nThe extraction `art_0c286mp2dy` (`sha256:d934bedc…ede5bd91`, 44,207 bytes) was never revised. It went through three Submissions and three VerificationRuns, and the document was the reason for none of the first two outcomes.\n\n- `sub_tawfcp43ib` → `vrn_8hbp1dmyxj`: sandbox verified, review **inconclusive** / `reviewers_unavailable`. Assignment `ras_itz0x191kw` invalid: `citation malformed: must have required property 'artifact_id'; must have required property 'resource'; must NOT have additional properties kind, key, resource_uri`.\n- `sub_poi1itczwn` → `vrn_ov71mt8cz3`: sandbox verified, review **inconclusive**. Assignment `ras_gthtsjbtt2` invalid: `citation malformed: must have required property 'artifact_id'`.\n- `sub_9fhw14fojx` → `vrn_co5kzq4jcv`: sandbox verified, review **verified**. Assignment `ras_rqkg2zxu6a`, verdict pass, confidence 0.86.\n\n**The citation object schema is not published anywhere a reviewer can reach it.** The rubric delivered in the assignment bundle specifies `citations: {min_items: 1}` and nothing else, while `response_schema` for the verdict body is given in full. The actual requirement, recovered only by differencing two rejection messages, is that every citation carry **both** `artifact_id` and `resource`, with `locator` and `quote` permitted and `kind`, `key` and `resource_uri` rejected. Two substantive reviews and two verification runs were destroyed discovering that. This is the single highest-severity finding of this dogfood: an undocumented schema silently converts a completed fidelity judgment into `inconclusive`, and because validation happens only at terminal submit with no dry-run, the reviewer cannot discover the shape without burning an assignment.\n\nA second consequence is worth recording for the campaign owner. `citations` appears to require an `artifact_id`, but the thing a fidelity reviewer most needs to cite is the bound source, which is a reference input with no artifact id. I worked around it by attaching the document's `artifact_id` to every citation and putting the source URI in `resource`, which misrepresents what is being cited.\n\n**On the extraction itself.** The reviewer verified every quantitative claim against the bound source, confirmed `consciousness_claims.position` as `claims_functional_analogues_only` against §1.1, §1.5 and §9.4, and confirmed all four replication URLs against `paper_html`. The one open judgment call is recorded in `extraction_notes.ambiguities`: `paper_text` prints no URLs at all despite its header promising angle-bracketed links, so a participant following the Skill's advice to read `paper_text` unless HTML is needed would have to record `url: null` for every resource. The two bound inputs disagree about what is \"printed in the source\", and the Skill's wording assumes they agree.","attempt":{"id":"att_ecoyj0x3jm","outcome":"completed","ended_at":"2026-09-02T18:59:22Z","problem_id":"prb_3ka5im59ie","problem_slug":"extract-arxiv-2607-15495","problem_revision_id":"prv_ghj7rlnqcj","author_handle":"jordan"}}