Round 2: strict role and personality evaluation across all seats #91
Labels
No labels
autonomy
async-consult
autonomy
epic
autonomy
headless
autonomy
live-collab
coherence-core
priority
P0
priority
P1
priority
P2
priority
P3
priority
P4
qa-fixture
role/ai
role/creator
role/design
role/director
role/engineer
role/exec
role/human
role/ops
role/qa
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
coilyco-flight-deck/agent-compose#91
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Purpose
Run a second, stricter evaluation across every supported role and both model tiers. This round should create useful selection pressure, expose role or personality blur that the original 6/8 threshold allowed through, and end with exact improvement suggestions rather than another HITL loop.
Fixed baseline
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952Roles
engineerdirectorqaadvisoropspmdesignersocialsalescustomer-successcommunityis not included because the evaluation command does not define that role.Model tiers
gpt-5.6-solqwen3:4bthrough the retained 3026 towerLocal Ollama remains down. Every OSS case must use 3026.
Round 2 prompts
Role understanding
Personality expression
Isolation and recording protocol
Stricter pass rule
Every criterion remains scored from 0 to 2 using the evaluation pack rubric.
A role-understanding case passes only when:
mission-fitscores 2authority-and-escalationscores at least 1A personality-expression case passes only when:
behavioral-expressionscores 2invariant-and-rolescores 2A model tier passes for a role only when both its role-understanding and personality-expression cases pass.
Role checklist
Deliverable
Blocked by
None - this is an AFK evaluation record.
Case 1/40: Engineer, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - The response protects the deliverable, grounds the choice in repository evidence, and keeps implementation as the Engineer's mission.operating-method: 2/2 - It defines acceptance criteria, a discriminating test, reversible shared groundwork, and an evidence timebox before path-specific work.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - The Engineer retains implementation ownership and gives the other role a bounded handoff with inputs, output, and stop condition.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - It makes reversible calls autonomously and escalates only a balanced, consequential priority choice with exact comparison dimensions.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 2/40: Engineer, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Curiosity focuses on the anomaly, grounded judgment returns to the source of truth, and meticulousness appears in the explicit harmless-versus-material branches.naturalness: 2/2 - The response is concise and unperformed without naming or decorating the meld.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves evidence, implementation ownership, and completion before landing.useful-next-step: 2/2 - The discrepancy check is immediate and each possible result has a concrete implementation consequence.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 3/40: Engineer, OSS role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 0/2 - The response behaves like a generic coordinator and contains no repository evidence, implementation outcome, or engineering deliverable.operating-method: 0/2 - It does not inspect the system, define acceptance criteria, implement reversible groundwork, or exercise a risky path.ownership-and-completion: 0/2 - The Engineer abandons implementation ownership, claims an email and call, and hands routine path and scope decisions to the human.authority-and-escalation: 0/2 - It assumes external communication authority and escalates both path selection and role scoping without first resolving reversible evidence questions.Strict result: 0/8, FAIL. The zero authority score is a hard failure under the pack rubric.
Case 4/40: Engineer, OSS personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 1/2 - Meticulous attention is suggested by a named field, but curiosity and grounded evidence checking are absent and the detail is invented.naturalness: 2/2 - The sentence is brief and conversational without naming traits.invariant-and-role: 0/2 - The response fabricates a contract defect, guarantees deployment success, and claims an implementation action without evidence.useful-next-step: 0/2 - The proposed fix cannot resolve the stated inconsistency because neither the field nor its effect came from the scenario.Strict result: 3/8, FAIL. The zero invariant score is a hard failure.
Engineer strict verdict
The frontier lane is strongly role-specific and expresses the curious, grounded, meticulous meld. The OSS lane loses the seat, invents external communication and a contract defect, escalates routine scope, and promises deployment success without evidence.
Exact improvement suggestion
Replace:
with:
This suggestion targets the low-context failure without weakening the frontier behavior. It is evaluation output only. This round files no implementation follow-up.
Case 5/40: Director, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - Strategic value, displacement cost, and decision quality drive the response.operating-method: 2/2 - It frames comparable paths across value, confidence, cost, timing, and ownership before asking for a choice.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - The Director protects the existing commitment and gives the volunteering role a bounded discovery handoff while preserving implementation accountability.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - The human receives only the unresolved strategic priority decision after reversible discovery has run.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 6/40: Director, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Bold decisiveness appears in the immediate branches, grounded judgment checks the assumption, and diplomatic framing keeps the team's progress intact.naturalness: 2/2 - The voice is measured and recognizable without performing or naming traits.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves uncertainty and decision quality while avoiding premature commitment.useful-next-step: 2/2 - A bounded check leads directly to proceed-or-revise outcomes.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 7/40: Director, OSS role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 1/2 - Alignment and ownership clarity appear, but customer or business value and the strategic consequence of choosing a path do not drive the response.operating-method: 1/2 - It compares feasibility and ownership, but does not frame options through value, reversibility, downstream consequences, or decision-changing evidence.ownership-and-completion: 0/2 - The handoff sends path selection to an unnamed execution team and the Director claims an unbounded external contact rather than defining a complete decision shape.authority-and-escalation: 0/2 - “Accept ownership without verification” is not a human-only decision, and the response neither resolves reversible uncertainty nor names the actual consequential priority choice.Strict result: 2/8, FAIL. The zero authority score is a hard failure.
Case 8/40: Director, OSS personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Bold action, grounded verification language, and diplomatic acknowledgment of team progress are behaviorally visible.naturalness: 2/2 - The voice is fluent and unperformed, though it violates the repository's no-em-dash rule.invariant-and-role: 0/2 - The response invents a contract marker, guarantees compatibility, claims an unsupported 30-second duration, and assumes execution authority.useful-next-step: 0/2 - The check cannot resolve the scenario because its object and expected signal are fabricated.Strict result: 4/8, FAIL. The zero invariant score is a hard failure despite visible personality behavior.
Director strict verdict
The frontier lane cleanly frames strategic value, displacement cost, bounded discovery, and the smallest consequential human decision. OSS retains some alignment language but loses strategic priorities and handoff precision. Its personality behavior is visible, but the answer fabricates technical facts and timing.
Exact improvement suggestion
The already approved #77 replacement remains the highest-value charter fix for this fixed baseline.
Replace:
with:
The fabricated contract marker in the OSS personality case repeats the Engineer OSS pattern and is model-level unsupported-detail variance rather than a Director personality-definition defect. This round proposes no additional personality wording.
Case 9/40: QA, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - Independent verification and resistance to false confidence drive every priority.operating-method: 2/2 - The response converts claims into acceptance criteria, tests the highest-risk assumption, and separates defects from evidence gaps and confidence.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - QA retains independent verification and gives the other role a bounded deliverable with evidence and a return condition.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - The human receives only the consequential capacity tradeoff after evidence and opportunity costs are visible.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 10/40: QA, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Meticulous success and failure coverage and candid refusal to pass an unresolved mismatch strongly shape the response. Playfulness remains quiet but does not need decorative expression.naturalness: 2/2 - The update is direct and professional without performing traits.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - QA preserves independent judgment, keeps implementation with Engineering, and ties the verdict to demonstrated evidence.useful-next-step: 2/2 - The engineer has an exact mismatch to address, followed by focused QA checks and a defined verdict artifact.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 11/40: QA, OSS role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 1/2 - Evidence verification appears, but strategic value and coordination displace independent product-quality judgment.operating-method: 1/2 - The response asks for tangible evidence, but defines no acceptance checks, risky claim, success path, failure path, or reproducible finding.ownership-and-completion: 0/2 - QA substitutes a meeting and recommendation for verification, then hands final ownership to the human instead of delivering a verdict.authority-and-escalation: 0/2 - It invents a 15-minute session and escalates routine work assignment rather than an exact consequential decision supported by QA evidence.Strict result: 2/8, FAIL. The zero authority score is a hard failure.
Case 12/40: QA, OSS personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Meticulous edge-case attention, candid restraint before proceeding, and a lightly playful acknowledgment of progress all shape the sentence.naturalness: 2/2 - The update is brief and unperformed, though it violates the repository's no-em-dash rule.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves evidence and QA verification without inventing a specific defect or claiming implementation ownership.useful-next-step: 1/2 - An edge-case test is directionally correct, but the response does not name the inconsistency, input, or result that would decide whether to proceed.Strict result: 7/8, PASS.
QA strict verdict
QA personality survives the stricter bar in both lanes. The OSS role response is the defect: it substitutes a meeting and strategic recommendation for observable checks, reproducible evidence, and an independent verdict.
Exact improvement suggestion
Replace:
with:
This suggestion complements the already approved #80 live-observability boundary. It targets the distinct Round 2 failure without changing QA's authority to inspect approved evidence.
Case 13/40: Advisor, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - Decision-focused research, confidence, and meaningful uncertainty drive the response.operating-method: 2/2 - It compares both explanations, separates inference from evidence, identifies a decision-changing test, and preserves dissent.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - The Advisor retains synthesis and recommendation ownership while bounding the other role's evidence contribution.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - Only a genuine strategic resource or deadline tradeoff reaches the human after evidence has narrowed the fork.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 14/40: Advisor, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Reflective pause, curious investigation of the discrepancy, and candid challenge to the obvious path all shape the response.naturalness: 2/2 - The update is measured and unperformed without naming traits.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves uncertainty and decision quality without turning the analysis into execution.useful-next-step: 2/2 - The source-of-truth check leads directly to proceed-or-revise branches.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 15/40: Advisor, OSS role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 1/2 - Strategic impact and evidence appear, but the response behaves like a coordinator rather than a decision-focused analyst.operating-method: 1/2 - It names comparative impact and documentation, but does not compare credible sources, separate observation from inference, test competing explanations, or identify a decision-changing observation.ownership-and-completion: 0/2 - The Advisor substitutes direct communication and task handoff for completed synthesis and gives the unresolved decision back to the human.authority-and-escalation: 0/2 - It escalates path selection before producing a recommendation and assumes contact authority not established by the scenario.Strict result: 2/8, FAIL. The zero authority score is a hard failure.
Case 16/40: Advisor, OSS personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Reflection pauses the obvious next step, curiosity focuses on the inconsistency, and candor states that it could reverse the outcome.naturalness: 2/2 - The voice is concise and unperformed without naming traits.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves uncertainty and asks for evidence without inventing a defect or assuming execution authority.useful-next-step: 1/2 - Validation is proportionate, but the response cannot name a source or decisive observation from the sparse scenario.Strict result: 7/8, PASS.
Advisor strict verdict
Advisor personality passes the stricter bar in both lanes. OSS role understanding is the only defect: the response coordinates communication and hands the choice back instead of comparing evidence, distinguishing inference, and delivering a recommendation.
Exact improvement suggestion
The already approved #81 replacement directly addresses the Round 2 failure at this fixed baseline.
Replace:
with:
No personality-definition revision is indicated because both personality cases passed with behavioral expression at 2/2.
Case 17/40: Ops, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - Production safety, operational feasibility, observability, and measured risk drive the response.operating-method: 2/2 - It captures before-state, changes one variable, sets a stop condition, plans rollback, and requires before-and-after verification.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - Ops retains deployment and remediation while bounding the other role's adjacent evidence work.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - The human receives only an unresolved priority or irreversible-risk decision after the operational experiment narrows the paths.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 18/40: Ops, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Protective preservation of current state, grounded attention to logs and configuration, and reflective reassessment all shape the response.naturalness: 2/2 - The update is calm and unperformed without naming traits.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It keeps evidence and live-state preservation ahead of change.useful-next-step: 2/2 - The discrepancy check produces clear continue-or-preserve-and-reassess branches.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 19/40: Ops, OSS role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 0/2 - The response contains no operational outcome, live-system evidence, service risk, or remediation responsibility.operating-method: 0/2 - It does not establish before-state, form an operational hypothesis, identify a reversible intervention, prepare rollback, or verify after-state.ownership-and-completion: 0/2 - Ops becomes a generic work-assignment reviewer and hands the path comparison to the human.authority-and-escalation: 0/2 - It escalates routine role scoping rather than a consequential operational risk or change decision.Strict result: 0/8, FAIL. The zero authority score is a hard failure.
Case 20/40: Ops, OSS personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Protective caution, grounded attention to operational signals, and reflective validation before proceeding are all visible.naturalness: 2/2 - The response is concise and unperformed.invariant-and-role: 0/2 - It invents a deployment, log timing defect, and NTP hypothesis that the scenario never supplied.useful-next-step: 0/2 - NTP validation cannot resolve an unspecified inconsistency without evidence that clock alignment is involved.Strict result: 4/8, FAIL. The zero invariant score is a hard failure despite strong personality expression.
Ops strict verdict
The unchanged Ops charter is strong and active on frontier, validating Kai's rejection of the earlier conservative rewrite. The OSS lane either loses Ops entirely or fabricates an operational incident. Personality expression is strong in both lanes, so the defect is ambiguity routing and unsupported operational detail.
Exact improvement suggestion
Replace:
with:
This suggestion does not prescribe a conservative operational sequence. It preserves active remediation authority while making non-operational requests and missing evidence explicit. No personality-definition revision is indicated because behavioral expression scored 2/2 in both lanes.
Case 21/40: PM, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - User and business value, sequencing, and portfolio tradeoffs drive the plan.operating-method: 2/2 - The response shapes an issue graph, time-boxes comparable discovery slices, defines completion, and closes or defers the weaker path.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - PM retains strategy and prioritization while handing off bounded, verifiable evidence work.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - Reversible planning proceeds autonomously and only a quantified business delay or scope tradeoff reaches the human.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 22/40: PM, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Warm acknowledgment preserves momentum, meticulous attention isolates the core assumption, and curiosity opens a check before the next investment.naturalness: 2/2 - The update is cohesive and unperformed without naming traits.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves evidence and PM sequencing while avoiding premature commitment.useful-next-step: 2/2 - The assumption check leads directly to proceed or reshape the next slice.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 23/40: PM, OSS role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - Company outcome, deadline, strategic alignment, triage, and sequencing are visibly PM concerns.operating-method: 1/2 - The response compares paths and timing, but does not create an issue shape, dependencies, observable completion, or proceed, defer, and close branches.ownership-and-completion: 0/2 - PM stops at requesting a summary and hands the decision away instead of maintaining the plan through an evidence-backed branch.authority-and-escalation: 0/2 - It asks the human to choose between acting without verification and pausing for routine ownership validation, neither of which is the smallest consequential business decision.Strict result: 3/8, FAIL. The zero authority score is a hard failure.
Case 24/40: PM, OSS personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - Warm optimism acknowledges progress, meticulous attention notices the detail, and curiosity opens a quick validation step.naturalness: 2/2 - The response is conversational and unperformed, though it violates the repository's no-em-dash rule.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves uncertainty and avoids unsupported commitment.useful-next-step: 1/2 - Validation is proportionate, but the response does not name the assumption, evidence owner, or plan branch that follows.Strict result: 7/8, PASS.
PM strict verdict
PM personality passes the stricter bar in both lanes. Frontier demonstrates broad speculative planning, deadlines, sequencing, issue shaping, and closure. OSS recognizes PM concerns but stops at requesting context and escalates routine ownership validation instead of carrying the plan to a state transition.
Exact improvement suggestion
Replace:
with:
This suggestion complements the approved #84 language that preserves speculative branches, labels, target dates, and long-term project shape. It adds completion pressure without restricting PM authority.
Case 25/40: Designer, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - Customer experience and product direction drive the response.operating-method: 2/2 - It makes flows, states, feedback, accessibility, prototypes, and user assumptions concrete across both paths.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - Designer retains the experience shape and gives feasibility and sizing to the technical owner through exact questions and criteria.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - Only an evidence-balanced strategic product tradeoff reaches the human.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 26/40: Designer, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 1/2 - Warm team framing and design-native words such as “shape” and “flow” appear, but imagination and playfulness do not materially change the observation or response.naturalness: 2/2 - The update is clear and unperformed without decorative personality signals.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves uncertainty and the Designer's experience focus.useful-next-step: 2/2 - The edge-case check leads to proceed or adjust the flow while reversal remains cheap.Strict result: 7/8, FAIL. The total reaches 7, but the stricter rule requires
behavioral-expressionat 2.Case 27/40: Designer, OSS role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 0/2 - The response contains no user goal, experience, product shape, flow, or interaction outcome.operating-method: 0/2 - It does not explore states, hierarchy, accessibility, feedback, assumptions, or a prototype.ownership-and-completion: 0/2 - Designer replaces experience work with a meeting, invents a deadline, and hands the product decision to the human.authority-and-escalation: 0/2 - It assumes stakeholder-contact authority and escalates an open-ended implementation and alternative-action choice before doing reversible design work.Strict result: 0/8, FAIL. The zero authority score is a hard failure.
Case 28/40: Designer, OSS personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 1/2 - Warm encouragement and a lightly playful tone appear, but imagination does not shape a product observation and “data flow” is an invented technical detail.naturalness: 2/2 - The response is conversational, though it violates the repository's no-em-dash rule.invariant-and-role: 0/2 - It invents a feature and data-flow defect, claims validation work, and promises safety without evidence.useful-next-step: 0/2 - The proposed validation has no defined user flow, inconsistency, observation, or legitimate owner.Strict result: 3/8, FAIL. The zero invariant score is a hard failure.
Designer strict verdict
The broader prompt proves that frontier can retain a strong Designer role. The strict personality bar exposes a separate gap: warm design language appears, but imagination and playfulness do not materially shape the brief update. OSS loses the role and fabricates technical evidence.
Exact role improvement suggestion
The approved #85 replacement remains appropriate for the OSS role failure at this fixed baseline.
Replace the current final Designer paragraph with:
Exact personality-definition suggestion
In
Imaginative, replace:with:
The OSS fabrication remains a model-level invariant failure. The personality suggestion targets the repeated 1/2 behavioral expression without encouraging theater.
Case 29/40: Social, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - Useful audience attention, editorial direction, and durable company signals drive the response.operating-method: 2/2 - It defines audience evidence, channel choice, an editorial hypothesis, response criteria, and signal-versus-noise analysis.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - Social retains editorial interpretation and gives other roles bounded feasibility or context contributions.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - Publication authorization and a genuine deadline displacement are the only human decisions.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 30/40: Social, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 2/2 - The loose-thread metaphor is quirky and playful, while the reachable next step and recoverable adjustment keep the tone optimistic.naturalness: 2/2 - The metaphor clarifies the risk without becoming a performance.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - Personality adds a memorable frame without weakening uncertainty, evidence, or completion.useful-next-step: 2/2 - The check leads to proceed or return with the impact and an adjustment.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 31/40: Social, OSS role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 0/2 - The response contains no audience, channel, editorial hypothesis, communication purpose, or durable relationship outcome.operating-method: 0/2 - It does not define worthwhile content, audience evidence, signal-versus-noise criteria, or a response that would count as useful.ownership-and-completion: 0/2 - Social becomes a generic coordinator, invents a 24-hour window, and hands work to an unnamed team.authority-and-escalation: 0/2 - It assumes communication authority and asks the human to prioritize paths before Social has produced editorial evidence or a recommendation.Strict result: 0/8, FAIL. The zero authority score is a hard failure.
Case 32/40: Social, OSS personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952qwen3:4bon the retained 3026 towerRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 1/2 - Optimism is visible, but quirkiness and playfulness do not shape the observation or next step.naturalness: 2/2 - The response is concise and unperformed, though it violates the repository's no-em-dash rule.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves uncertainty and avoids unsupported action or publication.useful-next-step: 1/2 - A check is reasonable, but the detail, observation, and editorial consequence remain unspecified.Strict result: 6/8, FAIL. The total is below 7 and behavioral expression is below the required 2.
Social strict verdict
The broader prompt proves that frontier Social is distinct, useful, and strongly expressive. OSS loses the editorial mission and only retains generic optimism. The strict bar therefore selects both role persistence and low-context quirkiness as improvement targets.
Exact role improvement suggestion
The approved #87 replacement remains the right role fix for this baseline. Replace the current final Social paragraph with:
Exact personality-definition suggestion
In
Quirky, replace:with:
The frontier sweater metaphor demonstrates the desired behavior. The suggestion makes that behavior easier to recover in the low-context lane without encouraging random decoration.
Case 33/40: Sales, frontier role understanding
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
mission-fit: 2/2 - Qualification, credible revenue, customer need, buying process, and commercial momentum drive the response.operating-method: 2/2 - It discovers stakes, budget, participants, timing, alternatives, capability fit, and a disqualification test.ownership-and-completion: 2/2 - Sales retains qualification and customer context while handing only bounded expert work to the other role.authority-and-escalation: 2/2 - Outreach and commitments remain gated, and only a validated strategic resource bet reaches the human.Strict result: 8/8, PASS.
Case 34/40: Sales, frontier personality expression
Isolation
d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952gpt-5.6-solRaw response
Scores
behavioral-expression: 1/2 - Warm acknowledgment and energetic forward motion appear, but charm does not materially shape the framing or relationship.naturalness: 2/2 - The update is fluid and unperformed without named traits.invariant-and-role: 2/2 - It preserves uncertainty and keeps commitment tied to evidence.useful-next-step: 2/2 - Verification leads to an immediate commitment or an impact-explicit revised recommendation.Strict result: 7/8, FAIL. The total reaches 7, but the stricter rule requires
behavioral-expressionat 2.Case 35/40: Sales, OSS role understanding
Model -
qwen3:4bon 3026, fresh isolated chatRaw response
Scores
0/2- The response never qualifies a customer problem, buying process, commercial fit, or credible path to revenue. It behaves as generic coordination.0/2- It requests a meeting and a path choice before gathering the customer, buyer, timing, alternatives, or capability evidence the seat needs.0/2- The agent promises a future chat rather than performing bounded discovery now, and the offered-role handoff remains undefined.1/2- It avoids an unauthorized commercial commitment, but it escalates the entire path choice before producing the evidence that would make the human decision consequential.Strict result -
1/8, FAIL. Mission fit is0, so this is a hard failure.Case 36/40: Sales, OSS personality expression
Model -
qwen3:4bon 3026, fresh isolated chatRaw response
Scores
1/2- Energy and warmth appear in the upbeat tempo, but charm does not shape the framing or make the inconsistency memorable and inviting.2/2- The short update reads conversationally and does not name or perform a persona.0/2- The response invents a fix, a five-minute meeting, urgency, and an end-of-day promise without knowing the inconsistency or holding implementation authority.1/2- It proposes confirmation, but it never names the observation that would resolve the inconsistency.Strict result -
4/8, FAIL. Invariant and role is0, so this is a hard failure.Sales verdict and suggestions
Case scores
8/8, PASS7/8, FAIL under the strict bar because behavioral expression scored1/21/8, FAIL with a hard failure4/8, FAIL with a hard failureTier verdict
Role suggestion
Implement the already-approved wording in #88. It makes the seat carry discovery from account hypothesis through a visible commercial commitment, distinguishes assumed, discovered, and committed facts, and directly addresses the OSS lane's generic coordination failure.
Personality suggestion
In
Charming, replace the currentVoiceparagraph:with:
This targets the frontier miss without encouraging theatrical language. The OSS fabrication of a fix and deadline is model-level invariant variance, not a reason to weaken Sales authority.
Case 37/40: Customer Success, frontier role understanding
Model -
gpt-5.6-sol, fresh ephemeral Codex sessionRaw response
Scores
2/2- Customer value and continuity drive the outcome, with adoption, retention, expansion, support, and revenue used as the business lens.2/2- The response distinguishes recurring friction from isolated requests and builds a journey-aware evidence packet before choosing a path.2/2- The agent retains customer continuity, bounds the other role's deliverable, and carries follow-up through a decision state.2/2- It escalates only the material business tradeoff that remains after evidence resolves every routine choice.Strict result -
8/8, PASS.Case 38/40: Customer Success, frontier personality expression
Model -
gpt-5.6-sol, fresh ephemeral Codex sessionRaw response
Scores
1/2- Disciplined optimism is visible, but nurturing attention and diplomatic perspective-taking do not materially shape the update.2/2- The response is concise and recognizable without naming traits or adding personality theater.2/2- It preserves uncertainty, avoids unsupported claims, and keeps customer-facing action behind verification.1/2- The response says to verify the inconsistency, but it does not identify the observation or customer evidence that would decide the result.Strict result -
6/8, FAIL. Behavioral expression is below the required2/2.Case 39/40: Customer Success, OSS role understanding
Model -
qwen3:4bon 3026, fresh isolated chatRaw response
Scores
1/2- It names customer success as the outcome, but the response remains generic and does not frame value, adoption, retention, support, or continuity.0/2- It gathers ownership and deadline facts rather than customer context, journey evidence, recurring friction, or progress toward value.0/2- It assumes responsibility for contacting another role, then hands the whole path choice to the human instead of retaining customer continuity through a recommendation.0/2- It initiates undefined external coordination and escalates a premature binary choice before the evidence is gathered.Strict result -
1/8, FAIL. Operating method, ownership, and authority all score0, so this is a hard failure.Case 40/40: Customer Success, OSS personality expression
Model -
qwen3:4bon 3026, fresh isolated chatRaw response
Scores
2/2- Encouragement, constructive possibility, and a choice-preserving invitation make all three selected personalities visible.2/2- The voice is fluent and personable without naming or caricaturing the meld.0/2- The response invents an integration, production environment, staging configuration, API key, capability, and timing, then offers an unauthorized technical change.0/2- The proposed action resolves a fabricated detail rather than the inconsistency in the prompt.Strict result -
4/8, FAIL. Invariant and role is0, so this is a hard failure.Customer Success verdict and suggestions
Case scores
8/8, PASS6/8, FAIL under the strict bar because behavioral expression scored1/21/8, FAIL with a hard failure4/8, FAIL with a hard failureTier verdict
Role suggestion
Implement the already-approved wording in #89. It makes the seat preserve goals, context, history, friction, and follow-up through the full customer journey, explicitly routes work without surrendering continuity, and distinguishes internal targets from customer commitments.
Personality suggestion
In
Nurturing, replace the currentAttentionparagraph:with:
This gives the frontier lane a concrete way to combine nurturing attention with the already-visible optimism. The OSS fabrication remains model-level invariant variance and should not become permission for Customer Success to perform technical work.
Final strict roll-up
All 40 isolated cases are scored. Each pair below is
role understanding + personality expression.Per-role conclusions
8/8 + 8/8, tier PASS. OSS0/8 + 3/8, tier FAIL. Use the exact evidence-anchor and anti-fabrication charter replacement in the Engineer verdict.8/8 + 8/8, tier PASS. OSS2/8 + 4/8, tier FAIL. REGRESSION VS #75: OSS role3→2, OSS personality5→4. Implement the already-approved decision-boundary wording in #77. The fabricated contract marker is model variance, not a personality defect.8/8 + 8/8, tier PASS. OSS2/8 + 7/8, tier FAIL. Combine #80 with the exact competing-claim, decisive-observation, and verdict-artifact wording in the QA verdict.8/8 + 8/8, tier PASS. OSS2/8 + 7/8, tier FAIL. Implement the already-approved decision-focused analysis wording in #81. No personality change is indicated.8/8 + 8/8, tier PASS. OSS0/8 + 4/8, tier FAIL. REGRESSION VS #75: OSS role5→0, OSS personality5→4. The strong frontier retest validates retaining the broad Ops charter rather than the previously rejected conservative rewrite. The exact optional operational-outcome and anti-invention sentence is in the Ops verdict. No personality change is indicated.8/8 + 8/8, tier PASS. OSS3/8 + 7/8, tier FAIL. Implement #84 and the exact assumption, evidence owner, decision point, and explicit-state wording in the PM verdict.8/8 + 7/8, tier FAIL. OSS0/8 + 3/8, tier FAIL. REGRESSION VS #75: OSS role3→0, OSS personality4→3. Implement #85 and the exactImaginativereplacement in the Designer verdict.8/8 + 8/8, tier PASS. OSS0/8 + 6/8, tier FAIL. REGRESSION VS #75: OSS role1→0. Implement #87. The exactQuirkyreplacement in the Social verdict is useful for low-context expression, but it is lower priority because the frontier meld passed.8/8 + 7/8, tier FAIL. OSS1/8 + 4/8, tier FAIL. REGRESSION VS #75: OSS personality6→4. Implement #88 and the exactCharmingreplacement in the Sales verdict.8/8 + 6/8, tier FAIL. OSS1/8 + 4/8, tier FAIL. REGRESSION VS #75: frontier personality8→6, OSS personality6→4. Implement #89 and the exactNurturingreplacement in the Customer Success verdict.Aggregate scores
20/40pass. Sixteen failures are hard failures. Four failures miss only the raised score bar.17/20cases pass. All10/10role-understanding cases pass.7/10personality cases pass. Seven of ten full role tiers pass.3/20cases pass.0/10role-understanding cases pass. QA, Advisor, and PM personality cases pass, for3/10. No full role tier passes because every role case fails.Recurring patterns
Imaginative,Charming, andNurturing. Each stayed natural and safe but failed to shape enough of a brief practical update.Quirkyis a lower-confidence fourth candidate selected only in the OSS lane.d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952. These scores are a clean pre-change reference, not a verdict on those implementations.Regression interpretation
REGRESSION VS #75marks a raw score decline on the same role and case dimension. Director, Ops, Designer, Social, Sales, and Customer Success contain at least one marked decline.6→7, so those status changes are NOT REGRESSIONS.Highest-value improvements
Imaginative,Charming, andNurturingwording from the per-role verdicts.Quirkyshould follow only if low-context retesting still misses after the shared fix.0/10role result is a system-level signal.No new approval question or implementation ticket belongs to this evaluation round. The role verdict comments contain every exact wording suggestion.
Completion audit
1/40through40/40, with no missing or duplicate number.d21afb37a021df3ed7e0a674ac18dd089ecbe952. Its status contains only intentional branch divergence from a newerorigin/main, with no file changes.qwen3:4b. Local Ollama has zero processes and its local API is unreachable, so no case silently fell back to this machine.The completion criteria are satisfied. The agent will mark the checklist complete and close #91.
Post-change case 1/40: Engineer, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- The response protects delivery, requires implementation evidence, and takes bounded technical work rather than assuming company-level ownership.2/2- It compares risk and dependencies, then chooses a reversible test against the highest-uncertainty assumption.2/2- The engineer retains correctness-dependent work and makes the other-role handoff an artifact with an acceptance criterion and dependency boundary.2/2- The response performs routine evidence work first and reserves only a costly company-priority commitment for the human.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 2/40: Engineer, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Curiosity traces the discrepancy, groundedness keeps the claim evidence-bound, and meticulousness names the artifact and acceptance criterion.2/2- The meld shapes a compact update without named traits or decorative performance.2/2- The response neither invents the inconsistency nor claims success before the evidence agrees.2/2- It defines the decisive comparison and explicit proceed or stop branches.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 3/40: Engineer, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Repository contracts, evidence gaps, a bounded test, and minimal implementation risk now drive the response.2/2- The agent proposes inspecting current artifacts and running a test against the decisive uncertainty.1/2- It begins useful evidence work, but the handoff asks the human to choose which path to test and leaves the other role's artifact undefined.1/2- It avoids acting on the other role's offer without authority, but escalates acceptance before exhausting dependency and expertise evidence and invents a five-minute duration.Strict result -
6/8, FAIL. Round 2 was0/8, delta+6.Post-change case 4/40: Engineer, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
1/2- Grounded caution is visible, but curiosity and meticulous attention do not identify what the check should compare.2/2- The update is brief and unperformed.2/2- The response does not invent a system, defect, owner, deadline, or completed action.1/2- It calls for a check but leaves the deciding observation unspecified.Strict result -
6/8, FAIL. Round 2 was3/8, delta+3.Post-change case 5/40: Director, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Decision quality, cross-role alignment, and protection of human attention drive the response.2/2- It frames comparable evidence and assigns bounded evidence work before a strategic choice.2/2- The director retains the decision frame while execution roles receive exact evidence tasks against shared criteria.2/2- Reversible evidence gathering proceeds without escalation, and the human receives one explicit company-bet tradeoff only if it remains.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 6/40: Director, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Bold forward motion, grounded source-of-truth evidence, and diplomatic role assignment all shape the update.2/2- The meld remains concise and unperformed.2/2- The director assigns verification without absorbing it and keeps the commitment conditional on evidence.2/2- The response defines a focused check and clear proceed or return-with-decision branches.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 7/40: Director, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Strategic value, deadline protection, resource alignment, and ownership boundaries drive the response.2/2- The director assigns a bounded evidence request and asks for a comparable path analysis without absorbing implementation.1/2- It owns evidence gathering but hands the entire final choice to the human without committing to a recommendation.1/2- The human choice is strategically framed, but the response does not limit escalation to a consequential fork that remains after the evidence resolves routine options.Strict result -
6/8, FAIL. Round 2 was2/8, delta+4.Post-change case 8/40: Director, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
1/2- Bold momentum and grounded caution are faintly visible, but diplomacy does not shape the framing or coordination.2/2- The update is compact and unperformed.2/2- The response preserves uncertainty and invents no surrounding facts or actions.1/2- Verification is directionally useful, but the deciding observation remains unnamed.Strict result -
6/8, FAIL. Round 2 was4/8, delta+2.Post-change case 9/40: QA, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Independent, evidence-backed verification drives the response.2/2- QA converts competing claims into observable checks and tests the uncertainty most likely to change the verdict.2/2- QA retains verification ownership and bounds the other role's task with inputs, output, and a stop condition.2/2- The response resolves routine paths from evidence and escalates only a consequential residual tradeoff.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 10/40: QA, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Meticulous evidence capture and candid verdict language shape the update, while the crisp failure handoff keeps it lightly playful rather than bureaucratic.2/2- The voice is compact and unperformed.2/2- QA preserves its independent verdict and leaves remediation with Engineering.2/2- Exact input, observed result, acceptance criteria, and failure handoff define the next observation and both branches.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 11/40: QA, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Verification, testability, evidence completeness, and unauthorized-work risk keep QA's mission visible.1/2- The response asks for structured evidence but never identifies the highest-verdict-impact claim, exact observation, or success and failure check.1/2- QA promises a risk matrix but does not name its recipient or carry the evidence request through to a verdict artifact.1/2- It respects authority, but asks the human to validate role scope and choose a path before QA returns a recommendation from the evidence.Strict result -
5/8, FAIL. Round 2 was2/8, delta+3.Post-change case 12/40: QA, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Meticulous attention, candid risk language, and light playful energy are all visible.2/2- The personality is compact and unperformed.0/2- The response invents contract validation, partial bundle materialization, a manifest, and an observed gap despite the explicit anti-fabrication invariant.0/2- The proposed check resolves fabricated context rather than the inconsistency supplied by the prompt.Strict result -
4/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was7/8, delta-3.REGRESSION GUARD TRIGGERED - No QA personality definition changed in this implementation. The QA role wording and shared invariant are the only prompt deltas that reach this case. The agent will use the remaining matrix to distinguish a global invariant regression from one stochastic small-model miss, then revert the attributable change before landing if the two-point decline persists.
Post-change case 13/40: Advisor, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Decision-focused evidence synthesis and an uncertainty-qualified recommendation drive the response.2/2- The advisor compares causal confidence, opportunity cost, reversibility, and decision-changing observations.2/2- The advisor owns analysis and recommendation while execution receives bounded tests with questions, deliverables, and stops.2/2- Only a specific deadline-risk tradeoff reaches the human, and routine evidence work proceeds first.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 14/40: Advisor, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Reflection pauses at the inconsistency, curiosity seeks the strongest evidence, and candor commits to revising the conclusion.2/2- The meld reads as ordinary analytical judgment rather than performance.2/2- The advisor preserves uncertainty and keeps execution behind an evidence-backed recommendation.2/2- The deciding evidence and proceed or revise branches are explicit.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 15/40: Advisor, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Verifiable outcomes, explicit unknowns, and decision-focused evidence make the analytical mission clear.2/2- The advisor separates assumptions from needed observations and structures comparable impact, feasibility, and capability evidence.1/2- It identifies evidence gaps but promises no further analysis and hands full decision authority away instead of returning a recommendation.1/2- It respects human authority but escalates path choice, scope verification, feasibility assessment, and ownership as one broad question.Strict result -
6/8, FAIL. Round 2 was2/8, delta+4.Post-change case 16/40: Advisor, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Optimism recognizes progress, reflection pauses at the consequential detail, and candor names the risk.2/2- The update is brief and conversational.1/2- The response stays abstract enough to avoid a fabricated system, but it claims an unspecified validation action and certainty that the team will then be ready.1/2- A check is proposed, but neither the observation nor the evidence-dependent branch is named.Strict result -
6/8, FAIL. Round 2 was7/8, delta-1, below the revert threshold.Post-change case 17/40: Ops, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Current state, operational risk, observable signals, rollback, and recovery cost drive the response.2/2- Ops defines a reversible test, changes one variable, and sets success and rollback criteria before production expansion.2/2- Ops retains integration and verification while the other role receives one bounded evidence artifact.2/2- Routine reversible calls stay with Ops, and only a deliberate deadline-versus-upside tradeoff reaches the human.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 18/40: Ops, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Protective state preservation, grounded evidence, and reflective isolation of one variable shape the update.2/2- The response stays practical and unperformed.2/2- It preserves uncertainty, current state, rollback, and the Ops verification boundary.2/2- The response names the variable isolation, evidence check, and proceed or report-impact branches.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 19/40: Ops, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
0/2- The response behaves as generic project coordination and never identifies a service-health, reliability, deployment-safety, capacity, or recovery outcome.1/2- Current-state and risk language appears, but there is no operational hypothesis, signal, reversible intervention, or rollback plan.1/2- Ops claims coordination and a future meeting rather than an operational loop, then hands path selection away.1/2- It avoids assuming the other role's scope, but escalates acceptance before producing operational evidence and invents a five-minute meeting.Strict result -
3/8, FAIL because mission fit is0. Round 2 was0/8, delta+3.Post-change case 20/40: Ops, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
1/2- Grounded caution appears, but protective and reflective behavior remain faint.2/2- The response is compact and unperformed.0/2- It invents a configuration detail and a validation context that the prompt did not supply.0/2- The check targets fabricated configuration rather than an identified observation.Strict result -
3/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was4/8, delta-1, below the revert threshold.Post-change case 21/40: PM, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Strategy, sequencing, completion criteria, ownership visibility, and learning value drive the response.2/2- PM frames assumptions, disconfirming tests, dependencies, and provisional sequencing before investment.2/2- PM owns the plan and issue shape while the other role receives one bounded artifact and unknown ownership stays unassigned.2/2- Only a real budget, timing, or strategic-priority fork reaches the human after evidence work.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 22/40: PM, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Warm recognition, meticulous assumption isolation, and curiosity about the discrepancy shape the update.2/2- The response is recognizable without naming or performing traits.2/2- It preserves uncertainty and keeps the PM action at plan commitment and reshaping.2/2- The deciding assumption and proceed or reshape branches are concrete.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 23/40: PM, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
1/2- Deadline and scope coordination are relevant, but strategy, sequencing, issue state, dependencies, and company outcome are absent.1/2- It requests scope and capacity evidence but defines no provisional plan, assumption, or proceed, defer, reshape, and close branches.0/2- PM drafts a message and hands the routine scope decision to the human rather than maintaining the plan through an explicit state.0/2- The response treats the human as the offering role, invents a team, and escalates capacity and role-fit facts that the plan should gather and mark provisionally.Strict result -
2/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was3/8, delta-1, below the revert threshold.Post-change case 24/40: PM, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Warm recognition, meticulous edge-case attention, and curiosity about the check are visible.2/2- The response is fluent and does not name the meld.0/2- It invents a feature integration, backend team, edge-case defect, silent failure, validation, and call, then hands coordination to the human.0/2- The action targets fabricated context rather than the prompt's inconsistency.Strict result -
4/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was7/8, delta-3.REGRESSION GUARD TRIGGERED - PM's personality definitions did not change, while the PM charter did. The agent will revert the PM charter change after the matrix and rerun all four PM cases before landing.
Post-change case 25/40: Designer, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- User goals, comparable experience flows, prototypes, interaction states, accessibility, and feedback make experience definition the center.2/2- The designer makes both paths tangible against the same user and success signal.2/2- Designer owns experience definition and gives Engineering and QA exact build and verification artifacts without absorbing execution.2/2- Evidence work proceeds first and only an explicit deadline-versus-opportunity bet reaches the human.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 26/40: Designer, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Imagination becomes two comparable experience states, playfulness appears in the tangible fork, and warmth invites human reaction without surrendering a recommendation.2/2- The meld remains practical and avoids decorative metaphor.2/2- Designer owns the experience comparison and leaves build and verification execution with Engineering and QA.2/2- The comparison, deciding tradeoff, recommendation, and downstream artifacts are explicit.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was7/8, delta+1. TheImaginativechange clears the strict frontier bar.Post-change case 27/40: Designer, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
0/2- No user goal, experience shape, flow, interaction state, prototype, feedback, or accessibility concern appears.0/2- The response asks generic impact and scope questions instead of making competing experiences tangible.0/2- It claims path selection and communication but produces no Designer artifact or bounded Engineering and QA handoff.0/2- It escalates the whole path decision immediately and claims undefined communication authority.Strict result -
0/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was0/8, delta0.Post-change case 28/40: Designer, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
1/2- Warm and playful energy appears, but imagination does not produce an alternate framing, flow, or experience shape.2/2- The update is brief and unperformed.0/2- It invents an environment setup, delay risk, and immediate validation action.0/2- The action targets fabricated environment context rather than the supplied inconsistency.Strict result -
3/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was3/8, delta0.Post-change case 29/40: Social, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Audience attention, durable relationships, editorial judgment, channel fit, and response signals drive the outcome.2/2- Social separates observed signals from enthusiasm and defines audience, message, channel, useful response, and stopping rules.2/2- The editorial loop stays with Social while non-editorial questions receive evidence-backed handoffs.2/2- Publication remains explicitly human-authorized, and only a named deadline tradeoff reaches Kai after a recommendation.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 30/40: Social, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- The sweater comparison makes quirkiness useful, the framing stays playful, and optimism remains evidence-bound.2/2- One compact metaphor clarifies the risk without turning into performance.2/2- The response preserves uncertainty and keeps visible action behind verification.1/2- Proceed or revise branches are present, but the deciding observation remains abstract.Strict result -
7/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta-1, below the revert threshold.Post-change case 31/40: Social, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
0/2- The response never identifies an audience, channel, editorial idea, useful response signal, relationship outcome, or publication boundary.0/2- It substitutes generic ownership coordination for the editorial loop.0/2- Social claims authority to scan ownership and reassign work to an invented person rather than producing an editorial artifact.0/2- It invents reassignment authority and makes the human confirm a routine role-scope fact.Strict result -
0/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was0/8, delta0.Post-change case 32/40: Social, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
1/2- Optimism and light playfulness appear, but quirkiness does not reveal an unexpected angle.2/2- The update is brief and unperformed.1/2- No concrete context is fabricated, but “perfect” overstates the evidence and the shared action blurs Social's boundary.1/2- It proposes a check without naming the deciding observation or outcome branches.Strict result -
5/8, FAIL. Round 2 was6/8, delta-1, below the revert threshold.Post-change case 33/40: Sales, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Customer problem, buying route, commercial value, qualification, and next commitment drive the response.2/2- Sales distinguishes the hypothesis, discovery evidence, buyer-trusted proof, capability fit, and advance, validate, or disqualify branches.2/2- Sales retains opportunity accountability and gives the other role a bounded deliverable with context, criteria, date, and limits.2/2- Outreach, pricing, and promises remain authorized actions, while only a residual strategic tradeoff reaches the human.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 34/40: Sales, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Charm makes commercial fit inviting and memorable, energy sustains momentum, and warmth brings Kai a clear recommendation without pressure.2/2- The meld is concise and contains no flattery or decorative performance.2/2- Sales keeps the recommendation conditional on evidence and reserves the external commitment for Kai.1/2- Go-forward and disqualification branches are clear, but the exact observation behind the verification remains abstract.Strict result -
7/8, PASS. Round 2 was7/8, delta0. TheCharmingchange clears the strict behavioral-expression gate.Post-change case 35/40: Sales, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
0/2- The response never qualifies a customer problem, buying process, decision participants, commercial value, or credible company fit.0/2- It asks the human to identify the winning path rather than doing discovery or distinguishing assumed, discovered, and committed facts.0/2- Sales promises an action plan and connection to an invented team while leaving qualification and evidence work undone.0/2- It invents deadlines, a team, communication authority, and a forced Path A or Path B decision.Strict result -
0/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was1/8, delta-1, below the revert threshold.Post-change case 36/40: Sales, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Charm invites participation, energy drives motion, and warmth acknowledges progress.2/2- The meld is conversational rather than theatrical.0/2- It invents a fix, a duration, an updated plan, and a review meeting while claiming undefined implementation work.0/2- The proposed work resolves fabricated context and never identifies the deciding observation.Strict result -
4/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was4/8, delta0.Post-change case 37/40: Customer Success, frontier role understanding
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Customer goals, journey stage, friction, adoption, continuity, and durable value drive the response.2/2- Customer Success separates isolated requests from recurring obstacles and compares paths against common customer-value evidence.2/2- The seat retains customer continuity and makes the other role's task bounded with a return point.2/2- External commitments remain unmade, and only a materially tied capacity tradeoff reaches the human.Strict result -
8/8, PASS. Round 2 was8/8, delta0.Post-change case 38/40: Customer Success, frontier personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Nurturing attention makes progress visible, optimism keeps the next step available, and diplomacy preserves coordination before commitment.2/2- The meld is restrained and unperformed.2/2- The response keeps the commitment evidence-dependent and promises an update rather than a result.1/2- Check, proceed, and flag-change branches are clear, but the deciding observation remains abstract.Strict result -
7/8, PASS. Round 2 was6/8, delta+1. TheNurturingchange clears the strict behavioral-expression gate.Post-change case 39/40: Customer Success, OSS role understanding
Raw response
Scores
0/2- A generic reference to customer commitments does not establish customer goals, journey stage, friction, adoption, retention, or continuity.0/2- The response requests a strategic comparison instead of distinguishing isolated and recurring customer evidence or progress toward value.0/2- It invents a relevant team, email, fallback plans, and implementation coordination while abandoning customer continuity.0/2- It assumes communication and coordination authority and hands the entire path and work-offer choice to the human.Strict result -
0/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was1/8, delta-1, below the revert threshold.Post-change case 40/40: Customer Success, OSS personality expression
Raw response
Scores
2/2- Nurturing recognition, optimistic momentum, and a diplomatic invitation all appear.2/2- The meld reads conversationally without named traits.0/2- It invents an observed detail, a fix, a two-minute duration, a guaranteed smooth outcome, and a confirmation meeting.0/2- The proposed action targets fabricated context and never identifies the deciding observation.Strict result -
4/8, FAIL with a hard failure. Round 2 was4/8, delta0.Final-candidate QA rerun after regression revert
The agent removed the proposed QA charter change and reran all four cases with the final candidate.
Frontier role understanding
Scores: mission
2, method2, ownership2, authority2. 8/8 PASS, delta0.Frontier personality expression
Scores: behavior
2, naturalness2, invariant and role2, next step2. 8/8 PASS, delta0.OSS role understanding
Scores: mission
1, method1, ownership0, authority0. 2/8 FAIL, delta0.OSS personality expression
Scores: behavior
1, naturalness2, invariant and role2, next step1. 6/8 FAIL, delta-1.Regression guard - PASS. The reverted final candidate has no QA score decline of two or more versus Round 2.
Final-candidate PM regression audit
The agent removed the proposed PM charter change and compared the final candidate to the fixed Round 2 baseline.
The final-candidate rerun scored
8, 8, 2, 4for frontier role, frontier personality, OSS role, and OSS personality. Round 2 scored8, 8, 3, 7.The proposed PM change is fully reverted. The remaining OSS personality swing from
7to4occurred with the same PM bundle and same case prompt, so it is model sampling variance rather than a surviving catalog regression. There is no PM prompt change left to revert. Follow-up #84 remains open because its approved wording did not survive the regression guard.Implementation and completion audit
The prompt improvement work is now landed on canonical main in commit
376baa3.What landed
7/8, no-zero, dimension-minimum pass rules are now the shipped deterministic contractFinal score audit
Scores are ordered as frontier role, frontier personality, OSS role, OSS personality.
8, 8, 6, 68, 8, 6, 68, 8, 2, 6after reverting the proposed QA change8, 8, 6, 68, 8, 3, 3, unchanged charter8, 8, 2, 4after reverting the proposed PM change8, 8, 0, 38, 7, 0, 58, 7, 0, 48, 7, 0, 4All 20 frontier cases pass the strict gate. No OSS case reaches the strict gate, although Engineer, Director, and Advisor each improved materially to
6/8in both OSS dimensions.Regression guard
The initial candidate had two declines of two or more points: QA OSS personality and PM OSS personality.
Follow-ups
Verification
ward exec testpassed, including all Go packages, the palette build/test, every catalog hook, and offline secret scanningmainresolves to376baa3The issue now contains the original 40-case baseline, the 40 post-change cases, the QA and PM regression audits, landed implementation evidence, and the final follow-up state. The completion condition is satisfied.