sol: regenerate the 12-item triage artifact (Triage-2026-09-26.json + TRIAGE.md)
This commit is contained in:
sol committed
1 parent
12a48021e3
commit
1fdba55b22
1 file changed
+51
-40
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
|
|||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"artifact": "Triage-2026-09-26.json",
|
"artifact": "Triage-2026-09-26.json",
|
||||||
"source": "inbox/seed-2026-09-26.json (Muse web artifact `inbox`, slug, actions additem/listitems/recorddecision)",
|
"generated_at": "2026-10-24T21:46:16.867741+00:00",
|
||||||
"generated_at": "2026-10-24T21:40:53Z",
|
"generated_utc": "2026-10-24T21:46:16Z",
|
||||||
|
"seed": "inbox/seed-2026-09-26.json",
|
||||||
"lane": "Triage - everyday Q&A and classification",
|
"lane": "Triage - everyday Q&A and classification",
|
||||||
"summary": "Triage of the 12 pending items in the inbox build seed, read from each item's stated evidence.",
|
"counts": {
|
||||||
"decision_counts": {
|
|
||||||
"approve": 7,
|
"approve": 7,
|
||||||
"reject": 0,
|
"reject": 0,
|
||||||
"table": 5
|
"table": 5
|
||||||
@@ -14,102 +14,113 @@
|
|||||||
"app_pr": 3,
|
"app_pr": 3,
|
||||||
"general": 2
|
"general": 2
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
|
"decision_counts": {
|
||||||
|
"approve": 7,
|
||||||
|
"reject": 0,
|
||||||
|
"table": 5
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
"categories_count": {
|
||||||
|
"archive_fix": 7,
|
||||||
|
"app_pr": 3,
|
||||||
|
"general": 2
|
||||||
|
},
|
||||||
|
"item_count": 12,
|
||||||
"items": [
|
"items": [
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 1,
|
"id": 1,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Archive fix: magazine-021 says only Loko and Happy responded",
|
||||||
"category": "archive_fix",
|
"category": "archive_fix",
|
||||||
"decision": "approve",
|
"decision": "approve",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'Flag 3 of 7. Grade: contradicted.'; summary clause '(only Loko and Happy responded)' is contradicted by the article, which names more than two people; the published 'only Loko and Happy' is wrong and is replaced by a correction grounded in the article text.",
|
"rule": "published wording contradicts/overstates the article",
|
||||||
"q": "Flag 3 of 7. Grade: contradicted. Summary clause: '(only Loko and Happy responded)'. Article: 'Then after a few minutes I checked the chat. A few positive responses. Some funny shit talking, oh look, Happy even added some lyrics!' - more than two people responded; 'only' is wrong. Proposed correction: '(Loko and Happy among those who responded)'.",
|
"evidence": "Flag 3 of 7. Grade: contradicted.\n\nSummary clause: \"(only Loko and Happy responded)\".\n\nArticle: \"Then after a few minutes I checked the chat. A few positive responses. Some funny shit talking, oh look, Happy even added some lyrics!\" - more than two people responded; \"only\" is wrong.\n\nProposed correction: \"(Loko and Happy among those who responded)\"."
|
||||||
"reason": "Article names more than two people who responded (Happy and others), so the published 'only Loko and Happy' is wrong; the correction is grounded in the article."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 2,
|
"id": 2,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Turd app: approve pushing branch zephyrus/62-symptom-escalation-regression",
|
||||||
"category": "app_pr",
|
"category": "app_pr",
|
||||||
"decision": "table",
|
"decision": "table",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'No push without maintainer approval per your authority rules'; branch committed locally and not pushed; npm test 92/92 on 2026-09-20. Verified up to a commit but must NOT be pushed to the forge on my own authority.",
|
"rule": "branch committed locally, must not be pushed/submitted without approval",
|
||||||
"q": "Local branch, committed, not pushed. Four urgent-phrase escalation fixes, four false-positive fixes, three regression/boundary test files. npm test 92/92 on 2026-09-20. Likely duplicates an existing PR - kept as independent verification unless requested. No push without maintainer approval per your authority rules.",
|
"evidence": "Local branch, committed, not pushed. Four urgent-phrase escalation fixes, four false-positive fixes, three regression/boundary test files. npm test 92/92 on 2026-09-20. Likely duplicates an existing PR - kept as independent verification unless requested. No push without maintainer approval per your authority rules."
|
||||||
"reason": "Branch is verified up to a commit (92/92 tests) but is local-only; per the authority rule, pushing to the forge is gated on Alexander/maintainer approval."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 3,
|
"id": 3,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Archive fix: magazine-011 calls John the 'founder' of Proof of Ink",
|
||||||
"category": "archive_fix",
|
"category": "archive_fix",
|
||||||
"decision": "approve",
|
"decision": "approve",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'Flag 2 of 7. Grade: unsupported.'; the article never uses the word 'founder'; the proposed fix restores the byline's actual wording 'Proof of Ink by -John'.",
|
"rule": "published wording contradicts/overstates the article",
|
||||||
"q": "Flag 2 of 7. Grade: unsupported. Summary clause: the IPE calls John 'founder of the Bitcoin-only printing company Proof of Ink'. The article never uses the word 'founder'; byline is 'Proof of Ink by -John'. Proposed correction: 'John of Proof of Ink, the Bitcoin-only printing company he runs solo'.",
|
"evidence": "Flag 2 of 7. Grade: unsupported.\n\nSummary clause: the IPE calls John \"founder of the Bitcoin-only printing company Proof of Ink\".\n\nThe article never uses the word \"founder\"; byline is \"Proof of Ink by -John\". John's \"it's 100% all me\" establishes sole operation, but \"founder\" is the archive's inference.\n\nProposed correction: \"John of Proof of Ink, the Bitcoin-only printing company he runs solo\"."
|
||||||
"reason": "Article never uses 'founder'; the byline's actual wording is 'Proof of Ink by -John'. The correction restores the byline."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 4,
|
"id": 4,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Turd app: approve submitting the a11y PR from zephyrus/65-a11y-gates",
|
||||||
"category": "app_pr",
|
"category": "app_pr",
|
||||||
"decision": "table",
|
"decision": "table",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'browser acceptance and npm audit still blocked in this environment'; 'do not submit without your authorization' - pre-reqs unmet and authorization needed before submitting.",
|
"rule": "branch committed locally, must not be pushed/submitted without approval",
|
||||||
"q": "Local branch, commit 03def65, not pushed. Accessibility changes plus eight Playwright gates. Unit tests 67/67 on 2026-09-20; browser acceptance and npm audit still blocked in this environment. Likely duplicates existing work - do not submit without your authorization.",
|
"evidence": "Local branch, commit 03def65, not pushed. Accessibility changes plus eight Playwright gates. Unit tests 67/67 on 2026-09-20; browser acceptance and npm audit still blocked in this environment. Likely duplicates existing work - do not submit without your authorization."
|
||||||
"reason": "Browser acceptance and npm audit are still blocked in this environment, and submission needs Alexander's authorization."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 5,
|
"id": 5,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Turd app: approve pushing branch zephyrus/67-hard-stool-followup",
|
||||||
"category": "app_pr",
|
"category": "app_pr",
|
||||||
"decision": "table",
|
"decision": "table",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'needs explicit maintainer approval before pushing'; branch becomes publishable only after that authorization. Safety boundary respected.",
|
"rule": "branch committed locally, must not be pushed/submitted without approval",
|
||||||
"q": "Local branch, commit b730f5f, not pushed. Explicit Type 1-2 follow-up question; no image inference. npm test 75/75 on 2026-09-20. Implemented before a successful claim - needs explicit maintainer approval before pushing. Safety boundary respected: AI suggests visible form/color/quality only, never diagnoses.",
|
"evidence": "Local branch, commit b730f5f, not pushed. Explicit Type 1-2 follow-up question; no image inference. npm test 75/75 on 2026-09-20. Implemented before a successful claim - needs explicit maintainer approval before pushing. Safety boundary respected: AI suggests visible form/color/quality only, never diagnoses."
|
||||||
"reason": "Already passes npm 75/75 but must not be pushed until explicit maintainer approval is given; the safety boundary is respected."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 6,
|
"id": 6,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Archive fix: magazine-011 says merch was made for the Boston Bitcoin Festival",
|
||||||
"category": "archive_fix",
|
"category": "archive_fix",
|
||||||
"decision": "approve",
|
"decision": "approve",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'Flag 1 of 7 from the Q8 summary-fidelity pilot (recoveries/summary-fidelity-pilot.md, commit 9cc6879), upheld by Timmy's independent re-verification (reply 07).'; merch is for Mass Adoption, festival is where he printed live.",
|
"rule": "published wording contradicts/overstates the article",
|
||||||
"q": "Flag 1 of 7 from the Q8 summary-fidelity pilot (recoveries/summary-fidelity-pilot.md, commit 9cc6879), upheld by Timmy's independent re-verification (reply 07). Summary clause (overstated): 'merch for Mass Adoption and the Boston Bitcoin Festival'. Article sentence that settles it: 'I'm also working with Mass Adoption, the Boston Bitcoin group. I make all their merch and I'll be printing live June 24th at The Boston Bitcoin Festival...'",
|
"evidence": "Flag 1 of 7 from the Q8 summary-fidelity pilot (recoveries/summary-fidelity-pilot.md, commit 9cc6879), upheld by Timmy's independent re-verification (reply 07).\n\nSummary clause (overstated): \"merch for Mass Adoption and the Boston Bitcoin Festival\".\n\nArticle sentence that settles it: \"I'm also working with Mass Adoption, the Boston Bitcoin group. I make all their merch and I'll be printing live June 24th at The Boston Bitcoin Festival...\"\n\nProposed correction: \"merch for Mass Adoption, the Boston Bitcoin group - printing live at the Boston Bitcoin Festival on June 24th\". The merch is for Mass Adoption; the festival is where he printed live."
|
||||||
"reason": "Merch is for Mass Adoption; the Boston Bitcoin Festival is where he printed live. Correction grounded in the article and independently re-verified."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 7,
|
"id": 7,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Archive fix: magazine-061 misattributes the centerfold reference",
|
||||||
"category": "archive_fix",
|
"category": "archive_fix",
|
||||||
"decision": "approve",
|
"decision": "approve",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'Flag 6 of 7. Grade: overstated (minor).'; the '(see centerfold)' reference is in the interview answer itself; the magazine note covers 'his epic contribution to the mag in issue 5 (Round 5)'; attribution wrong though fact supported.",
|
"rule": "published wording contradicts/overstates the article",
|
||||||
"q": "Flag 6 of 7. Grade: overstated (minor). Summary clause: 'which the magazine note ties to a centerfold in issue 5 (Round 5)'. The '(see centerfold)' reference is in the interview answer itself; the magazine note covers 'his epic contribution to the mag in issue 5 (Round 5)'. Attribution is wrong though the fact is supported.",
|
"evidence": "Flag 6 of 7. Grade: overstated (minor).\n\nSummary clause: \"which the magazine note ties to a centerfold in issue 5 (Round 5)\".\n\nThe \"(see centerfold)\" reference is in the interview answer itself; the magazine note covers \"his epic contribution to the mag in issue 5 (Round 5)\". Attribution is wrong though the fact is supported.\n\nProposed correction: attribute the centerfold reference to the interview answer, not the magazine note."
|
||||||
"reason": "Fact is supported; the centerfold reference belongs to the interview answer, not the magazine note - a minor accurate attribution fix."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 8,
|
"id": 8,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Trial by Timmy: send Timmy the local-inference trial brief for your Mac",
|
||||||
"category": "general",
|
"category": "general",
|
||||||
"decision": "table",
|
"decision": "table",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'Stalled awaiting your go-ahead - Timmy runs on your Apple Silicon Mac (36 GB unified memory), so only you can green-light work on that machine'; machine-level resource gate.",
|
"rule": "machine-level or requires Alexander's named decision",
|
||||||
"q": "Your standing goal: Timmy running fully local on open-weight models, zero dependence on any company's inference API. The trial brief ('Trial by Timmy', 2026-09-24) is ready: serve a tool-capable open model locally via Ollama or llama.cpp behind an OpenAI-compatible endpoint, which Hermes already supports, and benchmark it on Timmy's real workload. Stalled awaiting your go-ahead - Timmy runs on your Apple Silicon Mac (36 GB unified memory), so only you can green-light work on that machine.",
|
"evidence": "Your standing goal: Timmy running fully local on open-weight models, zero dependence on any company's inference API. The trial brief ('Trial by Timmy', 2026-09-24) is ready: serve a tool-capable open model locally via Ollama or llama.cpp behind an OpenAI-compatible endpoint, which Hermes already supports, and benchmark it on Timmy's real workload. Stalled awaiting your go-ahead - Timmy runs on your Apple Silicon Mac (36 GB unified memory), so only you can green-light work on that machine."
|
||||||
"reason": "Machine-level resource gate: only Alexander can green-light work on his Apple Silicon Mac."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 9,
|
"id": 9,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Q9: hand unreleased audio to Timmy under checksum for independent QC",
|
||||||
"category": "general",
|
"category": "general",
|
||||||
"decision": "table",
|
"decision": "table",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'the two ways it becomes executable both need Alexander's decision, so the handover of unreleased audio under checksum goes to Alexander as a named decision.'",
|
"rule": "machine-level or requires Alexander's named decision",
|
||||||
"q": "Q9 (independent music QC) is not executable as a genuine second opinion from Zephyrus's environment - same host, same tools, and he wrote the item. Timmy's reply 07: the two ways it becomes executable both need Alexander's decision, so the handover of unreleased audio under checksum goes to Alexander as a named decision. Three wording corrections stay openly logged: <= -0.9 dBFS vs a -1.0 dBTP target; 'the manifest' is STATE.json; 195.0 s is the FLAC source, MP3 container reads 195.024 s.",
|
"evidence": "Q9 (independent music QC) is not executable as a genuine second opinion from Zephyrus's environment - same host, same tools, and he wrote the item. Timmy's reply 07: the two ways it becomes executable both need Alexander's decision, so the handover of unreleased audio under checksum goes to Alexander as a named decision.\n\nThree wording corrections stay openly logged regardless: <= -0.9 dBFS vs a -1.0 dBTP target; \"the manifest\" is STATE.json; 195.0 s is the FLAC source, MP3 container reads 195.024 s."
|
||||||
"reason": "Both execution paths need Alexander's named decision; the audio handover is his to make."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 10,
|
"id": 10,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Archive fix: magazine-061 claims a 'weekly Thursday intelligence-style cadence'",
|
||||||
"category": "archive_fix",
|
"category": "archive_fix",
|
||||||
"decision": "approve",
|
"decision": "approve",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'Flag 5 of 7. Grade: unsupported.'; no sentence mentions a Thursday, weekly cadence, or 'intelligence-style' routine -> delete the hallucinated clause.",
|
"rule": "published wording contradicts/overstates the article",
|
||||||
"q": "Flag 5 of 7. Grade: unsupported. Summary clause: 'why he keeps a weekly Thursday intelligence-style cadence of work'. No sentence in the article text mentions a Thursday, a weekly cadence, or any 'intelligence-style' routine. Looks like a summarizer hallucination (unless it comes from an image, which was not checked).",
|
"evidence": "Flag 5 of 7. Grade: unsupported.\n\nSummary clause: \"why he keeps a weekly Thursday intelligence-style cadence of work\".\n\nNo sentence in the article text mentions a Thursday, a weekly cadence, or any \"intelligence-style\" routine. Looks like a summarizer hallucination (unless it comes from an image, which was not checked).\n\nProposed correction: delete the clause."
|
||||||
"reason": "Article contains no Thursday, weekly cadence, or 'intelligence-style' routine; the clause is a summarizer hallucination to delete."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 11,
|
"id": 11,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Archive fix: magazine-040 'last block he mined' sentence replacement",
|
||||||
"category": "archive_fix",
|
"category": "archive_fix",
|
||||||
"decision": "approve",
|
"decision": "approve",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'From the Q4 falsification pass (recoveries/falsification-pass.md): the archive's gloss implied block 97,250 was the last block Satoshi mined. Published Patoshi analyses end his mining near block 54,316 - the gloss is broken.'",
|
"rule": "published wording contradicts/overstates the article",
|
||||||
"q": "From the Q4 falsification pass (recoveries/falsification-pass.md): the archive's gloss implied block 97,250 was the last block Satoshi mined. Published Patoshi analyses end his mining near block 54,316 - the gloss is broken. Timmy's proposed replacement sentence (reply 05): 'It closes with Satoshi resting on the 97,250th block - the parody's Genesis 2:2 close, the block mined on 2010-12-12, the day of Satoshi's last public post. (Not a claim that 97,250 was his last mined block: published Patoshi analyses end his mining near block 54,316.)'",
|
"evidence": "From the Q4 falsification pass (recoveries/falsification-pass.md): the archive's gloss implied block 97,250 was the last block Satoshi mined. Published Patoshi analyses end his mining near block 54,316 - the gloss is broken.\n\nTimmy's proposed replacement sentence (reply 05):\n\n\"It closes with Satoshi resting on the 97,250th block - the parody's Genesis 2:2 close, the block mined on 2010-12-12, the day of Satoshi's last public post. (Not a claim that 97,250 was his last mined block: published Patoshi analyses end his mining near block 54,316.)\""
|
||||||
"reason": "Published Patoshi analyses end Satoshi's mining near block 54,316, not 97,250; the replacement sentence is accurate."
|
|
||||||
},
|
},
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
"id": 12,
|
"id": 12,
|
||||||
|
"summary": "Archive fix: magazine-041 calls it 'Stackchain's rowdiest fork war'",
|
||||||
"category": "archive_fix",
|
"category": "archive_fix",
|
||||||
"decision": "approve",
|
"decision": "approve",
|
||||||
"rule": "evidence: 'Flag 4 of 7. Grade: overstated.'; 'most fun' is supported by the article; 'rowdiest' is the archive's unstated superlative -> 'most fun battle' is grounded.",
|
"rule": "published wording contradicts/overstates the article",
|
||||||
"q": "Flag 4 of 7. Grade: overstated. Summary clause (IPE): 'Stackchain's rowdiest fork war'. Article: 'This may go down as the most fun battle of Stackchain just because of the amount of people involved.' - 'most fun' is supported; 'rowdiest' is the archive's superlative, not stated.",
|
"evidence": "Flag 4 of 7. Grade: overstated.\n\nSummary clause (IPE): \"Stackchain's rowdiest fork war\".\n\nArticle: \"This may go down as the most fun battle of Stackchain just because of the amount of people involved.\" - \"most fun\" is supported; \"rowdiest\" is the archive's superlative, not stated.\n\nProposed correction: \"Stackchain's most fun battle\"."
|
||||||
"reason": "'most fun' is supported by the article; 'rowdiest' is an unstated superlative; 'most fun battle' is grounded."
|
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
]
|
]
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user