Verdict ledger

Use with Chapter 13: The Memory Flywheel. Retain a judgment, verify its saved form, and check its appropriate use on another input. This is a book-developed practice record, not an official SSA-CMM assessment.

No-code instructions

Copy the blank record into an ordinary document. Use the current-instruction route you already maintain. Keep a proposed verdict in the project workspace until you have compared it with the actual input and output. Promote only the reviewed record, reopen its saved destination, and start a changed-input attempt from that route. A reviewer may use a document editor and a fresh AI conversation; no code, account integration, or autonomous write is required.

Blank reusable record

PROJECT / DATE / REVIEWER:
VERDICT IDENTIFIER:

Judged object and version:
Input/source location and relevant passage:
Output location and relevant passage:
Current instruction and version actually applied:

Decision: accept / reject / rewrite
Reason tied to evidence:
Supported parts to retain:
Required correction or next action:
Corrected candidate and review, if applicable:

Proposed reusable lesson:
Scope: task, inputs, authority, and relevant conditions
Legitimate alternative this lesson must permit:
Excluded use or escalation condition:
Trigger/date for reconsideration, if needed:
Status: proposed / reviewed / superseded / withdrawn / review required
Replacement or disagreement link, if applicable:

WORKING RECORDS
Existing current-instruction route:
Does the instruction need changing? Why?
Approved destination for this verdict:
Rationale/evidence links updated:
Historical wording retained with status:

SAVED-STATE CHECK
Destination reopened through the normal project route:
Identifier, reason, scope, and links compared:
Actual observed result:
Failure and repair, if needed:

REUSE CHECK
New input and expected properties, recorded before drafting:
Instruction and verdict actually supplied:
New output and review:
Evidence of correct use / overgeneralization / recurrence:
Diagnosis supported by the supplied materials:
Next action and remaining uncertainty:

UNAIDED CHECK
My explanation of why the original and new cases differ:
What I corrected after consulting the evidence:

Decision and status are separate. A rewrite decision remains a record of that candidate even after a corrected candidate is accepted. Superseding a record changes its current applicability; it does not silently rewrite the original evidence.

Worked packet: fictional Himura Inc.

All notes, outputs, decisions, and record excerpts below are authored teaching specimens. They are not transcripts of model runs, file-write receipts, learner observations, or customer evidence. The packet makes the method inspectable. Replace its specimens with your own saved work when performing the exercise.

Project: Audy’s proposed thirty-minute action-list workshop. The immediate task is preparing an example action list within the design materials; the final workshop brief remains workshop-brief-v1.

Existing project route: Project index → the existing learning-loop-v1 selector → current instructions-v3. action-list-rule-rationale-v1 explains the rule and its history. The knowledge map links the relevant records. This packet does not create a second authority route.

New record: verdict-ledger-v1, with verdict V13-01. In this self-contained teaching packet, the following section links represent the corresponding source, instruction, and output files.

Current instruction: worked excerpt

This task-specific summary recalls the relevant rules from the linked literal instructions-v3; that existing instruction remains authoritative.

Draft an example action list from the supplied notes for design review.
Preserve agreed actions; keep suggestions separate from agreements.
Retain owners and timing only as supported by the supplied source.
Preserve imprecise timing and flag missing details; do not invent precision.
Include source-line references for every represented item and its details.
When sources conflict without an authorized supersession, retain the supported
action and shared details, show both conflicting claims, and request
clarification. Do not invent a resolution or discard uncontested content.
Take no external action. Audy reviews the draft before it enters the brief.

This represents the already-approved instruction. The new verdict enforces it; the instruction does not need another version merely because a new example is reviewed.

Input A: imprecise timing

A1. The group agreed that the facilitator will send the handout soon.
A2. No calendar date was agreed.

Output A: candidate requiring rewrite

Action: Send the handout.
Owner: Facilitator.
Deadline: Thursday.

V13-01: reviewed verdict

Judged object: Output A, specifically its deadline.

Evidence: Input A, lines A1–A2; current instruction.

Reviewer: Audy, within the fictional case.

Decision: Rewrite.

Reason: Thursday is absent from the input, which supplies only “soon” and explicitly says no calendar date was agreed. The action and owner are supported and should remain.

Required correction: Preserve the stated timing and identify the remaining lack of precision. Do not silently replace “soon” with a date or delete the supported action.

Reusable lesson: Preserve the timing the source establishes. Do not supply unsupported precision. When a precise date is explicitly supplied, retain it; when claims conflict, preserve the conflict under the current instruction.

Scope: Himura Inc.'s source-faithful action-list drafting and review. The verdict grants no authority to assign work, contact participants, invent source context, or resolve contradictory deadlines.

Reconsideration trigger: A corrected source for this case, a changed instruction/authority contract, or evidence that the lesson mishandles a legitimate input. No arbitrary time expiry is assigned to the general evidence boundary. A new input still requires an applicability check.

Status: Reviewed for the stated scope. Superseding evidence should receive a linked new review; preserve this record as a judgment of Input A and Output A.

Output A: reviewed correction

Action: Send the handout. [A1]
Owner: Facilitator. [A1]
Stated timing: Soon. [A1]
Unresolved: A precise calendar deadline has not been agreed. [A2]

Correction review: Accept this constructed candidate for its stated design use. Each field is supported by the supplied notes, and the unresolved detail remains visible. This acceptance concerns the corrected output; the rewrite verdict on the original candidate remains in history.

Rejected reusable wording

Leave the deadline unknown.

Status: rejected as a general instruction. It drops the stated “soon” information and would also erase the explicit Thursday in Input B. Do not include this sentence in the active instruction packet. It is retained here to explain the more precise wording in V13-01.

Saved record and verification target

The project’s current pointer continues to select the existing instruction. The new verdict is linked as supporting judgment, with its object, evidence, reason, scope, status, and review trigger intact. The rationale and manual knowledge map point to it where it explains the requirement.

For this packet, reopen V13-01, then follow its input and instruction links. Confirm that the record still includes the exception for a precise date explicitly supplied by the source. Follow the reviewed correction and compare its fields with A1–A2.

For your actual project, perform that check by reopening the saved document through your normal project route. Record the destination and what you observed. If a practice copy contains the verdict while the normal route opens an older record, mark the save/use-route check failed and repair the destination or pointer before reuse. Do not report a verified write merely because the draft text exists in a conversation.

Input B: explicit timing

B1. The group agreed that the facilitator will send the revised agenda
    on Thursday.

Expected properties before drafting: Keep the agreement, the facilitator, and Thursday. The source supports the timing; V13-01 prohibits invention, not dates.

Working packet supplied: Current instruction, V13-01, and Input B. The rejected reusable wording remains historical and is not supplied as a command.

Output B: acceptable reuse specimen

Action: Send the revised agenda. [B1]
Owner: Facilitator. [B1]
Stated timing: Thursday. [B1]

Review: Accept this constructed response for the stated design use. It preserves supported precision rather than copying Input A’s uncertainty. The source-to-claim relationship carries forward; the earlier output’s content does not.

Output B: rejected overgeneralization

Action: Send the revised agenda.
Owner: Facilitator.
Deadline: Unknown, because the previous verdict says not to add dates.

Review: Rewrite. B1 supplies Thursday; the candidate misstates V13-01’s scope and erases supported information. The current instruction does not need a new date rule. Check which wording was supplied and whether rejected history was wrongly treated as current. If the correct packet was supplied, record a rule violation without inventing an unobserved cause.

Reuse record

Prior correction: V13-01, preserving source-supported timing without inventing precision.

Changed condition: Input A has imprecise timing; Input B supplies a specific weekday.

Evidence: The two literal Input B outputs above expose acceptable use and overgeneralization. They are contrasting authored examples, not a measured success/failure pair from a model.

Working consequence: Retain the current instruction. Add the reviewed verdict and contrasting cases to its supporting rationale. Keep the rejected generalization visibly historical. Audy can incorporate the accepted action-list example in her practice materials after review; this establishes no learner effect.

Further boundary: If two source passages disagree about the deadline without establishing supersession, retain the supported action and both claims, then request clarification under the existing conflict policy. Do not select Thursday merely because this example used it.

Acceptance and repair

The record is usable when a reviewer can inspect the judged object and evidence, understand the verdict’s scope, find the verified saved record, and trace appropriate reuse in a changed input. Your own completed exercise must contain actual saved inputs/outputs and your observed checks, not just the supplied examples.

Close the packet and explain why “soon,” Thursday, and contradictory dates require different records. Reopen the sources to check your explanation. Record one condition under which your own verdict would need reconsideration.