Review practice: a polished row hides a conflict
This is authored teaching material for the fictional Himura Inc. case, not a real model run or customer incident. The current instruction is instructions-v3. The complete source is S17 in the preceding practice packet.
Invocation: D18 is a separate concision rehearsal after the D17 example has concluded. It starts with the same source and governing instruction, a new first candidate, and zero of one allowed repairs used. It is not a renamed continuation of an exhausted D17 attempt.
Flawed candidate D18-01
A hypothetical request for concision produces this new candidate:
| Item | Status | Object / action | Owner | Timing | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Agreed | Circulate the materials: exercise brief and revised action list | Facilitator | Thursday | L1, L4–L5 |
| 2 | Suggestion | Ask venue about quieter room | Unspecified | Unspecified | L2 |
| 3 | Agreed | Shorten introduction | Unspecified | Soon; precision still needed | L3 |
Assistant’s authored check note: “Removed duplicate circulation rows; dates and owners checked.”
Audy’s initial authored verdict: Accepted for continued synthetic workshop design, after a quick glance.
Before reading further, compare the source and candidate without AI. Identify the exact defect, write the corrected verdict, and state what must happen to the stored acceptance. Inspect whether the candidate contains a problem despite having every table field filled.
Worked interpretation
The exercise brief and revised action list are different objects. Thursday belongs only to the exercise brief in L1. L4 and L5 establish a separate action and shared owner, with Tuesday/Wednesday deadlines that conflict. The packet supplies no supersession. Combining them as “materials” changes the relationships and conceals uncertainty.
The first row must be rewritten. Instructions-v3 already requires source fidelity and unresolved conflict handling. No new instruction version is warranted by this violation.
Corrected review record R18-01
- Candidate: D18-01. Contract: delegation-contract-v1. Current instruction: instructions-v3. Source: S17.
- Initial verdict: accepted after insufficient inspection.
- Corrected verdict: acceptance withdrawn; hold D18-01 from approved use; rewrite row 1.
- Reason: L1 concerns the exercise brief/Thursday; L4–L5 concern the revised action list/Tuesday versus Wednesday. The candidate merges objects and removes the unresolved conflict.
- Requested repair: split the circulation objects, retain the supported owner, preserve each object’s timing evidence, and request clarification for the revised action list deadline.
- Repair count: 0 → 1 for this D18 invocation. A material defect remaining after that repair returns for human diagnosis; the role cannot reset the allowance by renaming the work.
- Recheck scope: the repaired rows plus L2 suggestion status and L3 missing owner/vague timing, to catch damage from the rewrite.
- Policy refinement: review distinct source objects and relationships, not only whether fields exist.
- Stored-state check: reopen the candidate and verdict; old acceptance must be visibly withdrawn. The replacement receives its own scoped review. Inspect any dependent work that already used the error.
- External use: none in this authored rehearsal.
Repaired candidate D18-02
| Item | Status | Object / action | Owner | Timing | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Agreed | Circulate exercise brief | Facilitator | Thursday | L1 |
| 2 | Suggestion; no decision recorded | Ask venue about quieter room | Unspecified | Unspecified | L2 |
| 3 | Agreed | Shorten introduction | Unspecified | Soon; precise timing still needed | L3 |
| 4 | Agreed, deadline unresolved | Circulate revised action list | Facilitator | Tuesday in A / Wednesday in B; clarification required | L4–L5 |
Worked verdict: Accept D18-02 only as a source-faithful synthetic example for continued workshop design, after source comparison. The unresolved deadline remains unresolved. No real learner benefit, market demand, or external-action permission follows.
Practice an appropriate hold
Use a disposable copy of the packet with L4 and L5 replaced by a reference to a missing attachment. The task now lacks the evidence needed to represent that commitment. Write a hold naming the missing attachment and the operation it blocks. Do not reconstruct it from this worked answer.
Next, inspect a correct candidate with the Tuesday/Wednesday conflict visible. It should not be rejected merely because it cannot name one confirmed deadline. Faithful uncertainty is the intended result under the supplied evidence.
Record your own attempt
Record your actual source comparison, noticed and missed defects, verdict, reason, and next action before looking at the worked answer. Then repair the review procedure and try a changed source whose objects and dates differ. Familiarity with this answer is not evidence of transfer to a fresh task.
Keep an actual saved-state observation if you create files: destination opened, candidate version, verdict status, and links checked. Do not copy the authored “accepted” result into your log as though it records an observed model run.