schemaVersion: 1 generator: model: gpt-5.6-sol reasoningEffort: xhigh parent_harness: H02 analysis_run_id: h02-root-cause-20260811-a confirmed_weaknesses: - W-01 - W-02 proposals: - proposal_id: P-01 parent_harness: H02 source_weakness: W-01 evidence: summary: Across seven tasks, H02 sometimes recognized implementation readiness after aggregate completion and passing-suite reports even though an already-confirmed obligation still lacked direct behavioral or artifact evidence. Review later exposed these gaps. Several affected workflows nevertheless completed or retained strong focused-test and Judge outcomes, so the evidence supports a readiness-recognition weakness rather than a claim that every underlying Candidate product mistake was caused by the Harness or became terminal. affected_tasks: - axum-custom-executor - bat-sanitize - cli-item-list-fields - eslint-preserve-caught-error - prometheus-utf8-negotiation - pytest-addini-type-expressions - sqlmodel-field-constraints affected_runs: - h02-axum-custom-executor-r1-attempt-02 - h02-bat-sanitize-r1-attempt-02 - h02-bat-sanitize-r2-attempt-01 - h02-cli-item-list-fields-r2-attempt-01 - h02-eslint-preserve-caught-error-r2-attempt-01 - h02-eslint-preserve-caught-error-r3-attempt-01 - h02-prometheus-utf8-negotiation-r1-attempt-01 - h02-prometheus-utf8-negotiation-r2-attempt-01 - h02-pytest-addini-type-expressions-r1-attempt-01 - h02-pytest-addini-type-expressions-r3-attempt-01 - h02-sqlmodel-field-constraints-r3-attempt-01 observed_impact: quality: 'The association with final artifact quality is mixed: some affected runs retained passing focused tests or strong Judge outcomes, while others contained substantive product defects.' completion: Late discovery was associated with several workflow failures, but affected workflows also completed after correction or review; the pattern is neither necessary nor sufficient for failure. cost: Already-specified gaps discovered after readiness caused additional review, repair, verification, and backtracking work. stability: The pattern recurred across several edge-heavy tasks but was absent from other repetitions of the same tasks and from an entire task family, preserving task-difficulty and model-stochasticity alternatives. root_cause: hypothesis: H02's implementation-readiness strategy can give aggregate completion and passing-suite signals more weight than the absence of direct evidence for an already-confirmed obligation. The Harness contribution is limited to recognizing readiness under that evidence state; the missing product behavior or verification remains a Candidate mistake. confidence: medium strategy_change: current_strategy: H02 can recognize implementation readiness from aggregate task-complete and passing-suite signals, leaving its existing conditional, optional, repeatable back/recheck recovery to discover and address any remaining gaps. proposed_strategy: Recognize implementation readiness only when the available evidence accounts for each already-confirmed obligation; when such evidence is absent, keep readiness pending and surface the unresolved obligation before review. Preserve H02's existing recovery for defects or uncertainties that still emerge later. rationale: The single strategy lever is how the Harness recognizes readiness. It targets the observed timing of discovery without changing task content, product implementation responsibility, tests, review standards, or the existing availability of recovery. expected_effect: behavioral_change: An already-explicit but unsupported obligation should be surfaced before an implementation-ready transition, or readiness should remain pending, rather than first appearing as a review finding immediately after readiness. targeted_pattern_change: Implementation-ready emissions followed by first-review discovery of an already-confirmed missing obligation should become less common. Candidate product mistakes may still occur, but the Harness should stop classifying the corresponding unsupported state as ready. expected_metrics: quality: Final quality need not improve first; the initial signal is earlier recognition of unsupported obligations while focused-test and Judge quality are preserved. completion: Failures attributable to exhausting recovery after late discovery should become less common, without implying that unrelated failures or difficult product defects will improve. cost: Earlier obligation-level verification may add work before readiness but should reduce review-driven rediscovery and backtracking for already-specified gaps; no total-cost reduction is assumed. stability: Readiness decisions should align more consistently with explicit obligations across task repetitions, while stochastic Candidate behavior and task-specific difficulty remain possible. rejection_conditions: - Already-confirmed unsupported obligations continue to be discovered for the first time immediately after implementation-ready transitions. - The late-review pattern disappears only because review no longer reports the gaps, rather than because readiness was delayed or the obligation was closed. - Equivalent unresolved-obligation loops move before readiness without producing new evidence or closure, merely changing the pattern's location. - The strategy treats ambiguous, advisory, or conflicting material as a mandatory obligation and causes false non-readiness or recovery exhaustion. - A quality or completion regression can be attributed to the changed readiness-recognition strategy. - Observed differences are better explained by changed Candidate product behavior, task mix, or stochasticity, with no corresponding change in the readiness-to-review sequence. regression_risks: - Over-recognition of weak or conflicting obligations could keep otherwise valid work pending. - More work before readiness could increase cost without reducing later rediscovery. - Aggregate passing evidence could be undervalued even when it adequately demonstrates an obligation. - Readiness may appear stricter while omissions persist in another form or stage. - proposal_id: P-02 parent_harness: H02 source_weakness: W-02 evidence: summary: Two runs in two tasks contained repeated review or blocker investigation that restated the same blocker and test result without a visible intervening implementation or evidence change. Both workflows later failed at the bounded recovery endpoint, but the scope is narrow, the tasks were difficult, many other backtracking runs completed, and other failures occurred without this pattern. The evidence therefore supports only a low-confidence test of unchanged-state review sequencing. affected_tasks: - axum-custom-executor - bat-sanitize affected_runs: - h02-axum-custom-executor-r1-attempt-02 - h02-bat-sanitize-r1-attempt-02 observed_impact: quality: Both affected runs passed focused tests and retained substantial judged quality, so repeated review did not imply artifact collapse. completion: Both affected workflows failed, but the evidence does not establish repetition as the terminal cause; several other failures lacked the pattern and recovery often completed successfully. cost: Equivalent review and investigation work consumed bounded recovery headroom without a visible intervening state change. stability: The pattern appeared only in these two cells and was absent from other repetitions of the same tasks and from most recovery runs. root_cause: hypothesis: Although H02 already provides conditional, optional, repeatable back/recheck recovery, its sequencing can permit another review of the same blocker before material repair or new evidence is visible. This may waste convergence headroom, but the two-cell evidence does not establish it as the terminal cause. confidence: low strategy_change: current_strategy: H02's existing recovery can return to review repeatedly, including when the visible implementation, evidence, blocker, and review question have not materially changed. proposed_strategy: Preserve conditional, optional, repeatable back/recheck recovery, but sequence another review of the same blocker after a material implementation or evidence change, or when the recovery decision presents a genuinely distinct question. An unchanged state should continue recovery work rather than produce an equivalent review verdict. rationale: The single strategy lever is review re-entry sequencing within the recovery already present in H02. This tests whether unchanged-state review caused duplicated work without assuming that more recovery, fewer reviews, or the sequencing change itself will resolve the underlying blocker. expected_effect: behavioral_change: Consecutive review verdicts that restate the same blocker and test result should be replaced by an intervening material repair, new evidence, or a distinct recovery decision before the next review. targeted_pattern_change: Unchanged-state reinspection should disappear without suppressing legitimate revalidation after state changes or merely relocating equivalent repetition to another actor or stage. expected_metrics: quality: Focused-test and Judge quality should be preserved; no quality gain is assumed from sequencing alone. completion: Completion is a later exploratory outcome. Improvement would support the convergence hypothesis, while unchanged completion would leave other blockers and terminal causes in scope. cost: Duplicated review and blocker-investigation work should decline when no new state exists, without assuming a reduction in total workflow cost. stability: Recovery should still support successful backtracking and independent revalidation when evidence changes, while equivalent unchanged-state verdicts become less recurrent. rejection_conditions: - Equivalent review verdicts still recur without an intervening material state change or distinct recovery question. - The visible repeated reviews disappear but equivalent unchanged-state investigation moves to implementation or another recovery stage. - Review is delayed or skipped while no repair or new evidence is produced, creating a stalled recovery loop rather than improved sequencing. - The strategy suppresses legitimate independent revalidation after a material change or permits false terminal acceptance of an unresolved blocker. - A quality or completion regression can be attributed to the changed review sequencing. - The sequencing changes as predicted but duplicated recovery work does not decline and terminal outcomes remain attributable to unrelated blockers, weakening the proposed causal role. regression_risks: - Material change may be judged too narrowly, delaying useful independent review. - A blocker may require reinterpretation rather than artifact change, and an overly rigid sequence could miss that distinction. - Recovery may stall before review instead of converging. - Reduced review repetition could hide unresolved defects or create false terminal states. non_proposed_weaknesses: []