experiment: seal critical PTCNA evaluation result - #16
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5c24444678
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "result_digest": "3d73f08f3e0eeaf0f5e508aba762844c9e8d11b7146b654fd562aff425e30f13", | ||
| "schema": "ptcna.critical-evaluation-result", | ||
| "schema_version": "1.0.0", | ||
| "source_commit": "3d67f359af05e58c1e426dad14621d0e69b5ec4c" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Record the commit that actually generated the receipt
When an auditor follows source_commit, this hash checks out the pre-preregistration tree: it lacks the frozen plan/runner and its evaluation.py still uses the earlier single-status/deficit API, so it cannot generate or validate this receipt. The documentation says execution occurred only after f202800... was merged; preserve the 3d67f... backend baseline separately and record the actual execution/evaluator commit in the sealed JSON so the frozen metrics and failure semantics are reproducible.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L35-L38
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Frozen result
67cdad3aefb3e33f6fbf3994de54e1b73a01105527bf241fce08947ed7046bbe3d73f08f3e0eeaf0f5e508aba762844c9e8d11b7146b654fd562aff425e30f13The result was recorded before repair. Construction compatibility remains established; generalization, continuous geometry, EDCM validity, external validity, and production privacy remain unestablished.
Validation