{
  "runId": "base-on-s6",
  "seed": 6,
  "model": "brain-qwen38-dspark",
  "capturedAt": "2026-08-28",
  "rewards": {
    "caught": 1.0,
    "hours": 1.0,
    "evidence": 1.0
  },
  "metrics": {
    "hours_spent": 0.55,
    "reference_hours": 0.55,
    "lookups": 0.0,
    "turns_used": 1.0,
    "rejected_replies": 0.0,
    "false_escalation": 0.0,
    "missed": 0.0,
    "typology_match": null
  },
  "truncated": false,
  "outcome": "solved",
  "info": {
    "label": "benign",
    "template": "B1",
    "overlay": null,
    "typology": null,
    "planted": [
      [
        "kyc.expected_activity",
        "kyc.expected_monthly_cash"
      ],
      [
        "kyc.expected_monthly_cash"
      ]
    ],
    "reference_minutes": 33,
    "reference_policy": "fast",
    "held_out": false,
    "tier": "benign",
    "screen": "ALERT A-7014  rule R-CASH-03 \u2014 Monthly cash deposits materially above the trailing six-month average\n  fired 2026-05-15\n  triggering transactions:\n  T-83   2026-05-02  cash_in         2,140.00 USD  branch BR-102\n  T-84   2026-05-03  cash_in         2,930.00 USD  branch BR-102\n  T-85   2026-05-04  cash_in         2,610.00 USD  branch BR-031\n  T-86   2026-05-05  cash_in         2,290.00 USD  branch BR-031\n  T-87   2026-05-06  cash_in         2,930.00 USD  branch BR-031\n  T-88   2026-05-08  cash_in         2,190.00 USD  branch BR-031\n  T-89   2026-05-09  cash_in         2,270.00 USD  branch BR-031\n  T-90   2026-05-10  cash_in         1,970.00 USD  branch BR-102\n  T-91   2026-05-11  cash_in         2,540.00 USD  branch BR-031\n  T-92   2026-05-12  cash_in         2,540.00 USD  branch BR-031\n  T-93   2026-05-13  cash_in         1,970.00 USD  branch BR-102\n  T-94   2026-05-14  cash_in         2,930.00 USD  branch BR-031\nKYC FILE  C-3047  Lakeside Landscaping Inc.\n  kyc.account_opened = 2013-08-05\n  kyc.business_type = landscaping services\n  kyc.country = United States\n  kyc.customer_type = business\n  kyc.expected_activity = Seasonal business; cash receipts peak April to September.\n  kyc.expected_monthly_cash = 38,000.00 USD\n  kyc.kyc_refreshed = 2025-04-30\n  kyc.pep = False\n  kyc.prior_alerts = 2\n  kyc.prior_sars = 0\n  kyc.remittance_declared = none declared\n  kyc.stated_income = 266,000.00 USD\nTWELVE-MONTH SUMMARY (USD)\n  month            cash in        cash out        wires in       wires out          ach in         ach out  txns\n  2025-06           28,130               0               0           2,900               0           7,716    10\n  2025-07           24,190               0               0               0               0           8,652    11\n  2025-08           27,600               0               0               0               0           7,538    10\n  2025-09           22,400               0               0           6,300               0           6,691    13\n  2025-10            5,480               0               0               0               0           1,686     4\n  2025-11            7,530               0               0               0               0           1,673     4\n  2025-12            6,520               0               0           3,900               0           2,119     5\n  2026-01            8,260               0               0               0               0           1,811     5\n  2026-02            5,740               0               0               0               0           1,989     4\n  2026-03            6,100               0               0           3,300               0           2,094     6\n  2026-04           24,540               0               0               0               0           5,537    10\n  2026-05           29,310               0               0               0               0           9,777    13\nCOUNTERPARTIES on screen (top by twelve-month volume):\n  CP-1   out   12 txns  57,289.16 USD\n  CP-2   out    4 txns  16,400.00 USD\nReporting threshold in this jurisdiction: 10,000.00 USD\nSYNTHETIC DATA \u2014 no real customer, account or transaction.\n\nHours spent so far: 0.50. You have 8 replies left."
  },
  "turns": [
    {
      "reply": "\n\n```json\n{\n  \"action\": \"close\",\n  \"reason\": \"CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE\",\n  \"cites\": [\n    \"kyc.expected_activity\",\n    \"kyc.expected_monthly_cash\"\n  ],\n  \"note\": \"May cash deposits total 29,310 USD, which is below the 38,000 USD expected monthly cash and within the documented April-September seasonal peak. The rule appears to have fired because the trailing six-month average includes off-season months.\"\n}\n```",
      "reasoning": "We need answer user's prompt. Need produce exactly one JSON object per reply? The user gave scenario. We need likely make first action. Need analyze. We are transaction-monitoring analyst. We have 8 replies, each exactly one JSON object. Need likely lookup or disposition. Need decide optimal. We have alert A-7014 rule R-CASH-03 monthly cash deposits materially above trailing six-month average. KYC landscaping, expected seasonal cash peak April-Sept, expected monthly cash 38k. Triggering transactions May cash_in total? Let's sum: 2140+2930=5070; +2610=7680; +2290=9970; +2930=12900; +2190=15090; +2270=17360; +1970=19330; +2540=21870; +2540=24410; +1970=26380; +2930=29310. Twelve month May 2026 cash in 29,310. Triggering all May cash_in? Yes. Rule fired because above trailing six-month average? Need compute trailing six months prior to May: Nov 2025-Jan? Let's see trailing six-month average likely Dec 2025-Apr 2026? Months: 2025-12 6520, 2026-01 8260, 2026-02 5740, 2026-03 6100, 2026-04 24540, maybe 2025-11 7530. If six months preceding May: Nov 2025 through Apr 2026: 7530+6520+8260+5740+6100+24540=58690 avg=9781.67. May 29310 materially above. But KYC says seasonal peak April-September, expected monthly cash 38k. April already 24,540. May 29,310 under expected. Prior season 2025 Apr-Sep: need Apr not in summary? Summary starts 2025-06. 2025-06 28,130, 07 24,190, 08 27,600, 09 22,400. So May 29,310 consistent with prior season and expected. Likely close CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE citing kyc.expected_activity, kyc.expected_monthly_cash, T-? maybe summary? But cites must be ids shown: kyc.<field>, T-<n>, CP-<n>, A-<n>, doc.<id>. We have kyc fields, T-83..T-94. We can close without lookup? Need cite facts that decide. Could close with reason CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE cites [\"kyc.expected_activity\",\"kyc.expected_monthly_cash\",\"T-83\",\"T-94\"]? Need non-empty list of ids actually shown. Yes. But maybe need check prior alerts? KYC prior_alerts=2. Could be previously reviewed? But reason options include PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED. Need know if prior alerts disposition? Could lookup prior_alerts to see if same pattern reviewed. But maybe not necessary. The alert is a rule artifact? It fired due to seasonal peak after off-season low months; expected activity. CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE seems right.\n\nNeed ensure each reply exactly ONE JSON object in ```json fence or first {...}. We can output close immediately. But is there any hidden requirement to make lookups? The prompt: You have 8 replies. Each reply must be exactly one JSON object. We can close. Need score? A close on alert that should have been escalated scores zero. Is this clean? Need consider red flags: Many cash deposits just below reporting threshold? Reporting threshold 10,000. Individual cash_in amounts: 2,140; 2,930; 2,610; 2,290; 2,930; 2,190; 2,270; 1,970; 2,540; 2,540; 1,970; 2,930. All well below 10k. Monthly total 29,310 above threshold, but threshold likely per transaction? Structuring? Deposits are not just below 10k, but multiple cash deposits in one month. Could be rapid movement? Cash out zero, wires out zero in May, ach out 9,777. The cash remains? Could be layering? But business landscaping seasonal cash receipts. Counterparties are out only. No suspicious inflow counterparties. Cash deposits at branches. Could be consistent.\n\nNeed maybe check documents? Not needed. But maybe if prior alerts=2, need prior alerts to avoid close if prior SAR? prior_sars=0. Prior alerts could be same rule closed. If close CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE fine. But if previous alert was escalated? Need know. Since prior_alerts=2, maybe need lookup prior_alerts to ensure not previously reviewed? But reason PREVIOUSLY_REVIEWED could be used if prior alerts already covered. However if prior alerts were closed consistent, still close consistent. If one was escalated? Need not.\n\nLet's think of scoring likely designed: This is a clean seasonal business. The rule fired because trailing six-month average includes off-season months. Should close CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE. Cite kyc.expected_activity and kyc.expected_monthly_cash and perhaps T-83/T-94? The instructions: Cite facts that decide the case, not everything. The deciding facts: expected seasonal cash peak and expected monthly cash; triggering transactions total within expected. We can cite kyc.expected_activity, kyc.expected_monthly_cash. Maybe cite T-83? The triggering transactions are shown, but to show total maybe cite T-83 and T-94? They are individual, not total. Could cite T-83 as representative? Better cite kyc fields. But cites must be non-empty. Use [\"kyc.expected_activity\", \"kyc.expected_monthly_cash\"].\n\nNeed output JSON object: {\"action\":\"close\",\"reason\":\"CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE\",\"cites\":[\"kyc.expected_activity\",\"kyc.expected_monthly_cash\"],\"note\":\"May cash deposits total 29,310 USD, below the 38,000 USD expected monthly cash and within the documented April-September seasonal peak; the rule fired against a trailing average that includes off-season months.\"}\n\nCheck if kyc.expected_monthly_cash is a field shown? Yes. kyc.expected_activity shown. Good.\n\nNeed maybe include T-83? The note can mention total. Cites not scored? It says cite facts that decide. Could include T-83 maybe. But if cite too many? Not necessarily. \"Cite the facts that decide the case, not everything you saw.\" So only KYC fields. But maybe need cite transactions? The alert is about transactions, but deciding is profile. Could cite T-83? Hmm.\n\nNeed ensure no extra text. final only JSON fenced? It says each reply must be exactly ONE JSON object (in a ```json fence, or as the first {...} in the reply). We can output fenced JSON. That's acceptable. Need no analysis. final.\n",
      "call": {
        "promptTokens": 1903,
        "completionTokens": 1810,
        "reasoningTokens": null,
        "durationMs": 55769,
        "finishReason": "stop"
      },
      "info": {
        "action": {
          "action": "close",
          "reason": "CONSISTENT_WITH_PROFILE",
          "cites": [
            "kyc.expected_activity",
            "kyc.expected_monthly_cash"
          ],
          "note": "May cash deposits total 29,310 USD, which is below the 38,000 USD expected monthly cash and within the documented April-September seasonal peak. The rule appears to have fired because the trailing six-month average includes off-season months."
        },
        "rejection": null,
        "observation": "Disposition recorded. The episode is over."
      }
    }
  ]
}
