{
  "key": "halcyon-post-training",
  "dealName": "DEMO — Managed post-training run",
  "accountName": "DEMO — Halcyon Research",
  "stage": "poc",
  "status": "open",
  "summary": "DEMO — Halcyon Research is in week three of an eight-week paid POC to beat a measured 0.64 prompted baseline on regulatory-note summarisation; the verifier is measured at Cohen's kappa 0.71 against a 0.73 human ceiling, but the week-two dev-split reading came in at 0.66, under the trajectory needed for the 0.72 kill gate on 28 August. Two things are live: that trajectory, and the oncology stratum, where Halcyon's own adjudicators agree at only kappa 0.54 and nobody has chosen whether to re-adjudicate, exclude it or report it separately.",
  "openedDaysAgo": 132,
  "artefacts": [
    {
      "templateSlug": "technical-discovery",
      "stage": "qualification",
      "title": "DEMO — Halcyon Research: first technical discovery",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 128,
      "body": "*Discovery call, 90 minutes, on site in Basel. Present from Halcyon: Dr Elsa Wennerberg (VP Research Operations, owns the metric), Joachim Sterk (Head of Editorial Systems), Liv Sørensen (senior analyst, 11 years). From us: forward deployed lead plus one forward deployed engineer. Applied Research not present, by design.*\n\n## The workflow\n\nHalcyon sells regulatory-intelligence subscriptions to life-sciences clients. The unit of work is a **signal note**: an analyst reads a source bundle (registry updates, agency correspondence, filings, sponsor press material) and writes a structured note of roughly 420 words with a materiality call, a claim list and citations back to the bundle.\n\nVolume: about 14,200 source documents ingested a month, condensed into **3,800 published notes a month** by a pool of 31 analysts. Median analyst throughput is 5.6 notes a day. Notes are drafted in Cormorant, their internal editorial system, and pass a senior review before publication.\n\nThe pain is not cost, it is latency. Client SLA is a note within four working hours of the source appearing. Wennerberg says they breach on roughly 9% of notes and every breach is visible to the client, because the client sees the source on the registry at the same moment Halcyon does.\n\n## The failed attempt\n\nSterk's team ran a prompting programme from October to January: nine prompt variants against a frontier model, three-shot, with retrieval over the bundle. Measured on 120 hand-checked notes, the best variant reached **0.58 on what they call faithful-and-complete rate** (a note counts only if it contains zero unsupported claims and misses no material event). It plateaued: variants seven, eight and nine were within noise of each other. Human analysts sit at 0.91 on the same check. They concluded prompting had run out and stopped. That is the headroom argument, and they made it themselves before we did.\n\n## Traces and rights\n\nCormorant holds 41 months of note history at that rate, roughly **156,000 published notes**, each linked to its source bundle. Two complications. First, about 22% derive from client-confidential documents that Halcyon cannot use for training under existing subscription contracts, leaving roughly 122,000. Second, and better than it sounds: Cormorant retains the **pre-review and post-review versions** for 9,400 notes, which is an edit-diff corpus showing exactly what senior reviewers correct. Sørensen believes most corrections are missed materiality, not style.\n\n## Verification\n\nTwo-part and plausibly computable. Every numeric value, date and registry identifier in a note must appear in the bundle, which is deterministic string and range matching. Materiality and completeness are judgement, and Halcyon already has a six-point internal rubric used in review. Nobody has ever measured whether two senior analysts applying that rubric agree with each other. That measurement is the first thing we need.\n\n## What we did not get\n\nNo baseline on a held-out set — the 120 notes were sampled by Sterk's team from cases they had already looked at. No budget line. Wennerberg said \"productivity budget exists\" and could not name it. Chief Research Officer Alan Beaumont is described as supportive but did not attend.\n\n## Next\n\nScore the trainability scorecard today. Open the data and security brief with Sterk and Isabelle Vance (General Counsel) before we design anything.",
      "kind": "discovery"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "data-and-security-brief",
      "stage": "legal",
      "title": "DEMO — Halcyon Research: data and security brief",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 111,
      "body": "*Filled in with Joachim Sterk and Isabelle Vance (General Counsel), 40 minutes, and reviewed by Vance in writing. Not legal advice and not presented as such.*\n\n## Data classes in scope\n\n1. **Source bundles.** Public and semi-public registry, agency and sponsor material. Halcyon asserts no restriction on use. Roughly 14,200 documents a month.\n2. **Published signal notes.** Halcyon's own copyright, about 156,000 in Cormorant.\n3. **Client-confidential derivatives.** Roughly 22% of notes derive from documents provided under client NDA. **Excluded entirely**, at source, by the Cormorant `client_conf` flag. Vance was unambiguous and we did not push. Usable corpus is therefore about 122,000 notes.\n4. **Edit diffs.** 9,400 pre-review and post-review pairs. The same exclusion applies; 7,300 survive it.\n\n## Rights to train\n\nVance confirmed in writing that Halcyon's client terms grant Halcyon a perpetual licence to its own analytical output and that training a model on non-flagged notes is within scope. She reserved one point: notes authored before March 2024 predate a terms revision and she will not warrant them. We have accepted the post-March-2024 subset rather than wait for a review nobody has budget to run.\n\nThat cut applies to both corpora and it is the largest single reduction in this brief. Notes: 122,000 falls to about **78,000**. Diffs: 7,300 falls to about **4,900** — proportionally less, because Cormorant only started retaining pre-review versions in mid-2023, so the diff corpus already skews recent. Every downstream number in the architecture and the POC plan is 78,000 and 4,900, not the headline figures.\n\n## Boundary and residency\n\nHalcyon is Basel-domiciled with EU clients. Training runs in the EU region only. Vance did not ask for a Swiss residency guarantee, which surprised us; her constraint is transfer to the United States, not location as such. Recorded as a hard constraint: **no customer data at rest or in transit through US-region infrastructure.** Scrubbing runs inside Halcyon's tenancy before egress: the `client_conf` filter, then the March-2024 date filter, then removal of analyst identity from the diff corpus, then a sample audit of 300 records by Sørensen before anything moves.\n\n## Personal data\n\nAnalyst names appear in the diff metadata and are stripped. Source bundles occasionally contain investigator names, which are public in registry entries; Vance treats these as public-domain professional data and no further action is required. No patient-level data exists anywhere in this corpus, which is why this brief was 40 minutes rather than three weeks.\n\n## Retention and deletion\n\nTraining corpus retained for the POC term plus 30 days. Adapted weights retained by Prime Intellect for the POC term; Halcyon receives the adapter under a perpetual internal-use licence at POC close whatever the result. Deletion certificate on request. Evaluation traces and verifier outputs are retained by Halcyon, not by us — see the held-out set arrangement in the POC plan.\n\n## Weights and deployment expectation\n\nChecked explicitly because it is a disqualifier if wrong. Halcyon wants to self-host inference in their own tenancy within 12 months and accepts an adapter over an open-weights base under licence rather than a bespoke owned model. Sterk has GPU capacity for inference and none for training. Compatible.\n\n## Open items\n\nVance wants a named sub-processor list before signature, which we owe her. The 22% exclusion is settled and should not be reopened by anyone hoping to grow the corpus; asking again will cost more goodwill than the data is worth.",
      "kind": "discovery"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "reference-architectures",
      "stage": "scoping",
      "title": "DEMO — Halcyon signal notes: environment and eval architecture",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 94,
      "body": "*Scoping output. Architecture chosen: **shape 3, RL in a constructed environment**, bootstrapped from the shape-2 trace corpus, with a customer-held eval. Reviewed with Sterk, and with Applied Research on a single 60-minute structured hand-in.*\n\n## Why not eval-first\n\nEval-first is normally the correct opening and we rejected it here for one reason: Halcyon has already done the eval-first work themselves and stopped at 0.58. Repeating it as a paid engagement would insult the people who ran it. What they lack is not a measurement, it is a measurement they trust — their 120-case sample was drawn from cases the team had already inspected, so it is contaminated and cannot serve as a baseline. We fold the clean measurement into the mobilisation week of the POC rather than sell it as a phase.\n\n## The shape\n\n```\nHalcyon tenancy                     Prime Intellect Lab (EU)\n  Cormorant  --> client_conf filter --> scrubbed corpus (78k notes,\n  (156k notes)     + March-2024 cut      4.9k edit diffs)\n                   + analyst strip          |\n  Source bundle store  ------------------>  environment: single-turn\n  (read-only mirror, EU)                    note generation over a\n                                            retrieved bundle\n                                            |\n  Held-out set (700 cases)  <-- verifier composite --> RL loop, 32B\n  held by Halcyon, never leaves               open-weights base\n```\n\n**Environment.** Single-turn. The policy receives a source bundle and the note schema and emits a structured note. Bundle retrieval is offline against a read-only mirror Sterk provisions in the EU region, so no call ever touches live Cormorant. No tools, no side effects, no reset problem — this is the cheapest environment in the library and it is available to us only because the task is genuinely single-turn. Anything involving Cormorant write access would have doubled the scoping.\n\n**Warm start, then RL.** The 4,900 edit diffs are supervised material: pre-review in, post-review out. They are shape-2 trace data and they exist to move the policy into the neighbourhood before any RL spend. The RL loop then optimises against the composite verifier in the constructed environment. That hybrid is why this is filed as shape 3 rather than shape 2 — the trace corpus is the bootstrap, not the product.\n\n**Verifier, as an architectural component.** Runs on our side during training and on Halcyon's side during evaluation, from the same pinned container image. Two stages: a deterministic checker over numerals, dates, registry identifiers and schema conformance, then a judge applying Halcyon's own six-point materiality rubric. Composite is a hard gate on the deterministic stage followed by the rubric score. The judge is the risky half and its agreement figure is measured in the POC, not assumed here.\n\n**The held-out set is the important box.** 700 cases sampled by Sørensen from November 2025 to March 2026 traffic, stratified by therapeutic area, adjudicated by a panel of three senior analysts, and held inside Halcyon's tenancy. We never see the labels. We submit a candidate, Halcyon runs the pinned verifier, Halcyon reports the number. This is slower than doing it ourselves and it is the only version of the result their own analysts will believe.\n\n## Where data crosses a boundary\n\nExactly once, outbound: scrubbed corpus to the EU training region, after Sørensen's 300-record audit. Nothing crosses inbound except adapter weights and evaluation submissions. No US-region component anywhere, including logging and object storage, which Sterk will verify against our sub-processor list.\n\n## Decisions that redraw this picture\n\nIf Halcyon later wants notes drafted inside Cormorant with tool access to their citation store, this becomes a multi-turn environment with a reset requirement and a different cost. Out of scope, worth flagging as the obvious expansion.\n\n## Failure mode to watch\n\nThe 4,900 edit diffs are the highest-signal data we have and they are not uniformly sourced. Two reviewers produced a disproportionate share. If the reward learns their house style rather than Halcyon's standard, the model will win the verifier and lose the analysts. Hold one reviewer's pairs out entirely and read the gap.",
      "kind": "architecture"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "procurement-and-budget-path",
      "stage": "procurement",
      "title": "DEMO — Halcyon Research: budget path to the 8 October committee",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 26,
      "body": "*Written after two calls with Solveig Rask (Director, FP&A) and one with Wennerberg. This closes the budget-source gap that has sat open on the scorecard since discovery.*\n\n## The number\n\nFirst-year value $799,027: managed post-training programme, training compute, environment and verifier engineering, and Applied Research time at the agreed allocation. POC at $120,000, credited in full against year one if Halcyon proceeds.\n\n## The line, named\n\nRask named it on the second call, which is the finding this artefact exists to record. The money is the **FY27 Research Productivity programme**, $1.05M, of which $850,000 was uncommitted as of her 14 July forecast. It is an operating line owned by Wennerberg's function, not a capital request, and it is not the AI budget — Halcyon does not have one, which is why nobody could name it in discovery. Asking \"which budget\" produced nothing for six weeks; asking \"what did you stop doing to free headcount last year\" produced this in eleven minutes.\n\nThe POC's $120,000 comes from a different pocket: the FY26 innovation reserve, discretionary to Beaumont up to $150,000 and therefore signable without a committee. That is why the POC can start on 3 August rather than after the FY27 planning cycle closes in October.\n\n## Approval path\n\n1. Wennerberg submits a business case to the Research Operations budget review. Done, 22 July.\n2. Beaumont approves as sponsor. Nominally routine.\n3. Above $500,000 the Executive Committee approves at its quarterly meeting. Next meeting **8 October**. The one after is in January.\n4. Procurement and Vance run security review and contract in parallel, not sequentially. Vance has agreed to this and it saves roughly three weeks.\n\n## The forcing function, and its honest weight\n\nHalcyon's four largest subscription contracts renew on 31 December, together about 34% of revenue. Wennerberg's argument to the committee is the 9% SLA breach rate, which appears in two of those four renewal conversations as a stated client complaint. That is real but it is not a cliff: no client has threatened to leave, and if the committee slips to January the deal survives at reduced pace. We should not tell ourselves otherwise, and we should not tell Halcyon a story about urgency they know better than we do. Score the forcing function down, not up.\n\n## What must be true by 8 October\n\nThe POC result must be in Wennerberg's hands with enough margin to write the paper. Week eight of the POC lands Friday 25 September, which leaves thirteen days. That is tight and it is the reason the kill gate in the POC plan is placed at week four rather than week six.\n\n## Risks on this path\n\nBeaumont is the sponsor of record and has now missed two of three steering calls, sending an apology once and nothing the second time. Wennerberg says he is consumed by a client escalation. If he is not personally in the room on 8 October, an $799k operating request presented by a VP into a committee that has not heard the argument before is a coin flip. We have asked Wennerberg for a 20-minute briefing with him before mid-September and do not have a date.\n\n## Not required\n\nNo new vendor onboarding: Halcyon already holds an MSA with us from a 2025 evaluations pilot that never scaled. Procurement confirmed the MSA is live and only an order form is needed.",
      "kind": "pricing"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "post-training-poc",
      "stage": "poc",
      "title": "DEMO — Halcyon signal-note POC: plan and kill gate",
      "status": "draft",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 2,
      "body": "*POC plan, amendment 3, revised Monday 17 August at the start of week three, pending countersignature. Kickoff was Monday 3 August.*\n\n## The hypothesis\n\n> On a held-out set of 700 signal-note cases sampled from November 2025 to March 2026 production traffic and held by Halcyon, an adapted open-weights 32B model will score at least **0.79 faithful-and-complete rate** against a prompted frontier baseline of **0.64**, as measured by the Halcyon composite verifier, whose agreement with the senior analyst panel is at least **Cohen's kappa 0.68** on a 180-case dual-labelled audit drawn from the held-out set, where the human-to-human ceiling is **kappa 0.73 aggregate** (0.77 ex-oncology).\n\nHuman analysts score 0.91 on the same check. The target is a 15-point gain on a measure Halcyon already uses in review, deliberately below the human rate: a model that matched analysts would not be believed.\n\n## Eval design\n\n700 cases, sampled by Liv Sørensen, stratified by therapeutic area to match the published mix, adjudicated by three senior analysts, held inside Halcyon's tenancy. We never see the labels: we submit a candidate adapter, Halcyon runs the pinned verifier image and reports the number. A separate **240-case dev split**, disjoint from the 700, is shared with us for iteration. The 180-case audit is a dual-labelled subset of the 700 and measures only the verifier.\n\n## Verifier, measured\n\nStage one is deterministic: numerals, dates, registry identifiers, schema conformance. Stage two is a judge on Halcyon's six-point materiality rubric. Measured in week one on the 180-case audit: **composite agreement kappa 0.71 aggregate** (0.73 ex-oncology), ceiling 0.73 aggregate. Above the 0.68 threshold, so the gate clears.\n\n## The stratum problem, unresolved\n\nThe audit surfaced what the aggregate hides. On the oncology stratum — 34 of the 180 audit cases, 126 of the 700 held-out cases — the three adjudicators agree with each other at only **kappa 0.54**, against 0.77 everywhere else. They disagree about what is material in a dose-escalation amendment. The judge tracks them at 0.61 there, reproducing a disagreement rather than a standard. At n=34 the interval is wide, as we have said in writing.\n\nThree options, none chosen: re-adjudicate against a tightened rubric (roughly 9 analyst-days, which Wennerberg has not offered); exclude the stratum and report on 574 cases with that stated in the headline; or report it separately with its own number. This cannot be decided after we see the result. **Decision required by 26 August**, and amendment 3 is unsigned until it is made.\n\n## Baseline\n\nMeasured in the mobilisation week on the full 700 by Halcyon, not by us: **0.64** on Sterk's best prompt variant. Their own contaminated figure was 0.58, so the bar went up before we started.\n\n## The weeks\n\n- **Mobilisation, 27–31 July. Done.** Corpus scrubbed and audited by Sørensen; 78,000 notes and 4,900 diffs across. Baseline 0.64.\n- **Week 1, 3–7 August. Done.** Verifier at kappa 0.71. Environment stood up against the EU bundle mirror, no reset requirement. Exit met.\n- **Week 2, 10–14 August. Done, below plan.** Warm start on the diff corpus, first RL runs. Dev split reads **0.66** against the 0.69 our trajectory needed for a credible 0.72 at week four. Held-out reviewer check, first read: 0.71 on that reviewer's pairs, 0.61 on everyone else's. The house-style failure mode flagged at scoping is firing.\n- **Week 3, 17–21 August. Current.** Reward rebalanced away from stylistic edits, diffs reweighted by reviewer. Second dev-split reading Friday 21 August.\n- **Week 4, ends Friday 28 August. Kill gate.** Requires **0.72 or better on the dev split**. At week four, not six, because Wennerberg needs the result before the 8 October committee.\n- **Week 6, ends 11 September.** First held-out submission. No target; calibration only.\n- **Week 8, Friday 25 September.** Final held-out submission, single shot, verdict against 0.79.\n\n## Kill gate\n\nIf the week-four dev-split reading is below 0.72 we stop. Halcyon keeps the corpus work, the measured verifier, the clean baseline and the adapter, and we write the negative result up jointly. Sterk has been told this in those words; on the week-two reading the gate is live rather than ceremonial.\n\n## Risks\n\nThe reviewer skew, now measured rather than suspected. The stratum decision above. Beaumont's attention.",
      "kind": "poc"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": null,
      "stage": "poc",
      "title": "DEMO — Halcyon POC week one readout",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 12,
      "body": "*Sent to Wennerberg, Sterk and Sørensen on Friday 7 August, the end of week one. Reproduced here as the record.*\n\nBoth week-one exit criteria were met. The verifier is measured, the baseline is clean, and one decision is now blocking.\n\n**The verifier holds up.** On the 180-case dual-labelled audit the composite agrees with your adjudicated labels at Cohen's kappa 0.71 aggregate, against a human-to-human ceiling of 0.73 measured on the same cases. Our threshold was 0.68.\n\nWhat surprised us is the split of the work. The deterministic stage catches 61% of all failures, and the shape of them is dull in the best way: dose units written as mg rather than mg/m², enrolment counts carried from an earlier protocol version, EudraCT and NCT identifiers transposed by one digit, and effective dates taken from the agency letterhead rather than the decision. None of that needs a judge. The judge carries materiality and completeness, and that is the half we will keep watching.\n\nIn the audit review Liv put it better than we would have: the model's misses \"read like a tired analyst at five o'clock, not like a machine\". That is the right kind of error profile to be training against, and it is why the warm start on the diff corpus is where week two goes.\n\n**The baseline is clean and it is higher than yours.** Halcyon measured 0.64 on the full 700-case held-out set, against the 0.58 your prompting programme reported in January. The difference is sampling: your 120 cases were drawn from work the team had already inspected. This is good news about your prompt engineering and bad news about our bar, and we would rather carry the higher number than argue for the flattering one at week eight.\n\n**The oncology stratum is the wound.** Your three adjudicators agree with each other at kappa 0.54 on the 34 oncology cases in the audit — 126 of them in the full held-out set — against 0.77 everywhere else. At n=34 that 0.54 carries a wide interval and we are not going to pretend otherwise, but the direction is unambiguous and it matches what Liv said before we measured anything. The disagreement is concentrated in dose-escalation amendments and it is a genuine editorial question, not a labelling error. The judge sits at 0.61 there, faithfully reproducing your disagreement rather than correcting it.\n\nWe cannot report a headline number over a stratum your own senior analysts cannot score consistently, and we will not decide what to do about it after we see the result. The three options are set out in the draft amendment 3 circulated on Thursday. Elsa, this is a call for you and Liv. **We need it by 26 August**, and amendment 3 stays unsigned until then.\n\n**Also open.** We are holding out one reviewer's edit-diff pairs entirely, so that we can see whether the model is learning Halcyon's standard or one person's house style. First read comes with the week-two dev split. If that reading is bad it does not stop the POC, but it changes what we train on for weeks five to eight.\n\nWeek two is the supervised warm start on the diff corpus and the first RL runs. Dev-split reading next Friday. The week-four kill gate is unchanged at 0.72 on the dev split.",
      "kind": "poc"
    }
  ],
  "scores": [
    {
      "daysAgo": 128,
      "note": "DEMO — Scored the same day as the first discovery. The task is repeatable and traced, but nothing is measured: no clean baseline (their 0.58 was drawn from cases the team had already inspected), no evidence the materiality rubric is reproducible between two humans, and nobody can name a budget line.",
      "dimensions": [
        {
          "id": "task_definability",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "verifier_quality",
          "weight": 13,
          "score": 1
        },
        {
          "id": "trace_data_rights",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "baseline_measured",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 1
        },
        {
          "id": "headroom",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "env_constructibility",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "metric_owner",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "budget_source",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 1
        },
        {
          "id": "exec_sponsor",
          "weight": 4,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "security_legal_path",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "forcing_function",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "expansion_surface",
          "weight": 5,
          "score": 4
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "daysAgo": 88,
      "note": "DEMO — Legal and scoping done, and nothing was measured in between, so only the dimensions that scoping actually touched move. Vance confirmed training rights in writing on the post-March-2024 subset and the 22% client-confidential exclusion is settled, so rights and the security path both rise; pinning the note schema and the six-point rubric in scoping takes task definability to 4. Verifier, baseline and budget source are held at their discovery values because nothing has been measured or named. Metric owner stays capped at 3: Wennerberg owns the metric but not the corpus decision. Forcing function falls to 1 — on the evidence we have the December renewals are a talking point, not a cliff, and nobody at Halcyon has costed a slip.",
      "dimensions": [
        {
          "id": "task_definability",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "verifier_quality",
          "weight": 13,
          "score": 1
        },
        {
          "id": "trace_data_rights",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "baseline_measured",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 1
        },
        {
          "id": "headroom",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "env_constructibility",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "metric_owner",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "budget_source",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 1
        },
        {
          "id": "exec_sponsor",
          "weight": 4,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "security_legal_path",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "forcing_function",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 1
        },
        {
          "id": "expansion_surface",
          "weight": 5,
          "score": 4
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "daysAgo": 2,
      "note": "DEMO — Three measurements landed and two things got worse. Verifier at kappa 0.71 against a 0.73 human ceiling, clean baseline at 0.64 on the customer-held 700 with the human rate at 0.91, and the environment stood up in week one with no reset requirement. The FY27 Research Productivity line named in July now has a committee date on 8 October, which moves budget source and lifts the forcing function off the floor. Down: task definability, because the oncology stratum shows Halcyon's own adjudicators at kappa 0.54 and the target population is not yet fully defined, and the sponsor, because Beaumont has missed two of three steering calls before an $799k committee request he is meant to carry. Metric owner still capped at 3 until Wennerberg makes the stratum call. Not yet reflected here: the week-two dev split read 0.66 against a 0.69 trajectory, so the week-four kill gate is live.",
      "dimensions": [
        {
          "id": "task_definability",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "verifier_quality",
          "weight": 13,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "trace_data_rights",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "baseline_measured",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "headroom",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "env_constructibility",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "metric_owner",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "budget_source",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "exec_sponsor",
          "weight": 4,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "security_legal_path",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "forcing_function",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "expansion_surface",
          "weight": 5,
          "score": 4
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "promote": null
}
