{
  "key": "northwind-blackwell",
  "dealName": "DEMO — Blackwell production block",
  "accountName": "DEMO — Northwind Robotics",
  "stage": "deployment",
  "status": "open",
  "acv": 1676300,
  "summary": "DEMO — The pick-strategy model cleared its POC at 0.771 top-1 and has carried 25 per cent of the robot cohort at three of Northwind's nine sites since 20 July, on a reserved 64-GPU Blackwell block. Production found a long-payload wave failure the replay harness could not have shown, and the metric owner has moved to the Europe build-out with her successor yet to sign the definition or authorise the ramp to 100 per cent.",
  "openedDaysAgo": 240,
  "artefacts": [
    {
      "templateSlug": "technical-discovery",
      "stage": "qualification",
      "title": "DEMO — Northwind Robotics: first technical discovery, hard-pick strategy selection",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 232,
      "body": "# First technical discovery — Northwind Robotics, three hours on site at Ghent\n\nPresent: Elke Sandberg (Director, Pick Operations), Dr Sanne Brouwer (principal engineer, autonomy), Piet Vandenberg (VP Fleet Engineering) for the first hour. Our side: forward deployed lead plus one forward deployed engineer. Applied Research not in the room.\n\nA note on where this sits. Northwind numbers its autonomy workflows off the Fleet Reliability roadmap — pick-failure cause classification has served all nine distribution centres since March 2025, and recovery-action selection has just been qualified with Marcus Ebele and has not started its POC. This loop is not on that roadmap. It belongs to Elke's Pick Operations organisation, it will be funded from a different line, and it earns nothing from the goodwill of the other two. Scored on its own evidence.\n\n## The task, in one sentence\n\nGiven the item record, four to twelve frames of the pick face and the telemetry from the previous attempt, choose one of 23 grasp strategies for a pick the planner has flagged as hard, or hand it back to the planner's heuristic default.\n\n## The workflow as it runs today\n\nNorthwind runs 4,180 mobile picking robots across nine distribution centres, three of them cold-chain. The planner flags a pick as hard on eleven documented reasons — a deformable item, a crowded face, a slipped previous attempt and so on. That is roughly 2.4 million flagged picks a month out of about 54 million picks. Today the planner picks a strategy from a hand-tuned table that Sanne's predecessor last revised in 2023.\n\nFlagged picks are expensive twice over. They take 11.4 seconds against 4.2 for an ordinary pick, at a mean of 1.9 attempts. And 1.6 per cent of them end in a stall — 38,400 of the roughly 61,000 recovery events the fleet raises each month, which is the majority of the recovery load the fleet-reliability workflows exist to clean up downstream.\n\nElke manages to picks per robot-hour and to intervention-minutes per thousand picks. She quotes both without looking them up and both are on Vandenberg's board slide.\n\n## The failed AI attempt\n\nSanne's team already prompts a frontier vision-language model over the same frames behind a retrieval layer of past picks. Measured properly: 0.61 top-1 strategy match against adjudicated labels, against 0.82 for an experienced pick engineer given the same frames. It plateaued four months ago and two prompt rewrites have moved nothing. That is the encouraging signal, not the discouraging one — the easy headroom is gone.\n\nImportant caveat we wrote down in the room: 0.61 is unconstrained. Nobody has measured what that scaffold scores inside the latency the aisle actually allows.\n\n## Traces, and rights to them\n\nEvery flagged pick is recorded: frames, item record, strategy chosen, attempts, outcome and any subsequent stall. Eighteen months retained, roughly 43 million flagged picks. Northwind's own equipment on Northwind-operated floor for six of the nine sites. Sanne believes the customer-site clause in the three sites Northwind operates for a third-party grocer may restrict off-site processing of face imagery. Flagged for the security brief, not resolved here.\n\n## The verifier\n\nThis is the good news. The fleet sim built for the earlier workflows can replay a recorded pick scene and execute a chosen strategy against it, scoring whether the item was acquired within two attempts without damage or shelf disturbance. Extending its action space to the 23 strategies is scoped at two weeks, not a rebuild. Its agreement with Northwind's pick adjudicators has never been measured. That measurement is the first thing we do.\n\n## Open after the call\n\nNobody would name the budget line. Vandenberg said \"we will find it\" twice, which is not a line. There is no date on anything. And the harness replays one scene at a time, so it will tell us nothing about how this behaves when the warehouse management system releases a whole aisle block at once.",
      "kind": "discovery"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "data-and-security-brief",
      "stage": "legal",
      "title": "DEMO — Data and security brief: pick-face imagery and the three grocery-contract sites",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 210,
      "body": "# Data and security brief — pick-strategy loop\n\nWritten after two sessions with Rob Castellan (Chief Information Security Officer) and one with Northwind's commercial counsel. This brief covers the pick-strategy loop only. Pick-failure cause classification and the recovery-action POC are covered by the workflow 1 brief from 2025 and nothing here reopens them.\n\n## What data moves, and where\n\nThree classes. Pick-face imagery, four to twelve frames per flagged pick. Item records, which carry SKU, weight, packaging class and — for the grocery contracts — a customer product identifier. Planner telemetry from the previous attempt, which carries no third-party data at all.\n\nTraining corpus: 43 million flagged picks over eighteen months, held in Northwind's own object store in Helsinki. Serving traffic: the same three classes, in flight, from the site edge to the model service and back.\n\n## Decisions recorded\n\n**egress-boundary.** Nothing leaves Northwind's VPC. The model service runs on reserved Prime Intellect capacity inside the boundary, peered to the fleet network; Prime Intellect operators have no path to pick imagery or item records. Rob's rule is the one he has applied since the first workflow: imagery that can identify a customer's inventory does not cross an organisational boundary, and a hosted endpoint fails it regardless of contract terms.\n\n**inference-location.** Helsinki region, single region, confirmed in writing by Rob on 2026-01-19. Two consequences we accepted rather than argued: no multi-region failover for the model path, and a hard dependency on the fallback behaving well, because when Helsinki is unavailable there is no second site to route to. That is why the down fallback is a gateway-level switch to the planner's heuristic table and not a second model deployment.\n\n**training-rights.** The master agreement's training-rights schedule, signed for the first workflow, covers Northwind's own operational data by class rather than by workflow. Counsel confirmed it extends without amendment. Northwind owns the adapted weights; we hold no rights to them and no rights to the corpus beyond the engagement.\n\n**the three customer-site contracts.** This was the live issue at discovery and it is the reason this brief exists. Rotterdam, Lyon and Zaragoza are operated by Northwind under contract to a grocery group, and clause 11.4 of that contract restricts processing of face imagery to \"operational purposes on site\". Counsel's reading is that model training is not an operational purpose on site. Resolved two ways: a clause amendment was requested in January and is expected in Q3, and until it lands those three sites are excluded from training and from the held-out set entirely. Rob asked for the exclusion to be enforced at the corpus builder rather than by convention, and Väinö Salo implemented it as a site allowlist with a failing CI test.\n\nThat exclusion is also why the initial deployment sites are Ghent, Vantaa and Ede. They are the three highest-volume sites Northwind operates for itself, which means nothing in the first ramp depends on an amendment nobody controls.\n\n## Retention and deletion\n\nModel service holds no request payloads. The live-eval sampler writes its sample to Northwind's store under the same eighteen-month retention as the source traces. Northwind's existing deletion path applies unchanged; there is nothing to delete on our side.\n\n## What is not settled\n\nWhether the grocery amendment, if it lands, permits the three grocery-contract sites into training or only into serving. Counsel expects the narrower reading. Nothing in this deal's plan depends on the wider one.",
      "kind": "discovery"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "reference-architectures",
      "stage": "scoping",
      "title": "DEMO — Reference architecture: fleet sim, serving path and the tail budget",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 196,
      "body": "# Reference architecture — pick-strategy model, fleet sim, serving path\n\nChosen shape: adapted open weights, served inside Northwind's own boundary on reserved Prime Intellect capacity. Rejected shapes recorded below so nobody reopens them in month four.\n\n## Serving shape\n\nAn adapted open-weights 32B vision-language model, weights owned by Northwind, served on a reserved Blackwell block in the Helsinki region with a warm floor. The A100 fleet that carries pick-failure classification, and that the recovery-action policy will join at its own cutover, is untouched: those two stay where they are, on their own reservation and their own renewal date, and this block does not serve them. That separation is deliberate and Rob Castellan asked for it in writing.\n\nRejected: a hosted frontier endpoint (fails the egress-boundary decision on face imagery and cannot meet the tail budget from outside the region); on-robot inference (32B does not fit the compute on the current manipulator, and Sanne will not gate a fleet hardware upgrade on a model that changes monthly); reusing the A100 fleet (it has no headroom at the flagged-pick rate and the fault detector's latency would suffer).\n\n## Component table\n\n| Component | Owner | Notes |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Pick gateway | Northwind | Receives the planner's hard-pick flag, assembles frames, item record and prior-attempt telemetry, calls the model |\n| Model service | Prime Intellect capacity, Northwind weights | Two replicas in Helsinki, warm floor of two, no scale-to-zero |\n| Planner executor | Northwind | Executes the returned strategy, or the heuristic table on abstain, timeout or switch |\n| Fleet sim replay harness | Northwind | The verifier, and the environment; runs out of band on recorded scenes |\n| Live eval sampler | Joint | Draws the daily stratified sample from served traffic into the harness |\n\n## The verifier at serve time\n\nThe harness cannot score a live pick. What it checks is whether the item was acquired within two attempts without damage, and that is known only when the attempt sequence finishes, up to forty seconds later. So the verifier runs out of band, on a delay, and it cannot be the confidence signal for abstention. That constraint is what forces a separate inline proxy, and it is the single most consequential line in this document.\n\n## Latency budget\n\nThe aisle is the constraint, not the operator. A robot holding position at a pick face blocks it, and at Ghent a face blocked longer than four seconds backs up the two robots behind it. Budget agreed with Sanne: p95 900 ms, p99 1,400 ms, measured gateway to planner-executor and including frame assembly. The planner executor abandons the call at 1,500 ms and uses the heuristic table.\n\n## Environment specification\n\nThe fleet sim is the environment, extended with the 23-strategy action space. Case types are Northwind's own flag reasons: deformable or crushable item (28 per cent of flagged picks), crowded or overhanging face (22), previous attempt slipped (17), low-confidence pose estimate (13), mixed-SKU tote (11), and a tail of six reasons covering the remaining 9 per cent.\n\n## What the harness does not do\n\nTwo gaps, both known and both carried forward. It replays scenes one at a time, so it has no concept of a wave and nothing built on it will predict behaviour under correlated arrivals. And it replays each scene at its own recorded context length without ever telling us what the distribution of context length looks like inside a burst — flagged picks in a wave come from the same aisle block and carry the longest payloads the path produces. A burst mode is on Sanne's backlog and is not funded. Both gaps go into the load test as a synthetic arrival generator instead, which is a weaker instrument and should be recorded as such.",
      "kind": "architecture"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "pricing-and-packaging",
      "stage": "proposal",
      "title": "DEMO — Reserved Blackwell block: sizing and pricing inputs",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 168,
      "body": "# Pricing and packaging inputs — reserved Blackwell block\n\n## What is being bought\n\nTwelve months of reserved Blackwell capacity: 64 B200 GPUs, Helsinki region, warm floor guaranteed, at an illustrative effective $2.99 per GPU-hour — a Helsinki rate against a twelve-month commitment, and not the rate on the smaller fleet-reliability block. Contract value $1,676,300 for the term, or $139,692 a month. This replaces nothing: the A100 inference fleet carrying the fleet-reliability workflows continues on its own reservation and its own renewal date, which is deliberate so that a renegotiation of one does not open the other.\n\n## The split\n\n| Allocation | GPUs | Monthly | What it carries |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Serving | 16 | $34,923 | Two replicas in Helsinki with a warm floor of two; sized for the peak of a wave |\n| Training and replay | 48 | $104,769 | Monthly retraining, the fleet sim at corpus scale, live-eval scoring |\n\nThe serving allocation is not sized against mean throughput, and any argument that starts from the mean is wrong. At all nine sites the mean is under one call a second, which no serious block is built for. Northwind's arrivals are bursty by construction — the warehouse management system releases work an aisle block at a time — so serving is sized against concurrency at the peak of a release, against the longest payloads the path produces, and against the fact that a cold start inside a wave is a blocked pick face. Ruth Ackerman (Finance Director, Pick Operations) pushed hard on this and accepted it when Sanne put the face-blocking arithmetic beside it.\n\nReserved rather than on-demand for two reasons Ruth named herself. Pick Operations budgets annually against picks, so a variable inference line is worse than a larger fixed one. And the training allocation is not spiky: retraining is monthly and the harness runs the live eval every day.\n\n## The unit economics that decided it\n\nServing cost per flagged pick, at the serving allocation only:\n\n| Ramp | Flagged picks served per month | Cost each |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Three sites, 25 per cent of robots | 200,000 | $0.175 |\n| Three sites, all robots | 800,000 | $0.044 |\n| All nine sites | 2,400,000 | $0.015 |\n\nAgainst that: at all nine sites, a 22 per cent reduction in stalls on flagged picks prevents about 8,400 recovery events a month, which Northwind costs at $4.10 when the recovery policy clears it and $11.60 when it reaches a teleoperator — $47,000 a month at today's escalation mix. Add roughly 2,700 robot-hours returned from the attempt reduction and the prevented blocks, which Elke costs at $21, and the case is about $105,000 a month against $34,923 of serving.\n\nSay the uncomfortable half plainly, because Ruth will find it anyway: that is a good return on the serving allocation and it does not, on its own, pay for the training allocation until the workflow is at all nine sites. Ruth has that in writing.\n\n**Ruth's bar, stated in writing:** serving cost below $0.05 per flagged pick served, which the table above reaches only at 100 per cent of the three initial sites. It is not met at the opening ramp and is not claimed to be.\n\n## Commercial structure\n\nSingle twelve-month reservation, invoiced quarterly in advance, starting on the go-live date rather than on signature — conceded during procurement to cover the POC extension and the shadow period, and worth roughly four months of the term on the current plan. Northwind owns the adapted weights outright. There is no per-inference or per-seat component anywhere in this deal, which was the deciding difference against the API vendor Vandenberg was also talking to.\n\n## What is not priced here\n\nApplied Research time beyond the POC. Support is business hours with a four working hour response target. The remaining six sites are a second reservation and a separate conversation.",
      "kind": "pricing"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "post-training-poc",
      "stage": "poc",
      "title": "DEMO — POC structure and readout: strategy selection on 1,400 held-out flagged picks",
      "status": "final",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 62,
      "body": "# POC structure and readout — hard-pick strategy selection\n\n## The one question\n\nOn a held-out set of 1,400 flagged picks sampled from March to May production traffic across the four distribution centres on the current manipulator generation that Northwind operates for itself, frozen on 2026-05-18 and held by Northwind, an adapted open-weights 32B vision-language model will score at least 0.74 top-1 strategy match against a prompted frontier baseline of 0.61, as measured by the fleet sim replay harness, whose agreement with Northwind's pick adjudicators is at least Cohen's kappa 0.70 on a 260-case dual-labelled audit where the human-to-human ceiling is kappa 0.81.\n\nThat sentence is the agreement. Nothing else in this document restates it.\n\n## Result\n\n0.771 on the sealed set at the final readout, on the third of the four scored submissions in the budget. Verifier agreement measured at kappa 0.72 against adjudicated labels against a ceiling of 0.81, which clears the library floor on the absolute branch and not only the ceiling-relative one. Second metric, abstain-correctness: 0.83 recall on picks an adjudicator judged genuinely unservable by any of the 23 strategies.\n\n## How the sets were built\n\nFour splits. Train and dev on flagged picks before 1 March. Held-out on March to May. Out-of-distribution on the two sites running the newer manipulator generation, which are outside the held-out population by construction so the two splits do not overlap. Rotterdam, Lyon and Zaragoza are excluded from every split by the site allowlist in the corpus builder, per the security brief.\n\nStratified by flag reason, site, shift and by whether the pick arrived inside a wave. Near-duplicate detection on scene embeddings found 4.1 per cent overlap between train and held-out on recurring failures at a single Vantaa pick face; those cases were removed from train and the split re-hashed in week two.\n\nThe held-out set never left Northwind. Sanne ran it; we received aggregates.\n\n## The proxy problem, resolved here\n\nThe harness scores an outcome known up to forty seconds after the fact, so it cannot gate a live answer. The POC therefore carried a second deliverable: a cheap inline confidence proxy over the model's own logit margin and the flag reason, calibrated against the harness verdict. On held-out data it reaches 0.61 recall of would-be-wrong strategies at 0.88 precision. That is the abstention signal in production and it is weaker than anyone wanted. It is why deformable-item picks stay on the heuristic table at go-live unless the proxy is confident.\n\n## Out-of-distribution\n\nOn the newer manipulator generation the model scores 0.69, eight points below held-out. Expected and accepted; those two sites are out of scope for this deployment.\n\n## What the POC did not test, and what we failed to get\n\nArrival shape. Every held-out case was replayed in isolation because the harness cannot do otherwise, so the POC says nothing about behaviour when an aisle block lands at once, and the readout said so in writing.\n\nAnd the number we still do not have: the frontier scaffold measured under the 900 ms budget rather than unconstrained. Sanne's team ran out of engineers in April and it was dropped. Our 0.771 is therefore compared against an unconstrained 0.61, which flatters us, and I have said so to Elke twice. It stays open and it holds the baseline dimension down.\n\n## Readout\n\nDelivered to Elke Sandberg, Sanne Brouwer, Ruth Ackerman and Piet Vandenberg. Signed as met on 2026-06-18. Elke asked the only hard question in the room: whether 0.771 removes pick engineers. The honest answer given was no — the first year's return is robot-hours and prevented stalls, not headcount.",
      "kind": "poc"
    },
    {
      "templateSlug": "production-readiness",
      "stage": "deployment",
      "title": "DEMO — Production readiness: pick-strategy model on the Blackwell block",
      "status": "draft",
      "authoredDaysAgo": 9,
      "body": "# Production readiness — pick-strategy model on the Blackwell block\n\nAt 25 per cent of the cohort at Ghent, Vantaa and Ede since day 12. Every gate closed before traffic moved; two ungated items are open. Draft: the p99 line was rewritten once.\n\n## The inference path\n\nHard-pick flag to gateway, which assembles frames, item record and prior-attempt telemetry; model service on the reserved block in Helsinki; strategy back to the executor, or an abstain onto the table. Northwind's weights, pinned by hash, warm floor of four replicas, no scale-to-zero, in the region Rob Castellan confirmed against the egress boundary. The verifier only knows an outcome forty seconds later, so it runs out of band and abstention rides the POC proxy: 0.61 recall, 0.88 precision.\n\nBudget, owned by Sanne Brouwer in writing: p95 900 ms, p99 1,400 ms, gateway to executor. Load test before go-live, 24 concurrent for 20 minutes at the median payload: p99 1,180 ms. Inside budget, and wrong.\n\n## The surprise\n\nDay 4, at 5 per cent: Vantaa released an aisle block, 214 flagged picks in 38 seconds. Never more than seven calls in flight — but each carried what a wave contains, twelve frames and 60 seconds of telemetry, 5.4x the median prompt, so prefill queued behind itself. Measured p99 that minute: 3,240 ms. Eleven picks passed the executor's 1,500 ms abandon; four became stalls and two pick faces backed up. The test was not wrong about concurrency. It was wrong about what a wave contains.\n\nTwo changes: admission control, which sheds the three lowest-value flag reasons to the table above 90,000 queued prefill tokens, and the warm floor from two replicas to four, which is where 16 serving GPUs stopped looking generous. Retested at the design peak, 22 concurrent at the 99th-percentile payload: p99 1,290 ms, held eight days.\n\nSecond-order effect, worse and open: shedding drops exactly the picks most likely to stall, in the minute a site is already bursting, so it all reaches the teleoperator queue at once. Day 9 that queue peaked at 41 teleoperators-worth of work against a rota of 34. That rota is sized against the recovery-action policy's post-cutover figure of 31.5 teleoperator minutes per thousand robot-hours, down from 47.0 — so admission control is spending headroom the fleet-reliability programme delivered, on a workflow that does not report to Marcus Ebele. Flagged to him on day 6; his answer was that the rota is not ours to spend.\n\n## The three fallbacks\n\nWrong: abstain below the proxy bar; deformable-item picks stay on the table regardless, because that is where the proxy is weakest. Slow: executor abandons at 1,500 ms onto the table — day 4 showed that converts latency into stalls, not into nothing. Down: Kwame Adjei's no-deploy switch, config not a release. There is no second region, by decision, so that switch is the whole of it.\n\n## The ramp\n\n- Shadow, 14 days from 2026-07-06, all three sites: harness agreement 0.768 against held-out 0.771.\n- 5 per cent of the cohort from day 0, 2026-07-20; 25 per cent from day 12.\n- 100 per cent of the three sites by 1 November, when peak season starts and Ruth Ackerman's $0.05 bar first clears.\n\n## Live eval and trigger\n\n640 flagged picks a day, about 10 per cent of served traffic, stratified by flag reason and wave arrival, scored by the harness on the POC rubric; 1,600 at full ramp to hold per-reason cells above 30. Human-rated stream, 45 a week. Baseline over the first eight days: mean daily top-1 0.763, band 0.730 to 0.796 — the 1.96 standard-error band at n=640. Rolling reading 0.759; wave arrivals 0.734, bottom decile.\n\nRetrain below 0.730 for three consecutive weekly readings, pulled by Sanne. Product trigger: the Europe build-out adds two manipulator generations, which no monitor sees; Sanne tells us before it ships. Second product trigger, borrowed from workflow 2's runbook: the recovery-action policy retrains monthly, and a change in how it clears a stall changes the outcome our own harness scores forty seconds later. The flag-reason distribution monitor is unbuilt — ungated, open, the first thing I would fix.\n\n## Paging, handover, open\n\nAdjei's rota owns the path, the switch and the fallbacks, verified in the paging tool rather than verbally; the runbook says when to wake us. Rollback and the down drill passed day -2, before any traffic; retrain-and-reproduce cleared day 21, Väinö Salo driving; rebuild from source is open, day 30.\n\nElke Sandberg moved to the Europe build-out in June. Dale Whitaker has signed neither the revised intervention-minutes definition nor the ramp, and has deferred the review twice. Every month at 25 per cent is $26,000 of serving capacity carrying no traffic, which makes that signature a commercial problem.",
      "kind": "playbook"
    }
  ],
  "scores": [
    {
      "daysAgo": 230,
      "note": "DEMO — Scored off the discovery notes. This loop sits under Pick Operations rather than the Fleet Reliability roadmap, so it earns nothing from the two live workflows and is scored on its own evidence: the fleet sim is a genuine computable verifier and extends in two weeks, which carries the deal. Against that, nobody would name a budget line, there is no date on anything, and the frontier scaffold has only been measured unconstrained rather than under the 900 ms aisle budget.",
      "dimensions": [
        {
          "id": "task_definability",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "verifier_quality",
          "weight": 13,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "trace_data_rights",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "baseline_measured",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "headroom",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "env_constructibility",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "metric_owner",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "budget_source",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "exec_sponsor",
          "weight": 4,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "security_legal_path",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "forcing_function",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "expansion_surface",
          "weight": 5,
          "score": 3
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "daysAgo": 26,
      "note": "DEMO — Up on six with a reason each: task definability 4 on the frozen 23-strategy action space and eleven flag reasons, headroom 4 on 0.61 to 0.771, traces 4 and security 4 on Rob Castellan's written egress and inference-location decisions plus the site allowlist that quarantines the three grocery contracts, budget 4 on Ruth Ackerman's Pick Operations opex line, forcing function 4 on peak season making 1 November a hard date for 100 per cent of the three sites. Held deliberately: verifier quality at 3, because kappa 0.72 is measured but the harness still cannot score a live pick and a 0.61-recall proxy carries abstention; baseline at 3, because the latency-constrained frontier number was never run; exec sponsor at 3, because Piet Vandenberg attends and Ruth Ackerman signs the money, and neither has ever carried this loop internally the way Elke Sandberg did; expansion at 3, because the remaining six sites are a second reservation nobody has costed. Down on two: environment constructibility to 2, since the harness's blindness to arrival shape and payload length caused a production incident rather than a caveat, and metric owner to 2, since Elke Sandberg moved to the Europe build-out and Dale Whitaker has signed nothing.",
      "dimensions": [
        {
          "id": "task_definability",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "verifier_quality",
          "weight": 13,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "trace_data_rights",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "baseline_measured",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "headroom",
          "weight": 10,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "env_constructibility",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "metric_owner",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 2
        },
        {
          "id": "budget_source",
          "weight": 9,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "exec_sponsor",
          "weight": 4,
          "score": 3
        },
        {
          "id": "security_legal_path",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "forcing_function",
          "weight": 8,
          "score": 4
        },
        {
          "id": "expansion_surface",
          "weight": 5,
          "score": 3
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "promote": null
}
