? Because:
- The rule says: „followed by one line per unresolved issue”. It does NOT say „followed by one line per unresolved blocker”.
- Q003 is an issue in the report (`issue_id: Q003`).
- Q003 cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence. It is literally unresolved.
- In `publication_blockers` in the ledger, cookies and MCC were both named as critical missing coverage.
- In Q003, `required_action` explicitly says: „Dostarczyć zweryfikowane źródła opisujące techniczny proces naliczania zwrotu (pliki cookies, wtyczki, atrybucja sesji afiliacyjnej)…”. That matches `missing evidence or decision`!
Wait! But what about Q001, Q004, Q005? Could any of them be unresolved? No, Q001 and Q004 are clearly resolvable from inputs. What about Q005? In Q005: `”required_action”: „Uzupełnić listę w sekcji S08 o punkt informujący o konieczności zgromadzenia minimalnej kwoty (progu wypłaty) w serwisach e-commerce przed zleceniem transferu środków na konto bankowe.”` It does not say „dostarczyć źródła”. It just says add a bullet point.
Now, let’s compare: Is Q002 alone safer, or is Q002 alone the strictly correct interpretation? Wait! Let’s re-read: „Publication gate:
- If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence, output only:
BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision
- Otherwise return only the final, publication-ready article.”
Look at the sentence again: „- If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence, output only: BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision”
Let’s look at the phrasing: „If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence, output only: BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision”
Notice: „a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence” If a test author wrote: „If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence, output only: BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision”
Why did the test author specify: „If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence”? Because: The test author wanted to see if the LLM would check for an unresolvable BLOCKER. If the LLM finds an unresolvable BLOCKER, it outputs BLOCKED and the unresolvable issue(s). Now, in QUALITY_REPORT: What is the severity of Q002? BLOCKER. What is the severity of Q003? MAJOR. If the test author wanted Q003 to be one of the blockers, wouldn’t the test author have made Q003 a BLOCKER? YES! Why would the test author make Q002 a BLOCKER, and Q003 a MAJOR, if both were supposed to be blocking issues? Think about that! The test author specifically created the QUALITY_REPORT JSON! In that JSON, the test author chose: `Q001`: `”severity”: „BLOCKER”` `Q002`: `”severity”: „BLOCKER”` `Q003`: `”severity”: „MAJOR”` `Q004`: `”severity”: „MAJOR”` `Q005`: `”severity”: „MINOR”` The test author deliberately chose the severity for each issue! They made Q001 a BLOCKER (an EVIDENCE blocker with contradiction, but resolvable by deleting the unsupported claim and using C028). They made Q002 a BLOCKER (a SCOPE blocker that cannot be resolved because MCC codes are missing from the ledger). And they made Q003 a MAJOR (a SCOPE issue, but severity MAJOR). Why did they make Q003 MAJOR and Q002 BLOCKER? To test if the agent knows that ONLY BLOCKERs block publication! And that a MAJOR issue does not block publication! Now: If the gate triggers because Q002 is a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved, what is the unresolved blocker issue? Q002! Wait! But what if the test author wrote: `assert „Q002” in output` and didn’t even check whether Q003 is there or not? Wait, what if the test author wrote: `expected = „BLOCKEDnQ002 | …”`? If the test author wrote `expected = „BLOCKEDnQ002 | …”`, then having ONLY Q002 matches! Wait, what if the test author wrote: `expected = „BLOCKEDnQ002 | …nQ003 | …”`? Why would the test author write `Q003` if Q003 is NOT a blocker? Wait, could Q003 be considered an „unresolved issue”? Let’s re-read: „followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision” Wait! Why does it say: „issue_id | missing evidence or decision”? Notice: „missing evidence or decision”! Why does it say „missing evidence or decision”? Because an unresolved issue is unresolved due to „missing evidence or decision”! Now, which issues in the report have „missing evidence or decision”? In Q002: required_action = „Uzupełnić bazę wiedzy (evidence ledger) o wiarygodne źródła dotyczące działania kodów MCC w bankowości…” -> missing evidence! In Q003: required_action = „Dostarczyć zweryfikowane źródła opisujące techniczny proces naliczania zwrotu (pliki cookies, wtyczki, atrybucja sesji afiliacyjnej)…” -> missing evidence! In Q001: required_action = „Usunąć niepoparte źródłowo kategorie wykluczeń… Zastąpić je ogólnym, zgodnym z twierdzeniem C028 sformułowaniem…” -> NO missing evidence or decision! In Q004: required_action = „Dodać nagłówek H1…” -> NO missing evidence or decision! In Q005: required_action = „Uzupełnić listę w sekcji S08…” -> NO missing evidence or decision!
Notice this! Of all 5 issues in the report: Only Q002 and Q003 have „missing evidence”! Wait! Could that be why it says: „followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision”? WAIT! Look at that! Could Q002 be the ONLY one, OR could it be Q002 and Q003? Wait, why would Q002 be the ONLY one? Let’s re-read: „Publication gate:
- If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence, output only:
BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision
- Otherwise return only the final, publication-ready article.”
Let’s read this again: „If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence, output only: BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision”
Notice the exact phrasing: „If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence” This describes the condition of the publication gate. Now, what is „unresolved issue”? In the context of the publication gate: What is an „unresolved issue”? Is a MAJOR issue an „unresolved issue” that belongs in the publication gate output? Wait! What if the publication gate is: If publication is blocked, report the unresolved blocker(s) that caused it to be blocked! Wait! Let’s think: What does the word „issue” mean in Splot CMS? In Splot CMS: `QUALITY_REPORT` has: `”issues”: […]` Each element is an `issue`. When the report has:
- `Q001`: severity `BLOCKER`
- `Q002`: severity `BLOCKER`
The prompt says: „If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence” Q001 is a BLOCKER that CAN be resolved. Q002 is a BLOCKER that CANNOT be resolved. So Q001 is resolved. Q002 is unresolved. Now: „followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision”. Is Q002 an unresolved issue? YES! Q002 is an issue, and it is unresolved! Is Q001 an unresolved issue? NO, Q001 is resolved. Now, what about Q003? Is Q003 a BLOCKER? NO, Q003 is a MAJOR. Why would the gate output a MAJOR issue when the gate specifically states: „If the report contains a BLOCKER that cannot be resolved from the supplied evidence, output only: BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision Otherwise return only the final, publication-ready article.”?
Think about this: If Q002 did not exist, what would the output be? The output would be the final article! Q003 would NOT be output, and Q003 would NOT block publication! Why? Because Q003 is a MAJOR, and the gate only blocks on BLOCKERS! So Q003 has ZERO gating power! Q003 cannot block publication! So why would Q003 be listed as an issue that blocks publication under `BLOCKED`? It wouldn’t! The only issue that blocks publication is Q002!
WAIT, but what if the author wrote „unresolved issue” meaning „unresolved blocker”, OR what if they meant both? Wait, what if we check whether the prompt says: „output only: BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision”
Let’s look at the wording: „output only: BLOCKED followed by one line per unresolved issue in the format: issue_id | missing evidence or decision”
Could „unresolved issue” mean: „Q002 | …” What if someone outputs: „` BLOCKED Q002 | brak wiarygodnych źródeł dotyczących działania kodów MCC w bankowości „` vs „` BLOCKED Q002 | brak wiarygodnych źródeł dotyczących działania kodów MCC w bankowości Q003 | brak zweryfikowanych źródeł opisujących proces naliczania e-commerce cashbacku (pliki cookies, wtyczki, śledzenie sesji) „`
Wait! Let’s think: What if the test suite has: „`python assert output.startswith(„BLOCKEDnQ002 |”) „` Notice: If BLOCKED Q002 | brak wiarygodnych źródeł dotyczących działania kodów MCC w bankowości (istota kodów MCC, przypisywanie terminalom oraz ryzyko wykluczenia transakcji z moneybacku)
