{ "format": "promptkb-test-bench", "version": 4, "rubric": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "name": "Product release briefs — 3 November 2026, agent editorial review", "variants": [ { "name": "A · concise update summary", "template": "Write a concise product-update summary for existing PromptKB users from this source note. Keep it under 110 words. Preserve factual limits.\n\nSource note:\n{{input}}" }, { "name": "B · action-oriented brief", "template": "Write a product-update brief for existing PromptKB users from this source note, under 110 words. Use Change:, Why it matters:, Next:, and Limit:. Give an explicit next action with a named control or destination. Preserve material evidence limits. Do not claim measured human benefits, model superiority or audience reach from authored exercises, local tests or notification receipts.\n\nSource note:\n{{input}}" } ], "cases": [ { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false }, "name": "Test Bench", "input": "Public product update 2026-11-03T15:00:48Z\nPrompt Test Bench turns isolated prompts into a reviewable comparison project\nPublished /lab/ with two instruction variants, up to ten reusable cases, literal required/forbidden phrases and word caps, copied prompts, pasted response drafts, explicit prompt-bound recording, manual reviews, stale-result detection and JSON/Markdown exports. It is local-only, makes no model calls, sends no interaction events and is linked from the workbench; privacy and sitemap are updated. The agent worked through public reboot facts and a fictional missing-evidence case with six clearly labeled agent-authored responses. The task now retains the case set, exact prompt/response pairs and review rationale together instead of six manually managed outputs. Navigation was improved after the first exercise. Nine grouped local/live workflow checks passed, including 320/390/1280px axe/layout and no content-bearing requests; six changed live assets matched source, and 102 Python/66 Node regressions passed. These are tool/dogfood results, not statistical prompt superiority, verified model runs, human adoption or revenue. The independent 15:00 snapshot was standard-verified and includes all four lab assets; no additional application/browser/OS restore drill was performed.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/", "history": [ [], [] ], "drafts": [ { "output": "PromptKB’s Test Bench compares two prompt variants across reusable cases, with recorded responses, automatic checks, manual reviews and portable exports. It preserves the exact prompt attached to each answer and marks results stale after prompt changes. Work stays local, and model execution remains external.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" }, { "output": "Change: The Test Bench keeps two prompt variants, reusable cases and recorded responses together.\nWhy it matters: You can inspect a repeated task across cases instead of relying on one impressive answer.\nNext: Open the Test Bench at /lab/ and choose New blank project; add an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-evidence case.\nLimit: Run prompts in your own model and paste the responses. The bench does not execute or verify model runs.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" } ], "results": [ { "prompt": "Write a concise product-update summary for existing PromptKB users from this source note. Keep it under 110 words. Preserve factual limits.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T15:00:48Z\nPrompt Test Bench turns isolated prompts into a reviewable comparison project\nPublished /lab/ with two instruction variants, up to ten reusable cases, literal required/forbidden phrases and word caps, copied prompts, pasted response drafts, explicit prompt-bound recording, manual reviews, stale-result detection and JSON/Markdown exports. It is local-only, makes no model calls, sends no interaction events and is linked from the workbench; privacy and sitemap are updated. The agent worked through public reboot facts and a fictional missing-evidence case with six clearly labeled agent-authored responses. The task now retains the case set, exact prompt/response pairs and review rationale together instead of six manually managed outputs. Navigation was improved after the first exercise. Nine grouped local/live workflow checks passed, including 320/390/1280px axe/layout and no content-bearing requests; six changed live assets matched source, and 102 Python/66 Node regressions passed. These are tool/dogfood results, not statistical prompt superiority, verified model runs, human adoption or revenue. The independent 15:00 snapshot was standard-verified and includes all four lab assets; no additional application/browser/OS restore drill was performed.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/", "output": "PromptKB’s Test Bench compares two prompt variants across reusable cases, with recorded responses, automatic checks, manual reviews and portable exports. It preserves the exact prompt attached to each answer and marks results stale after prompt changes. Work stays local, and model execution remains external.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Accurate local comparison and stale-snapshot summary with a concrete workflow benefit. It names capabilities but gives no explicit action or destination for trying them.", "verdict": "reject", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "fail", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] }, { "prompt": "Write a product-update brief for existing PromptKB users from this source note, under 110 words. Use Change:, Why it matters:, Next:, and Limit:. Give an explicit next action with a named control or destination. Preserve material evidence limits. Do not claim measured human benefits, model superiority or audience reach from authored exercises, local tests or notification receipts.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T15:00:48Z\nPrompt Test Bench turns isolated prompts into a reviewable comparison project\nPublished /lab/ with two instruction variants, up to ten reusable cases, literal required/forbidden phrases and word caps, copied prompts, pasted response drafts, explicit prompt-bound recording, manual reviews, stale-result detection and JSON/Markdown exports. It is local-only, makes no model calls, sends no interaction events and is linked from the workbench; privacy and sitemap are updated. The agent worked through public reboot facts and a fictional missing-evidence case with six clearly labeled agent-authored responses. The task now retains the case set, exact prompt/response pairs and review rationale together instead of six manually managed outputs. Navigation was improved after the first exercise. Nine grouped local/live workflow checks passed, including 320/390/1280px axe/layout and no content-bearing requests; six changed live assets matched source, and 102 Python/66 Node regressions passed. These are tool/dogfood results, not statistical prompt superiority, verified model runs, human adoption or revenue. The independent 15:00 snapshot was standard-verified and includes all four lab assets; no additional application/browser/OS restore drill was performed.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/", "output": "Change: The Test Bench keeps two prompt variants, reusable cases and recorded responses together.\nWhy it matters: You can inspect a repeated task across cases instead of relying on one impressive answer.\nNext: Open the Test Bench at /lab/ and choose New blank project; add an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-evidence case.\nLimit: Run prompts in your own model and paste the responses. The bench does not execute or verify model runs.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Grounded comparison workflow; names /lab/ and New blank project with a concrete first case-set action. Preserves external model execution and verification limits. Accepted for this editorial brief, not as measured user benefit.", "verdict": "accept", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "pass", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] } ] }, { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false }, "name": "Typed extraction checks", "input": "Public product update 2026-11-03T15:31:57Z\nJSON extraction checks catch unusable records and explain the failing fields\nPublished typed expected-JSON checks, exact/subset object matching, per-field differences and a reusable three-case support-extraction starter with a practical /lab/extraction/ walkthrough and download. Reports now retain current case rules as well as results. A baseline non-JSON response passed all three literal checks; the new six-response authored exercise catches type errors, invented missing values and ambiguity while allowing reordered object keys. This is demanding tool use with fictional inputs/authored outputs, not independently sampled model performance. The local and live extraction workflows passed, including prompt copying without expected-answer leakage, reviews, exports, rule iteration, stale snapshots, reopening, version-1 migration and focused accessibility/narrow-layout checks. The existing incident workflow also passed locally. Visual review prompted aligned response editors. Deployment passed 102 Python and 70 Node checks; eight public assets match source, publication is healthy, and no units failed. No controller/backend/collection change or additional recovery drill was made. Current hourly backup predates this release; browser-local projects remain outside server backups. A post-release agent narrative-edit error omitted a JSON key: the 15:32:34 collector marked the narrative stale and retained the prior version while continuing measurements. The source was corrected and JSON-validated before 15:34:13; the automatic 15:34:36 snapshot restored healthy publication. This was a narrative publication interruption, not observed product downtime.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/extraction/", "history": [ [], [] ], "drafts": [ { "output": "Support-ticket extraction can now be checked against typed JSON expectations instead of relying on keyword matches. The bench flags missing, invented or wrongly typed fields, supports exact and subset object matching, and includes a three-case starter. This validates an expected-value contract, not the factual correctness of an arbitrary answer.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" }, { "output": "Change: JSON checks compare typed expected values and explain missing, invented or mistyped fields.\nWhy it matters: A response containing the right words may still be unusable as a structured record.\nNext: Open /lab/extraction/ and download the support-ticket starter, then inspect its expected values before collecting responses.\nLimit: Passing means matching your configured contract, not proving that the contract or answer is factually correct.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" } ], "results": [ { "prompt": "Write a concise product-update summary for existing PromptKB users from this source note. Keep it under 110 words. Preserve factual limits.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T15:31:57Z\nJSON extraction checks catch unusable records and explain the failing fields\nPublished typed expected-JSON checks, exact/subset object matching, per-field differences and a reusable three-case support-extraction starter with a practical /lab/extraction/ walkthrough and download. Reports now retain current case rules as well as results. A baseline non-JSON response passed all three literal checks; the new six-response authored exercise catches type errors, invented missing values and ambiguity while allowing reordered object keys. This is demanding tool use with fictional inputs/authored outputs, not independently sampled model performance. The local and live extraction workflows passed, including prompt copying without expected-answer leakage, reviews, exports, rule iteration, stale snapshots, reopening, version-1 migration and focused accessibility/narrow-layout checks. The existing incident workflow also passed locally. Visual review prompted aligned response editors. Deployment passed 102 Python and 70 Node checks; eight public assets match source, publication is healthy, and no units failed. No controller/backend/collection change or additional recovery drill was made. Current hourly backup predates this release; browser-local projects remain outside server backups. A post-release agent narrative-edit error omitted a JSON key: the 15:32:34 collector marked the narrative stale and retained the prior version while continuing measurements. The source was corrected and JSON-validated before 15:34:13; the automatic 15:34:36 snapshot restored healthy publication. This was a narrative publication interruption, not observed product downtime.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/extraction/", "output": "Support-ticket extraction can now be checked against typed JSON expectations instead of relying on keyword matches. The bench flags missing, invented or wrongly typed fields, supports exact and subset object matching, and includes a three-case starter. This validates an expected-value contract, not the factual correctness of an arbitrary answer.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Explains why typed checks matter and limits the correctness claim. The starter is mentioned, but the reader is not told what control or page to use next.", "verdict": "reject", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "fail", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] }, { "prompt": "Write a product-update brief for existing PromptKB users from this source note, under 110 words. Use Change:, Why it matters:, Next:, and Limit:. Give an explicit next action with a named control or destination. Preserve material evidence limits. Do not claim measured human benefits, model superiority or audience reach from authored exercises, local tests or notification receipts.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T15:31:57Z\nJSON extraction checks catch unusable records and explain the failing fields\nPublished typed expected-JSON checks, exact/subset object matching, per-field differences and a reusable three-case support-extraction starter with a practical /lab/extraction/ walkthrough and download. Reports now retain current case rules as well as results. A baseline non-JSON response passed all three literal checks; the new six-response authored exercise catches type errors, invented missing values and ambiguity while allowing reordered object keys. This is demanding tool use with fictional inputs/authored outputs, not independently sampled model performance. The local and live extraction workflows passed, including prompt copying without expected-answer leakage, reviews, exports, rule iteration, stale snapshots, reopening, version-1 migration and focused accessibility/narrow-layout checks. The existing incident workflow also passed locally. Visual review prompted aligned response editors. Deployment passed 102 Python and 70 Node checks; eight public assets match source, publication is healthy, and no units failed. No controller/backend/collection change or additional recovery drill was made. Current hourly backup predates this release; browser-local projects remain outside server backups. A post-release agent narrative-edit error omitted a JSON key: the 15:32:34 collector marked the narrative stale and retained the prior version while continuing measurements. The source was corrected and JSON-validated before 15:34:13; the automatic 15:34:36 snapshot restored healthy publication. This was a narrative publication interruption, not observed product downtime.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/extraction/", "output": "Change: JSON checks compare typed expected values and explain missing, invented or mistyped fields.\nWhy it matters: A response containing the right words may still be unusable as a structured record.\nNext: Open /lab/extraction/ and download the support-ticket starter, then inspect its expected values before collecting responses.\nLimit: Passing means matching your configured contract, not proving that the contract or answer is factually correct.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Explains structured-record usefulness, provides the extraction guide destination and asks the reader to inspect expectations. Contract matching is not equated with factual truth.", "verdict": "accept", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "pass", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] } ] }, { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false }, "name": "Spreadsheet case sets", "input": "Public product update 2026-11-03T16:37:56Z\nSpreadsheet case sets become reviewable local imports, not a series of manual form entries\nPublished CSV/TSV file and paste intake with column mapping, full input/rule previews, optional independent rule copies and confirmed append/replace. Existing recordings survive append, matching names are not merged, and replacement preserves variants while explicitly removing cases/history. New cases remain unrun. Capacity grows from ten to fifty cases without new format-3 fields; older releases reject larger projects. The standalone /lab/datasets/ guide supplies twelve already-public notes as a CSV and ready digest project, with authored date/category labels and manually reviewed summaries rather than model benchmarks. Direct baseline validation rejected that twelve-case project under the old limit. Five local/live workflow groups passed: actual multiline CSV, recording preservation, cancel/re-preview, replace/reopen, TSV inheritance and focused layout/accessibility/privacy checks. Earlier history workflow also passed locally. Deployment passed 102 Python/82 Node checks; twelve live assets match source, publication is healthy with unchanged source-transition count, and no units failed. No controller/backend/collection change, external submission or additional restore drill occurred; latest scheduled backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/datasets/", "history": [ [], [] ], "drafts": [ { "output": "CSV and spreadsheet TSV imports now turn a table into a reusable case set. Column mapping and preview support deliberate append or replacement, with copied checks where useful and no name-based merging. The bench supports up to fifty cases. New cases start unrun and require response collection and review.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" }, { "output": "Change: CSV and spreadsheet TSV imports build a case set through column mapping and preview.\nWhy it matters: You can prepare cases as a table rather than enter each input separately.\nNext: In the Test Bench, expand Import a case dataset from CSV or a spreadsheet, read the columns and preview before choosing append or replace.\nLimit: Matching names are not merged, and new cases start without recorded responses or reviews.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" } ], "results": [ { "prompt": "Write a concise product-update summary for existing PromptKB users from this source note. Keep it under 110 words. Preserve factual limits.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T16:37:56Z\nSpreadsheet case sets become reviewable local imports, not a series of manual form entries\nPublished CSV/TSV file and paste intake with column mapping, full input/rule previews, optional independent rule copies and confirmed append/replace. Existing recordings survive append, matching names are not merged, and replacement preserves variants while explicitly removing cases/history. New cases remain unrun. Capacity grows from ten to fifty cases without new format-3 fields; older releases reject larger projects. The standalone /lab/datasets/ guide supplies twelve already-public notes as a CSV and ready digest project, with authored date/category labels and manually reviewed summaries rather than model benchmarks. Direct baseline validation rejected that twelve-case project under the old limit. Five local/live workflow groups passed: actual multiline CSV, recording preservation, cancel/re-preview, replace/reopen, TSV inheritance and focused layout/accessibility/privacy checks. Earlier history workflow also passed locally. Deployment passed 102 Python/82 Node checks; twelve live assets match source, publication is healthy with unchanged source-transition count, and no units failed. No controller/backend/collection change, external submission or additional restore drill occurred; latest scheduled backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/datasets/", "output": "CSV and spreadsheet TSV imports now turn a table into a reusable case set. Column mapping and preview support deliberate append or replacement, with copied checks where useful and no name-based merging. The bench supports up to fifty cases. New cases start unrun and require response collection and review.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Describes dataset preparation and unrun cases without measured time-saving claims. No explicit next action or named importer control is given.", "verdict": "reject", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "fail", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] }, { "prompt": "Write a product-update brief for existing PromptKB users from this source note, under 110 words. Use Change:, Why it matters:, Next:, and Limit:. Give an explicit next action with a named control or destination. Preserve material evidence limits. Do not claim measured human benefits, model superiority or audience reach from authored exercises, local tests or notification receipts.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T16:37:56Z\nSpreadsheet case sets become reviewable local imports, not a series of manual form entries\nPublished CSV/TSV file and paste intake with column mapping, full input/rule previews, optional independent rule copies and confirmed append/replace. Existing recordings survive append, matching names are not merged, and replacement preserves variants while explicitly removing cases/history. New cases remain unrun. Capacity grows from ten to fifty cases without new format-3 fields; older releases reject larger projects. The standalone /lab/datasets/ guide supplies twelve already-public notes as a CSV and ready digest project, with authored date/category labels and manually reviewed summaries rather than model benchmarks. Direct baseline validation rejected that twelve-case project under the old limit. Five local/live workflow groups passed: actual multiline CSV, recording preservation, cancel/re-preview, replace/reopen, TSV inheritance and focused layout/accessibility/privacy checks. Earlier history workflow also passed locally. Deployment passed 102 Python/82 Node checks; twelve live assets match source, publication is healthy with unchanged source-transition count, and no units failed. No controller/backend/collection change, external submission or additional restore drill occurred; latest scheduled backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/datasets/", "output": "Change: CSV and spreadsheet TSV imports build a case set through column mapping and preview.\nWhy it matters: You can prepare cases as a table rather than enter each input separately.\nNext: In the Test Bench, expand Import a case dataset from CSV or a spreadsheet, read the columns and preview before choosing append or replace.\nLimit: Matching names are not merged, and new cases start without recorded responses or reviews.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Names the actual importer and preview step, explains table preparation without claiming measured time savings, and preserves no-merge/unrun limitations.", "verdict": "accept", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "pass", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] } ] }, { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false }, "name": "Support extraction pack", "input": "Public product update 2026-11-03T17:40:00Z\nA reusable sixteen-case support pack ships, followed by one acknowledged search notification\nPublished a script-free support-extraction regression resource with fictional cases, two prompts, typed expectations, coverage/rationales and portable unrun project, generic JSON, CSV and rendered-prompt downloads. Free reuse permission applies to the pack, not the whole site. Policies for refund intent, issue priority and localized amounts are explicit and adjustable rather than universal truth. Local/live exercises retained an old rejection when the same authored amount response became acceptable under a revised contract, and recorded a deliberately authored injection-following failure without claiming measured attack resistance. Four browser workflow groups and 105 Python/92 Node tests passed; nine public product assets match source, verification file was checked separately, publication remains healthy and no units failed. After reviewing current IndexNow documentation/FAQ/terms and preflighting owned canonical pages, one POST at 17:38:07 received HTTP 202 at 17:38:09 for /packs/support-extraction/, /lab/ and /lab/batch/. This means received with key validation pending, not indexing/ranking/visitors. No retries, other endpoint or community posts. The redacted receipt and authoritative duplicate-guard ledger are retained with source so later workspace backups preserve the commitment; the latest 17:00:56 backup predates this release. No controller/backend/timer/collection changes or new restore drill.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/packs/support-extraction/", "history": [ [], [] ], "drafts": [ { "output": "A sixteen-case support-extraction pack adds fictional customer messages, typed expected records, prompt variants and policy rationales. Its project, CSV, generic JSON and prompt downloads can be reused inside or outside PromptKB, including commercially. Expectations are task-specific policies rather than universal ground truth or measured model accuracy.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" }, { "output": "Change: The support-extraction pack provides sixteen fictional cases, typed expectations, two prompts and policy rationales.\nWhy it matters: Its portable downloads provide a task-specific starting set inside or outside PromptKB, with free commercial adaptation.\nNext: Open /packs/support-extraction/, download the project and check the refund, issue-priority and amount policies against your own task before using its expectations.\nLimit: The policies are authored choices, not universal ground truth or measured model accuracy.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" } ], "results": [ { "prompt": "Write a concise product-update summary for existing PromptKB users from this source note. Keep it under 110 words. Preserve factual limits.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T17:40:00Z\nA reusable sixteen-case support pack ships, followed by one acknowledged search notification\nPublished a script-free support-extraction regression resource with fictional cases, two prompts, typed expectations, coverage/rationales and portable unrun project, generic JSON, CSV and rendered-prompt downloads. Free reuse permission applies to the pack, not the whole site. Policies for refund intent, issue priority and localized amounts are explicit and adjustable rather than universal truth. Local/live exercises retained an old rejection when the same authored amount response became acceptable under a revised contract, and recorded a deliberately authored injection-following failure without claiming measured attack resistance. Four browser workflow groups and 105 Python/92 Node tests passed; nine public product assets match source, verification file was checked separately, publication remains healthy and no units failed. After reviewing current IndexNow documentation/FAQ/terms and preflighting owned canonical pages, one POST at 17:38:07 received HTTP 202 at 17:38:09 for /packs/support-extraction/, /lab/ and /lab/batch/. This means received with key validation pending, not indexing/ranking/visitors. No retries, other endpoint or community posts. The redacted receipt and authoritative duplicate-guard ledger are retained with source so later workspace backups preserve the commitment; the latest 17:00:56 backup predates this release. No controller/backend/timer/collection changes or new restore drill.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/packs/support-extraction/", "output": "A sixteen-case support-extraction pack adds fictional customer messages, typed expected records, prompt variants and policy rationales. Its project, CSV, generic JSON and prompt downloads can be reused inside or outside PromptKB, including commercially. Expectations are task-specific policies rather than universal ground truth or measured model accuracy.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Explains portable reuse and task-specific expectations. Listing download formats is not an explicit instruction to open a destination or use a named control.", "verdict": "reject", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "fail", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] }, { "prompt": "Write a product-update brief for existing PromptKB users from this source note, under 110 words. Use Change:, Why it matters:, Next:, and Limit:. Give an explicit next action with a named control or destination. Preserve material evidence limits. Do not claim measured human benefits, model superiority or audience reach from authored exercises, local tests or notification receipts.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T17:40:00Z\nA reusable sixteen-case support pack ships, followed by one acknowledged search notification\nPublished a script-free support-extraction regression resource with fictional cases, two prompts, typed expectations, coverage/rationales and portable unrun project, generic JSON, CSV and rendered-prompt downloads. Free reuse permission applies to the pack, not the whole site. Policies for refund intent, issue priority and localized amounts are explicit and adjustable rather than universal truth. Local/live exercises retained an old rejection when the same authored amount response became acceptable under a revised contract, and recorded a deliberately authored injection-following failure without claiming measured attack resistance. Four browser workflow groups and 105 Python/92 Node tests passed; nine public product assets match source, verification file was checked separately, publication remains healthy and no units failed. After reviewing current IndexNow documentation/FAQ/terms and preflighting owned canonical pages, one POST at 17:38:07 received HTTP 202 at 17:38:09 for /packs/support-extraction/, /lab/ and /lab/batch/. This means received with key validation pending, not indexing/ranking/visitors. No retries, other endpoint or community posts. The redacted receipt and authoritative duplicate-guard ledger are retained with source so later workspace backups preserve the commitment; the latest 17:00:56 backup predates this release. No controller/backend/timer/collection changes or new restore drill.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/packs/support-extraction/", "output": "Change: The support-extraction pack provides sixteen fictional cases, typed expectations, two prompts and policy rationales.\nWhy it matters: Its portable downloads provide a task-specific starting set inside or outside PromptKB, with free commercial adaptation.\nNext: Open /packs/support-extraction/, download the project and check the refund, issue-priority and amount policies against your own task before using its expectations.\nLimit: The policies are authored choices, not universal ground truth or measured model accuracy.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Names the public pack destination and asks for policy review before use. Free commercial adaptation is part of the pack's existing permission; no model accuracy or universal policy is claimed.", "verdict": "accept", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "pass", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] } ] }, { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false }, "name": "Saved-baseline revision review", "input": "Public product update 2026-11-03T18:43:10Z\nSaved-baseline comparison exposes whole-set regressions and a dangerous automatic pass\nPublished read-only previous-project comparison below the Test Bench matrix, with one variant selected from each project, unique exact case matching, current-candidate-rule checks, explicit exclusions and full-set report export. Added a script-free customer-reply walkthrough with authored baseline/candidate and unrun downloads. The first candidate has 4/7 comparable cases: one gain, one regression and two both-pass. One both-pass reply requests unnecessary payment-card data and has a saved rejection; the new saved accept-to-reject queue exposes it without inventing a common-rubric quality score. Editing the shared prompt then collecting seven authored repairs retains earlier reviews and produces 5/7 comparable cases, one gain and four both-pass; changed/new inputs remain unpaired. These are constructed workflow results, not independent model samples. Visual review aligned raw outputs ahead of variable-length metadata. Four local/live browser groups passed, including saved-copy isolation, report completeness, review navigation, stale evidence, drafts, invalid/delayed loads, reload/replacement, narrow layout/axe and no content-bearing requests. Deployment passed 105 Python/100 Node tests; ten public assets match source, publication is healthy with four unchanged source transitions and no units failed. Verification file and single prior discovery attempt remain preserved; no external submission, controller/backend/timer/data-collection change or additional restore drill. The 18:00 standard-verified backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/revisions/", "history": [ [], [] ], "drafts": [ { "output": "Saved-baseline comparison puts a previous project beside a candidate revision without replacing either. It identifies whole-set gains, regressions and exclusions under the candidate’s current checks, while retaining original prompts, outputs and saved review context. Exact unique case-name/input matches are required; unmatched or stale evidence does not count.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" }, { "output": "Change: Saved-baseline comparison puts a previous project beside the current candidate without replacing either.\nWhy it matters: You can inspect regressions and missing evidence across the case set before adopting a revision.\nNext: Keep a project download before editing; later open Compare a revision against a saved baseline below the matrix and load that earlier file.\nLimit: Only exact unique case-name/input matches with current recordings qualify, and both outputs use today's candidate checks—not historical pass rates.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" } ], "results": [ { "prompt": "Write a concise product-update summary for existing PromptKB users from this source note. Keep it under 110 words. Preserve factual limits.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T18:43:10Z\nSaved-baseline comparison exposes whole-set regressions and a dangerous automatic pass\nPublished read-only previous-project comparison below the Test Bench matrix, with one variant selected from each project, unique exact case matching, current-candidate-rule checks, explicit exclusions and full-set report export. Added a script-free customer-reply walkthrough with authored baseline/candidate and unrun downloads. The first candidate has 4/7 comparable cases: one gain, one regression and two both-pass. One both-pass reply requests unnecessary payment-card data and has a saved rejection; the new saved accept-to-reject queue exposes it without inventing a common-rubric quality score. Editing the shared prompt then collecting seven authored repairs retains earlier reviews and produces 5/7 comparable cases, one gain and four both-pass; changed/new inputs remain unpaired. These are constructed workflow results, not independent model samples. Visual review aligned raw outputs ahead of variable-length metadata. Four local/live browser groups passed, including saved-copy isolation, report completeness, review navigation, stale evidence, drafts, invalid/delayed loads, reload/replacement, narrow layout/axe and no content-bearing requests. Deployment passed 105 Python/100 Node tests; ten public assets match source, publication is healthy with four unchanged source transitions and no units failed. Verification file and single prior discovery attempt remain preserved; no external submission, controller/backend/timer/data-collection change or additional restore drill. The 18:00 standard-verified backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/revisions/", "output": "Saved-baseline comparison puts a previous project beside a candidate revision without replacing either. It identifies whole-set gains, regressions and exclusions under the candidate’s current checks, while retaining original prompts, outputs and saved review context. Exact unique case-name/input matches are required; unmatched or stale evidence does not count.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Explains revision comparison and matching limits. It does not direct the reader to the baseline panel or say which saved project to load there.", "verdict": "reject", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "fail", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] }, { "prompt": "Write a product-update brief for existing PromptKB users from this source note, under 110 words. Use Change:, Why it matters:, Next:, and Limit:. Give an explicit next action with a named control or destination. Preserve material evidence limits. Do not claim measured human benefits, model superiority or audience reach from authored exercises, local tests or notification receipts.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T18:43:10Z\nSaved-baseline comparison exposes whole-set regressions and a dangerous automatic pass\nPublished read-only previous-project comparison below the Test Bench matrix, with one variant selected from each project, unique exact case matching, current-candidate-rule checks, explicit exclusions and full-set report export. Added a script-free customer-reply walkthrough with authored baseline/candidate and unrun downloads. The first candidate has 4/7 comparable cases: one gain, one regression and two both-pass. One both-pass reply requests unnecessary payment-card data and has a saved rejection; the new saved accept-to-reject queue exposes it without inventing a common-rubric quality score. Editing the shared prompt then collecting seven authored repairs retains earlier reviews and produces 5/7 comparable cases, one gain and four both-pass; changed/new inputs remain unpaired. These are constructed workflow results, not independent model samples. Visual review aligned raw outputs ahead of variable-length metadata. Four local/live browser groups passed, including saved-copy isolation, report completeness, review navigation, stale evidence, drafts, invalid/delayed loads, reload/replacement, narrow layout/axe and no content-bearing requests. Deployment passed 105 Python/100 Node tests; ten public assets match source, publication is healthy with four unchanged source transitions and no units failed. Verification file and single prior discovery attempt remain preserved; no external submission, controller/backend/timer/data-collection change or additional restore drill. The 18:00 standard-verified backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/revisions/", "output": "Change: Saved-baseline comparison puts a previous project beside the current candidate without replacing either.\nWhy it matters: You can inspect regressions and missing evidence across the case set before adopting a revision.\nNext: Keep a project download before editing; later open Compare a revision against a saved baseline below the matrix and load that earlier file.\nLimit: Only exact unique case-name/input matches with current recordings qualify, and both outputs use today's candidate checks—not historical pass rates.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Gives the before-edit download and later baseline-panel action. Exact matching and current-candidate checks are explicit; adoption is framed as an inspection decision, not an automatic winner.", "verdict": "accept", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "pass", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] } ] }, { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false }, "name": "Context-bound manual criteria", "input": "Public product update 2026-11-03T19:17:20Z\nManual criteria keep the basis for a judgment when review policy changes\nPublished shared criteria, explicit per-criterion assessments, current-context eligibility and retained review rounds in the local Test Bench, plus a script-free four-reply guide and unrun practice project. Sixteen authored initial assessments yield two manual acceptances versus three automatic passes; the payment-data request is a deliberate semantic rejection among literal passes. Tightening criteria and then a case's word cap invalidates old judgments without changing recorded prompts; canceled restart keeps everything, while confirmed re-review preserves old criteria/ratings/checks/decision/note. The exported later-stage example has one current acceptance and three out-of-date reviews, not the earlier two-acceptance state. New responses retain these contexts in Trial history. Format 4 imports older projects without invented assessments; a direct old-validator probe rejects the new version. Four local/live workflow groups passed, including storage/reload, staging, draft separation, review lifecycle, exports, baseline/history, narrow layout/axe and content-free requests. Existing baseline and extraction browser workflows also passed locally; one extraction evidence caption still said v3 while the assertion checked v4, and the caption was corrected afterward without rewriting the evidence. Deployment passed 105 Python/107 Node tests. Fifteen assets match live source, publication is healthy with four unchanged transitions and no units failed. The single earlier discovery attempt and verification file remain preserved. No controller/backend/timer/dependency/data-collection change, new model call, external submission or restore drill. Latest 19:00 verified backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/review/", "history": [ [], [] ], "drafts": [ { "output": "Manual review criteria make the basis for a judgment explicit. Reviewers assess each requirement and choose an overall decision; changed criteria or case checks make old bound reviews out of date. Restarting preserves earlier assessments and notes, and project format 4 carries the context forward. These are human judgments rather than automated semantic evaluations.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" }, { "output": "Change: Manual criteria retain the basis for a judgment when the review policy changes.\nWhy it matters: Earlier assessments and notes remain inspectable instead of being silently treated as current.\nNext: Expand Define shared manual review criteria, apply your criteria, then start a review of a recorded response and assess every requirement before deciding.\nLimit: These are reviewer judgments, not automated semantic verification. Changing criteria or case checks can make a bound review out of date without a new model run.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run" } ], "results": [ { "prompt": "Write a concise product-update summary for existing PromptKB users from this source note. Keep it under 110 words. Preserve factual limits.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T19:17:20Z\nManual criteria keep the basis for a judgment when review policy changes\nPublished shared criteria, explicit per-criterion assessments, current-context eligibility and retained review rounds in the local Test Bench, plus a script-free four-reply guide and unrun practice project. Sixteen authored initial assessments yield two manual acceptances versus three automatic passes; the payment-data request is a deliberate semantic rejection among literal passes. Tightening criteria and then a case's word cap invalidates old judgments without changing recorded prompts; canceled restart keeps everything, while confirmed re-review preserves old criteria/ratings/checks/decision/note. The exported later-stage example has one current acceptance and three out-of-date reviews, not the earlier two-acceptance state. New responses retain these contexts in Trial history. Format 4 imports older projects without invented assessments; a direct old-validator probe rejects the new version. Four local/live workflow groups passed, including storage/reload, staging, draft separation, review lifecycle, exports, baseline/history, narrow layout/axe and content-free requests. Existing baseline and extraction browser workflows also passed locally; one extraction evidence caption still said v3 while the assertion checked v4, and the caption was corrected afterward without rewriting the evidence. Deployment passed 105 Python/107 Node tests. Fifteen assets match live source, publication is healthy with four unchanged transitions and no units failed. The single earlier discovery attempt and verification file remain preserved. No controller/backend/timer/dependency/data-collection change, new model call, external submission or restore drill. Latest 19:00 verified backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/review/", "output": "Manual review criteria make the basis for a judgment explicit. Reviewers assess each requirement and choose an overall decision; changed criteria or case checks make old bound reviews out of date. Restarting preserves earlier assessments and notes, and project format 4 carries the context forward. These are human judgments rather than automated semantic evaluations.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Explains context retention and human judgment. It does not tell the reader to apply criteria or start a review using the actual controls.", "verdict": "reject", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "fail", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:40:30.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] }, { "prompt": "Write a product-update brief for existing PromptKB users from this source note, under 110 words. Use Change:, Why it matters:, Next:, and Limit:. Give an explicit next action with a named control or destination. Preserve material evidence limits. Do not claim measured human benefits, model superiority or audience reach from authored exercises, local tests or notification receipts.\n\nSource note:\nPublic product update 2026-11-03T19:17:20Z\nManual criteria keep the basis for a judgment when review policy changes\nPublished shared criteria, explicit per-criterion assessments, current-context eligibility and retained review rounds in the local Test Bench, plus a script-free four-reply guide and unrun practice project. Sixteen authored initial assessments yield two manual acceptances versus three automatic passes; the payment-data request is a deliberate semantic rejection among literal passes. Tightening criteria and then a case's word cap invalidates old judgments without changing recorded prompts; canceled restart keeps everything, while confirmed re-review preserves old criteria/ratings/checks/decision/note. The exported later-stage example has one current acceptance and three out-of-date reviews, not the earlier two-acceptance state. New responses retain these contexts in Trial history. Format 4 imports older projects without invented assessments; a direct old-validator probe rejects the new version. Four local/live workflow groups passed, including storage/reload, staging, draft separation, review lifecycle, exports, baseline/history, narrow layout/axe and content-free requests. Existing baseline and extraction browser workflows also passed locally; one extraction evidence caption still said v3 while the assertion checked v4, and the caption was corrected afterward without rewriting the evidence. Deployment passed 105 Python/107 Node tests. Fifteen assets match live source, publication is healthy with four unchanged transitions and no units failed. The single earlier discovery attempt and verification file remain preserved. No controller/backend/timer/dependency/data-collection change, new model call, external submission or restore drill. Latest 19:00 verified backup predates this release.\nPublic product destination: https://promptkb.com/lab/review/", "output": "Change: Manual criteria retain the basis for a judgment when the review policy changes.\nWhy it matters: Earlier assessments and notes remain inspectable instead of being silently treated as current.\nNext: Expand Define shared manual review criteria, apply your criteria, then start a review of a recorded response and assess every requirement before deciding.\nLimit: These are reviewer judgments, not automated semantic verification. Changing criteria or case checks can make a bound review out of date without a new model run.", "model": "Agent editorial draft; shared context, self-reviewed; not an independent model run", "note": "Names the shared-criteria control and review action. Makes retained evaluation context useful to the reader while distinguishing human judgments and policy changes from semantic verification or model execution.", "verdict": "accept", "recordedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } }, "review": { "criteria": [ "Grounding: every capability or outcome claim is supported by the source; test or notification receipts are not presented as measured human or model benefits.", "Reader value: explains a concrete workflow or user problem addressed, not only implementation activity.", "Next action: gives an explicit next step with a named control or destination a reader can find, rather than merely listing capabilities.", "Limits: states a material limitation relevant to the change without overstating guarantees." ], "ratings": [ "pass", "pass", "pass", "pass" ], "startedAt": "2026-11-03T19:43:00.000Z", "rules": { "required": "", "forbidden": "", "maxWords": 110, "jsonCheck": { "enabled": false, "expected": "", "exact": false } } }, "reviewHistory": [] } ] } ] }