[ { "seq": 0, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": null, "ts": 1, "kind": "run_started", "payload": { "packId": "lending-adverse-action", "title": "Loan #4471 — adverse-action review", "domain": "lending", "question": "Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?", "panel": [ { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "society": "evidence", "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1" }, { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "society": "adversary", "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1" }, { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "society": "law_policy", "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1" }, { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "society": "affected_party", "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1" }, { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "society": "safety", "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1" }, { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "society": "concision", "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1" } ], "config": { "seed": 7, "maxSpans": 3, "flags": { "blindRound": true, "anonymizeFeedback": true, "randomizeCandidateOrder": true, "debateRounds": 1, "roleMemory": true, "independentEvidence": true, "safetyVeto": true }, "clientView": "answer_plus_summary" }, "note": "OFFLINE deterministic panel (no model calls) — CI/smoke mode." }, "prevHash": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000", "hash": "2497d64a50afca20e79b77cf6da98b9184c7deee68938fff237684d367c63edc" }, { "seq": 1, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 2, "kind": "decision_opened", "payload": { "slot": { "index": 0, "label": "the disposition", "instruction": "Decide the disposition of loan #4471. DTI = total monthly debt / gross monthly income. Recompute it from the verified figures BEFORE adopting any drafted number, and say what you did.", "riskBands": { "factual": "high", "legal": "high", "fairness": "medium" }, "candidatesHint": [ "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason." ] } }, "prevHash": "2497d64a50afca20e79b77cf6da98b9184c7deee68938fff237684d367c63edc", "hash": "49f79d344b035d20ed4ad0db794cb4daa9b72fc214d313b3d1abfaec00811b12" }, { "seq": 2, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 3, "kind": "case_presented", "payload": { "case": { "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "packId": "lending-adverse-action", "title": "Loan #4471 — adverse-action review", "domain": "lending", "question": "Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?", "constraints": [ { "id": "c_ecoa", "kind": "regulation", "text": "An adverse-action notice must state the specific principal reason(s) for denial; generic or inaccurate statements are non-compliant.", "cite": "ECOA 15 U.S.C. §1691(d); Reg B 12 CFR §1002.9" }, { "id": "c_cfpb", "kind": "regulation", "text": "Creditors relying on complex models must still provide specific and accurate reasons; model opacity is not a defense.", "cite": "CFPB Circular 2022-03" }, { "id": "c_fairlend", "kind": "regulation", "text": "The decision must not rely on a prohibited basis or a proxy for one.", "cite": "Reg B 12 CFR §1002.6" }, { "id": "c_policy45", "kind": "policy", "text": "Internal policy: applications at or above 45% DTI are declined absent compensating factors." } ], "evidence": [ { "id": "e_income", "source": "verified_income", "citation": "paystub bundle p.2", "summary": "Verified gross monthly income is $7,200 (annual $86,400), stable for 3+ years.", "quality": 0.95 }, { "id": "e_debt", "source": "credit_report", "citation": "tradelines p.4", "summary": "Total documented monthly debt obligations are $2,050 (auto $410, cards $340, student $520, proposed mortgage escrowed $780).", "quality": 0.9 }, { "id": "e_dti_draft", "source": "underwriting_draft", "citation": "worksheet cell D12", "summary": "Draft worksheet states DTI = 52% and recommends denial for 'excessive DTI'. No computation shown.", "quality": 0.4, "contradicts": [ "e_income", "e_debt" ] }, { "id": "e_score", "source": "credit_report", "citation": "summary p.1", "summary": "Credit score 690; two 30-day late payments in the last 24 months (both on the same card, 14 months ago).", "quality": 0.9 }, { "id": "e_ltv", "source": "appraisal", "citation": "appraisal p.3", "summary": "Loan-to-value 82%, within program limits (max 95%).", "quality": 0.85 } ], "documents": [ { "id": "d_policy", "title": "Lending policy excerpt", "body": "Applications with a debt-to-income ratio at or above 45% are declined absent compensating factors. DTI is computed as total monthly debt obligations divided by gross monthly income. The principal reason stated on any denial must be specific and accurate; template language without case-specific reconciliation is prohibited." }, { "id": "d_draft", "title": "Draft denial letter (as queued for sending)", "body": "Dear applicant: We regret to inform you that your application has been denied due to excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%), which exceeds our program maximum. This decision was generated by our automated underwriting assistant." }, { "id": "d_file_summary", "title": "Application file summary", "body": "Applicant seeks a $312,000 30-year fixed mortgage. Verified income $7,200/month. Documented monthly obligations $2,050 including the proposed housing payment. Credit score 690 with two 30-day delinquencies 14 months ago. LTV 82%. No bankruptcies, no collections." } ], "prefix": "", "slot": { "index": 0, "label": "the disposition", "instruction": "Decide the disposition of loan #4471. DTI = total monthly debt / gross monthly income. Recompute it from the verified figures BEFORE adopting any drafted number, and say what you did.", "riskBands": { "factual": "high", "legal": "high", "fairness": "medium" }, "candidatesHint": [ "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason." ] }, "ratifiedCommitments": [], "rejectedAlternatives": [], "unresolvedDissent": [] } }, "prevHash": "49f79d344b035d20ed4ad0db794cb4daa9b72fc214d313b3d1abfaec00811b12", "hash": "9140ca49158a8e9ea479e45aa6483a38a2e41180751e6dce80cc7be1faec4c6a" }, { "seq": 3, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 4, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "9140ca49158a8e9ea479e45aa6483a38a2e41180751e6dce80cc7be1faec4c6a", "hash": "d67ef9cb1c9792156acd96b547e35592d7ec5cf6c98c1c21ea88721b87666d2c" }, { "seq": 4, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 5, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "d67ef9cb1c9792156acd96b547e35592d7ec5cf6c98c1c21ea88721b87666d2c", "hash": "dabc013fd8fa04877cf116c494aa35c6afe472e03f161e192cce6233ed729551" }, { "seq": 5, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 6, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "dabc013fd8fa04877cf116c494aa35c6afe472e03f161e192cce6233ed729551", "hash": "ea329d409fcdfad34a03371cfe1e4b98eaa19e1ac8dbe159e198b8ecac2f2cd8" }, { "seq": 6, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 7, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "ea329d409fcdfad34a03371cfe1e4b98eaa19e1ac8dbe159e198b8ecac2f2cd8", "hash": "b396fd309c16f5ad39b7686a605c4f9df97f7f7553d313b18b73f94224ae34e7" }, { "seq": 7, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 8, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "b396fd309c16f5ad39b7686a605c4f9df97f7f7553d313b18b73f94224ae34e7", "hash": "711dc5aff11d4e73f4b0abd801f62bad365824464ec67f0867519722b855ebd4" }, { "seq": 8, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 9, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "711dc5aff11d4e73f4b0abd801f62bad365824464ec67f0867519722b855ebd4", "hash": "fcab82c45dce7ab3a8410bfb1534675c2637403c6db16bdc16bee68b34fef481" }, { "seq": 9, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 10, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "society": "evidence", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "proposalHash": "e30d587e2aaa04081e5e7197bd0e5f65e5cf1102bcb594bb993fe95e6ebeb321" }, "prevHash": "fcab82c45dce7ab3a8410bfb1534675c2637403c6db16bdc16bee68b34fef481", "hash": "dc82ef8daeb53b19209afd8158a083da0d5e5b0ba9a1959cd25afaf3411a4f33" }, { "seq": 10, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 11, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "society": "adversary", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "proposalHash": "b4631e4ae86beda8c91d03789835d8f8d7389d27b6e459f856cef8b7437eeedf" }, "prevHash": "dc82ef8daeb53b19209afd8158a083da0d5e5b0ba9a1959cd25afaf3411a4f33", "hash": "9c798098164234d713a1ff2886d9ac4717207ab6f584f217c226d55834a2be69" }, { "seq": 11, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 12, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "society": "law_policy", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "proposalHash": "8d548760ffe1e86c13f5692203c9e1d66251379063b0b32db676d95c63e76d44" }, "prevHash": "9c798098164234d713a1ff2886d9ac4717207ab6f584f217c226d55834a2be69", "hash": "34dd0b9f1e3664f391c4db19d9858c50cae6599c2db9a9d4572622eb892a38b3" }, { "seq": 12, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 13, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "society": "affected_party", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "proposalHash": "06754363c4942947659cb51fc02190e391edf9bea67e6a9da0a853af95d22c3f" }, "prevHash": "34dd0b9f1e3664f391c4db19d9858c50cae6599c2db9a9d4572622eb892a38b3", "hash": "4ebe1c5acbb1ce5f9cc22ffd1d58fec5a5d4b68936bcb6b50d7c307113f438dc" }, { "seq": 13, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 14, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "society": "safety", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "proposalHash": "21f3b951b9406ff0e6c8fad38efc94c47aa80af2d66d5b8c2a953ff48666c84d" }, "prevHash": "4ebe1c5acbb1ce5f9cc22ffd1d58fec5a5d4b68936bcb6b50d7c307113f438dc", "hash": "3a65b52a2d61b49eafad91ea7f52aaf5bf413ab04fe3c9186cc336acc150eccd" }, { "seq": 14, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 15, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "society": "concision", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "proposalHash": "0c1b0e46b5c0041ed47158a58b285bac426252cf0938be39422d2c238b090de1" }, "prevHash": "3a65b52a2d61b49eafad91ea7f52aaf5bf413ab04fe3c9186cc336acc150eccd", "hash": "69d6fe7801041bb11b8b401db917d5d630be802d1c0ca88f49ba12d73751abae" }, { "seq": 15, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 16, "kind": "proposals_revealed", "payload": { "proposals": [ { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "society": "evidence", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.7, "factualityRisk": 0.14, "legalRisk": 0.15, "fairnessRisk": 0.29, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "warrant": "Evidence seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.62, "factualityRisk": 0.2, "legalRisk": 0.2, "fairnessRisk": 0.2, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.55, "warrant": "Evidence seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.54, "factualityRisk": 0.14, "legalRisk": 0.2, "fairnessRisk": 0.23, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.54, "warrant": "Evidence seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "reason": "evidence seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Evidence seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "objections": [] }, { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "society": "adversary", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.6, "factualityRisk": 0.27, "legalRisk": 0.2, "fairnessRisk": 0.3, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "warrant": "Adversary seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.51, "factualityRisk": 0.32, "legalRisk": 0.25, "fairnessRisk": 0.34, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "warrant": "Adversary seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.5, "factualityRisk": 0.36, "legalRisk": 0.21, "fairnessRisk": 0.32, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.63, "warrant": "Adversary seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "reason": "adversary seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Adversary seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "objections": [ { "id": "obj_fd0b4a0da6dd", "targetKey": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.5, "kind": "factual", "raisedBy": "adversary" } ] }, { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "society": "law_policy", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.64, "factualityRisk": 0.25, "legalRisk": 0.26, "fairnessRisk": 0.23, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.6, "warrant": "Law/Policy seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.57, "factualityRisk": 0.29, "legalRisk": 0.32, "fairnessRisk": 0.25, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.53, "warrant": "Law/Policy seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.56, "factualityRisk": 0.22, "legalRisk": 0.3, "fairnessRisk": 0.26, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "warrant": "Law/Policy seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "reason": "law_policy seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Law/Policy seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "objections": [] }, { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "society": "affected_party", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.67, "factualityRisk": 0.24, "legalRisk": 0.18, "fairnessRisk": 0.36, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.69, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.59, "factualityRisk": 0.26, "legalRisk": 0.21, "fairnessRisk": 0.31, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.7, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.57, "factualityRisk": 0.24, "legalRisk": 0.24, "fairnessRisk": 0.35, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.68, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "reason": "affected_party seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "objections": [] }, { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "society": "safety", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.64, "factualityRisk": 0.29, "legalRisk": 0.31, "fairnessRisk": 0.33, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.63, "warrant": "Safety seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.61, "factualityRisk": 0.25, "legalRisk": 0.32, "fairnessRisk": 0.27, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.59, "warrant": "Safety seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.48, "factualityRisk": 0.28, "legalRisk": 0.34, "fairnessRisk": 0.29, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.56, "warrant": "Safety seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "reason": "safety seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Safety seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "objections": [ { "id": "obj_44c2597a83eb", "targetKey": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.7, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" } ] }, { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "society": "concision", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.68, "factualityRisk": 0.25, "legalRisk": 0.25, "fairnessRisk": 0.29, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.56, "warrant": "Concision seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.57, "factualityRisk": 0.24, "legalRisk": 0.22, "fairnessRisk": 0.28, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.52, "warrant": "Concision seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.51, "factualityRisk": 0.22, "legalRisk": 0.17, "fairnessRisk": 0.26, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.56, "warrant": "Concision seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "reason": "concision seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Concision seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "objections": [] } ], "hashChecks": [ { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "committed": "e30d587e2aaa04081e5e7197bd0e5f65e5cf1102bcb594bb993fe95e6ebeb321", "recomputed": "e30d587e2aaa04081e5e7197bd0e5f65e5cf1102bcb594bb993fe95e6ebeb321", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "committed": "b4631e4ae86beda8c91d03789835d8f8d7389d27b6e459f856cef8b7437eeedf", "recomputed": "b4631e4ae86beda8c91d03789835d8f8d7389d27b6e459f856cef8b7437eeedf", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "committed": "8d548760ffe1e86c13f5692203c9e1d66251379063b0b32db676d95c63e76d44", "recomputed": "8d548760ffe1e86c13f5692203c9e1d66251379063b0b32db676d95c63e76d44", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "committed": "06754363c4942947659cb51fc02190e391edf9bea67e6a9da0a853af95d22c3f", "recomputed": "06754363c4942947659cb51fc02190e391edf9bea67e6a9da0a853af95d22c3f", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "committed": "21f3b951b9406ff0e6c8fad38efc94c47aa80af2d66d5b8c2a953ff48666c84d", "recomputed": "21f3b951b9406ff0e6c8fad38efc94c47aa80af2d66d5b8c2a953ff48666c84d", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "committed": "0c1b0e46b5c0041ed47158a58b285bac426252cf0938be39422d2c238b090de1", "recomputed": "0c1b0e46b5c0041ed47158a58b285bac426252cf0938be39422d2c238b090de1", "ok": true } ] }, "prevHash": "69d6fe7801041bb11b8b401db917d5d630be802d1c0ca88f49ba12d73751abae", "hash": "b114883e9b5ee1e21281b09fef058cd6591fe5b4f67860ee2f644e292bb96a62" }, { "seq": 16, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 17, "kind": "feedback_issued", "payload": { "packet": { "spanIndex": 0, "roundNo": 1, "summaries": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "supportCount": 6, "meanConfidence": 0.5933, "confidenceDispersion": 0.0832, "strongestArgument": "Evidence seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "strongestObjection": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "evidenceConflicts": [] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "supportCount": 6, "meanConfidence": 0.5833, "confidenceDispersion": 0.0364, "strongestArgument": "Evidence seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceConflicts": [] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "supportCount": 6, "meanConfidence": 0.5833, "confidenceDispersion": 0.0585, "strongestArgument": "Concision seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceConflicts": [] } ], "overallDispersion": 0.0594, "guidance": "Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors." }, "anonymized": true }, "prevHash": "b114883e9b5ee1e21281b09fef058cd6591fe5b4f67860ee2f644e292bb96a62", "hash": "1a9cb78f7ce74ed174b31c858d3fc15cdd758f6b290316b762fa8f97afedaf88" }, { "seq": 17, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 18, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_1_evidence", "order": [ 1, 0, 2 ] }, "prevHash": "1a9cb78f7ce74ed174b31c858d3fc15cdd758f6b290316b762fa8f97afedaf88", "hash": "585130677c83d6d0c76d34693b1fb2f9a8207369109b037738c8dcb9902de3b2" }, { "seq": 18, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 19, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_2_adversary", "order": [ 1, 0, 2 ] }, "prevHash": "585130677c83d6d0c76d34693b1fb2f9a8207369109b037738c8dcb9902de3b2", "hash": "22f2533a967429e7cec5930c854284605ead54efe7e8548f4e4bb8e88fb0d025" }, { "seq": 19, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 20, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "order": [ 0, 1, 2 ] }, "prevHash": "22f2533a967429e7cec5930c854284605ead54efe7e8548f4e4bb8e88fb0d025", "hash": "199fc7520b1d8bd4828ff17a9564b4ea468e24b77027331b76ea76f9004ef446" }, { "seq": 20, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 21, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "order": [ 0, 1, 2 ] }, "prevHash": "199fc7520b1d8bd4828ff17a9564b4ea468e24b77027331b76ea76f9004ef446", "hash": "22a40e2405180ef4b8a93c6100003c7e4eb6fde25dbdc969598631533e258a69" }, { "seq": 21, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 22, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_5_safety", "order": [ 1, 2, 0 ] }, "prevHash": "22a40e2405180ef4b8a93c6100003c7e4eb6fde25dbdc969598631533e258a69", "hash": "2d35b5dd55d8f74852aaa695e18dc7780efd1c47f3a0f01b06934e3339363544" }, { "seq": 22, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 23, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_6_concision", "order": [ 2, 0, 1 ] }, "prevHash": "2d35b5dd55d8f74852aaa695e18dc7780efd1c47f3a0f01b06934e3339363544", "hash": "d4f60888d18e4475e818014e4e556992d0a3a14e224e7a6a43928c95c73628ac" }, { "seq": 23, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 24, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "d4f60888d18e4475e818014e4e556992d0a3a14e224e7a6a43928c95c73628ac", "hash": "6a28ddee9d50ae4d7b9cb96c20854181b7c4823374bc4b546a1cffcacacd4f25" }, { "seq": 24, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 25, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "society": "evidence", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.77, "factualityRisk": 0.14, "legalRisk": 0.15, "fairnessRisk": 0.29, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "warrant": "Evidence seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": true, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the evidence seat.", "maintainedObjections": [] } }, "prevHash": "6a28ddee9d50ae4d7b9cb96c20854181b7c4823374bc4b546a1cffcacacd4f25", "hash": "93263726d077a588a7a138c91da6e8f8e32944a19aed6e4aea336efabe786a2b" }, { "seq": 25, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 26, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "93263726d077a588a7a138c91da6e8f8e32944a19aed6e4aea336efabe786a2b", "hash": "c011c4ee007ae7b76c824115bb9412a70c233016a1d3954c12e5c9e75efa13be" }, { "seq": 26, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 27, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "society": "adversary", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.65, "factualityRisk": 0.27, "legalRisk": 0.2, "fairnessRisk": 0.3, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "warrant": "Adversary seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": false, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the adversary seat.", "maintainedObjections": [ { "id": "mobj_a3c592562f7a", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" } ] } }, "prevHash": "c011c4ee007ae7b76c824115bb9412a70c233016a1d3954c12e5c9e75efa13be", "hash": "5c4de0f9fea357a7971449856ddce5c9c07dabe2f2bcd908cfae63b83b6c02f6" }, { "seq": 27, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 28, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "5c4de0f9fea357a7971449856ddce5c9c07dabe2f2bcd908cfae63b83b6c02f6", "hash": "5226c49e7f28b093b0d06740b387a73c2937dfd9e3982f8abdc7080340d2a398" }, { "seq": 28, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 29, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "society": "law_policy", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.66, "factualityRisk": 0.25, "legalRisk": 0.26, "fairnessRisk": 0.23, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.6, "warrant": "Law/Policy seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": false, "answerToStrongestObjection": "On \"This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.\": the cited evidence (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) addresses it, and the law_policy mandate is satisfied.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the law_policy seat.", "maintainedObjections": [] } }, "prevHash": "5226c49e7f28b093b0d06740b387a73c2937dfd9e3982f8abdc7080340d2a398", "hash": "73b520535a7257d80351baa0888acc674ad89fab2a0909bb1e7a6a6f83a3d119" }, { "seq": 29, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 30, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "73b520535a7257d80351baa0888acc674ad89fab2a0909bb1e7a6a6f83a3d119", "hash": "f872489612d764a4752f4c2eab57ea5faf9389c9a202baecb38f623e76bc4426" }, { "seq": 30, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 31, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "society": "affected_party", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.69, "factualityRisk": 0.24, "legalRisk": 0.18, "fairnessRisk": 0.36, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.69, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": false, "answerToStrongestObjection": "On \"This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.\": the cited evidence (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) addresses it, and the affected_party mandate is satisfied.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the affected_party seat.", "maintainedObjections": [] } }, "prevHash": "f872489612d764a4752f4c2eab57ea5faf9389c9a202baecb38f623e76bc4426", "hash": "934bc09804d6f870a832323342a3e61be72514dc8f38385307c69fa82e42e199" }, { "seq": 31, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 32, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "934bc09804d6f870a832323342a3e61be72514dc8f38385307c69fa82e42e199", "hash": "8de966c44d2c3de6925554009e2edb467217c29b37a530726b7e8a56419cf957" }, { "seq": 32, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 33, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "society": "safety", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.7, "factualityRisk": 0.29, "legalRisk": 0.31, "fairnessRisk": 0.33, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.63, "warrant": "Safety seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": false, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the safety seat.", "maintainedObjections": [ { "id": "mobj_7668c56c9482", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" } ] } }, "prevHash": "8de966c44d2c3de6925554009e2edb467217c29b37a530726b7e8a56419cf957", "hash": "8f0d8286bd42731967ceffa70849cce3386996c659dcdc820e38e3d1030c1898" }, { "seq": 33, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 34, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "8f0d8286bd42731967ceffa70849cce3386996c659dcdc820e38e3d1030c1898", "hash": "7d63aa89abe0fbf65bbd68845553515413e8e06222f6f797e9bea014f89dbac9" }, { "seq": 34, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 35, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "society": "concision", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 0, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.7, "factualityRisk": 0.25, "legalRisk": 0.25, "fairnessRisk": 0.29, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.56, "warrant": "Concision seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": false, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Concision seat: \"Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the concision seat.", "maintainedObjections": [] } }, "prevHash": "7d63aa89abe0fbf65bbd68845553515413e8e06222f6f797e9bea014f89dbac9", "hash": "29d3db27f1614abaff8ff3f5e0fee73b604ec4311cb3e5a40b4a7eb68983460f" }, { "seq": 35, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 36, "kind": "safety_review", "payload": { "verdicts": [ { "candidateKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "veto": true, "legalRisk": 0.31, "publicReason": "Safety seat vetoes \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-…\": This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty." } ], "vetoEnabled": true }, "prevHash": "29d3db27f1614abaff8ff3f5e0fee73b604ec4311cb3e5a40b4a7eb68983460f", "hash": "b5009795bb2427ea17c4c9841fa6bbc52465f9cca4e029a53d3ef207f97662f9" }, { "seq": 36, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 37, "kind": "ratification", "payload": { "decision": { "spanIndex": 0, "method": "safety_gate", "metaRule": "R1: the highest-scoring candidate was vetoed → pick best non-vetoed", "selected": { "candidate": { "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.69, "factualityRisk": 0.24, "legalRisk": 0.18, "fairnessRisk": 0.36, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.69, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "publicReason": "The leading candidate was vetoed for a stated safety reason; the best non-vetoed candidate \"Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).\" is ratified.", "candidateTable": [ { "key": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "support": 2, "meanConfidence": 0.71, "dispersion": 0.06, "maxLegalRisk": 0.2, "meanFactualityRisk": 0.205, "meanFairnessRisk": 0.295, "meanAffectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "aggregateScore": 0.2544 }, { "key": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "support": 2, "meanConfidence": 0.675, "dispersion": 0.015, "maxLegalRisk": 0.26, "meanFactualityRisk": 0.245, "meanFairnessRisk": 0.295, "meanAffectedPartyImpact": 0.645, "aggregateScore": 0.2279 }, { "key": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "support": 2, "meanConfidence": 0.7, "dispersion": 0, "maxLegalRisk": 0.31, "meanFactualityRisk": 0.27, "meanFairnessRisk": 0.31, "meanAffectedPartyImpact": 0.595, "aggregateScore": 0.2222 } ], "vetoes": [ { "candidateKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "publicReason": "Safety seat vetoes \"Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-…\": This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "upheld": true } ], "dissents": [ { "id": "dissent_eaa3b335e98b", "spanIndex": 0, "chosenKey": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "objection": { "id": "mobj_a3c592562f7a", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.55 }, { "id": "dissent_dd5086d9df3a", "spanIndex": 0, "chosenKey": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "objection": { "id": "mobj_7668c56c9482", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.72 } ], "escalationRounds": 0 } }, "prevHash": "b5009795bb2427ea17c4c9841fa6bbc52465f9cca4e029a53d3ef207f97662f9", "hash": "8c0ca74de74b7ab28f14423b6f1f727e3ec5349e16b198ee69139840afe5c43e" }, { "seq": 37, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 38, "kind": "dissent_preserved", "payload": { "dissent": { "id": "dissent_eaa3b335e98b", "spanIndex": 0, "chosenKey": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "objection": { "id": "mobj_a3c592562f7a", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.55 } }, "prevHash": "8c0ca74de74b7ab28f14423b6f1f727e3ec5349e16b198ee69139840afe5c43e", "hash": "6fca4fa00c6b76f55f510b6698b09b30cb89bbcb796efb4065bb6b82069cbe87" }, { "seq": 38, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 39, "kind": "dissent_preserved", "payload": { "dissent": { "id": "dissent_dd5086d9df3a", "spanIndex": 0, "chosenKey": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "objection": { "id": "mobj_7668c56c9482", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.72 } }, "prevHash": "6fca4fa00c6b76f55f510b6698b09b30cb89bbcb796efb4065bb6b82069cbe87", "hash": "91ab19b63fc514093da87515ac9838a4a103ac6191178cfb853a8f85b49c1bf3" }, { "seq": 39, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 40, "kind": "span_committed", "payload": { "spanIndex": 0, "text": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "isStop": false, "prefixAfter": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%)." }, "prevHash": "91ab19b63fc514093da87515ac9838a4a103ac6191178cfb853a8f85b49c1bf3", "hash": "8e97387af53f542f5f23454a755467e51d4f98d3e2b303f3db0a7c1a0dd48ac2" }, { "seq": 40, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 41, "kind": "memory_updated", "payload": { "writes": [ { "layer": "deliberation", "key": "span_0_rule", "content": "safety_gate: R1: the highest-scoring candidate was vetoed → pick best non-vetoed", "spanOrigin": 0 }, { "layer": "unresolved_objection", "key": "dissent_eaa3b335e98b", "content": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "spanOrigin": 0 }, { "layer": "unresolved_objection", "key": "dissent_dd5086d9df3a", "content": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "spanOrigin": 0 } ] }, "prevHash": "8e97387af53f542f5f23454a755467e51d4f98d3e2b303f3db0a7c1a0dd48ac2", "hash": "f65f2b464285e5e13e2069ed1883c06679a6d6eaf6ae43cf8644920a18175911" }, { "seq": 41, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 0, "ts": 42, "kind": "decision_closed", "payload": { "spanIndex": 0 }, "prevHash": "f65f2b464285e5e13e2069ed1883c06679a6d6eaf6ae43cf8644920a18175911", "hash": "e65d4c412f60b45c6902c8b9a30a2bb0568dbf437e63be177db07d8d29ba2167" }, { "seq": 42, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 43, "kind": "decision_opened", "payload": { "slot": { "index": 1, "label": "the principal-reason disclosure to the applicant", "instruction": "Write the specific principal reason the applicant must receive under Reg B — accurate, case-specific, and consistent with the ratified disposition. STOP if the disposition already fully answers the question.", "riskBands": { "legal": "high", "user_impact": "high" }, "candidatesHint": [ "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "" ] } }, "prevHash": "e65d4c412f60b45c6902c8b9a30a2bb0568dbf437e63be177db07d8d29ba2167", "hash": "8629e5c06acf68909c9e18265ce3fa28d52d5991724dfc1bd25fa7c802285b19" }, { "seq": 43, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 44, "kind": "case_presented", "payload": { "case": { "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "packId": "lending-adverse-action", "title": "Loan #4471 — adverse-action review", "domain": "lending", "question": "Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?", "constraints": [ { "id": "c_ecoa", "kind": "regulation", "text": "An adverse-action notice must state the specific principal reason(s) for denial; generic or inaccurate statements are non-compliant.", "cite": "ECOA 15 U.S.C. §1691(d); Reg B 12 CFR §1002.9" }, { "id": "c_cfpb", "kind": "regulation", "text": "Creditors relying on complex models must still provide specific and accurate reasons; model opacity is not a defense.", "cite": "CFPB Circular 2022-03" }, { "id": "c_fairlend", "kind": "regulation", "text": "The decision must not rely on a prohibited basis or a proxy for one.", "cite": "Reg B 12 CFR §1002.6" }, { "id": "c_policy45", "kind": "policy", "text": "Internal policy: applications at or above 45% DTI are declined absent compensating factors." } ], "evidence": [ { "id": "e_income", "source": "verified_income", "citation": "paystub bundle p.2", "summary": "Verified gross monthly income is $7,200 (annual $86,400), stable for 3+ years.", "quality": 0.95 }, { "id": "e_debt", "source": "credit_report", "citation": "tradelines p.4", "summary": "Total documented monthly debt obligations are $2,050 (auto $410, cards $340, student $520, proposed mortgage escrowed $780).", "quality": 0.9 }, { "id": "e_dti_draft", "source": "underwriting_draft", "citation": "worksheet cell D12", "summary": "Draft worksheet states DTI = 52% and recommends denial for 'excessive DTI'. No computation shown.", "quality": 0.4, "contradicts": [ "e_income", "e_debt" ] }, { "id": "e_score", "source": "credit_report", "citation": "summary p.1", "summary": "Credit score 690; two 30-day late payments in the last 24 months (both on the same card, 14 months ago).", "quality": 0.9 }, { "id": "e_ltv", "source": "appraisal", "citation": "appraisal p.3", "summary": "Loan-to-value 82%, within program limits (max 95%).", "quality": 0.85 } ], "documents": [ { "id": "d_policy", "title": "Lending policy excerpt", "body": "Applications with a debt-to-income ratio at or above 45% are declined absent compensating factors. DTI is computed as total monthly debt obligations divided by gross monthly income. The principal reason stated on any denial must be specific and accurate; template language without case-specific reconciliation is prohibited." }, { "id": "d_draft", "title": "Draft denial letter (as queued for sending)", "body": "Dear applicant: We regret to inform you that your application has been denied due to excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%), which exceeds our program maximum. This decision was generated by our automated underwriting assistant." }, { "id": "d_file_summary", "title": "Application file summary", "body": "Applicant seeks a $312,000 30-year fixed mortgage. Verified income $7,200/month. Documented monthly obligations $2,050 including the proposed housing payment. Credit score 690 with two 30-day delinquencies 14 months ago. LTV 82%. No bankruptcies, no collections." } ], "prefix": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "slot": { "index": 1, "label": "the principal-reason disclosure to the applicant", "instruction": "Write the specific principal reason the applicant must receive under Reg B — accurate, case-specific, and consistent with the ratified disposition. STOP if the disposition already fully answers the question.", "riskBands": { "legal": "high", "user_impact": "high" }, "candidatesHint": [ "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "" ] }, "ratifiedCommitments": [ "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%)." ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "reason": "not ratified at span 0" }, { "text": "Do not deny on the drafted ground: the documented DTI is ~28.5% ($2,050 / $7,200), below the 45% threshold; the worksheet figure does not reconcile with the record.", "reason": "not ratified at span 0" } ], "unresolvedDissent": [ { "id": "dissent_eaa3b335e98b", "spanIndex": 0, "chosenKey": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "objection": { "id": "mobj_a3c592562f7a", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.55 }, { "id": "dissent_dd5086d9df3a", "spanIndex": 0, "chosenKey": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "objection": { "id": "mobj_7668c56c9482", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.72 } ] } }, "prevHash": "8629e5c06acf68909c9e18265ce3fa28d52d5991724dfc1bd25fa7c802285b19", "hash": "796b40ad9ff45d02949b9f9ded2281477971e01b4917d39751faa060a9dea047" }, { "seq": 44, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 45, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "796b40ad9ff45d02949b9f9ded2281477971e01b4917d39751faa060a9dea047", "hash": "b741fd4898043153123505f56d049ebff0e8e4917e7ae03a9ba1b8b973da7905" }, { "seq": 45, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 46, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "b741fd4898043153123505f56d049ebff0e8e4917e7ae03a9ba1b8b973da7905", "hash": "257861584ae889e6f6ff7a75dd57e7958bb48f4036c395a38d8113f4a212523c" }, { "seq": 46, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 47, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "257861584ae889e6f6ff7a75dd57e7958bb48f4036c395a38d8113f4a212523c", "hash": "d1a619c07aed883cdb603f25524d79eb546e74e923226feaea6e9e923cc537a8" }, { "seq": 47, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 48, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "d1a619c07aed883cdb603f25524d79eb546e74e923226feaea6e9e923cc537a8", "hash": "916df96bfd869696f8ba4dc849ca222db40d2341f908a2152d5fa572dcaf1858" }, { "seq": 48, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 49, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "916df96bfd869696f8ba4dc849ca222db40d2341f908a2152d5fa572dcaf1858", "hash": "a1bcb6ac8fa66ca8013cd820b65a7b7a1650972cc7e8168cb14e1b9339e5e66a" }, { "seq": 49, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 50, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "a1bcb6ac8fa66ca8013cd820b65a7b7a1650972cc7e8168cb14e1b9339e5e66a", "hash": "3b4f37ea5b9865b2b26442738f80d751832cc958b5c52b4538c50946ba62a106" }, { "seq": 50, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 51, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "society": "evidence", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "proposalHash": "37a6a9dc53cc6a4bc80078319bff546c35385bde09df0c1416f68c9228c4055a" }, "prevHash": "3b4f37ea5b9865b2b26442738f80d751832cc958b5c52b4538c50946ba62a106", "hash": "65b2b206a2eedeb3a001bdbd6044927cb62727f2b66f536a3061e0c3b944e437" }, { "seq": 51, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 52, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "society": "adversary", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "proposalHash": "f6c8530740a6dd4380a7c25fb5e5ddf7564bb4e0da799b8a5fb4fe01d79e4c59" }, "prevHash": "65b2b206a2eedeb3a001bdbd6044927cb62727f2b66f536a3061e0c3b944e437", "hash": "42f2c1f1e627587ff5daa3642a29470452583549cfccdf5ffe5fa268ef0eb285" }, { "seq": 52, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 53, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "society": "law_policy", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "proposalHash": "dc66d121faf266426eb011162e341cde19e83d11e876d98bbbf84ccc192213dc" }, "prevHash": "42f2c1f1e627587ff5daa3642a29470452583549cfccdf5ffe5fa268ef0eb285", "hash": "a4ae41d40ad3a7d191b76ee1c3bca5f4ac49ff66886eb26eadb2249f42821a76" }, { "seq": 53, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 54, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "society": "affected_party", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "proposalHash": "3cf9f095e4bfef5bbffcdd2ec7e447d475f94fc3ab4336c9841a0a73cd229a1d" }, "prevHash": "a4ae41d40ad3a7d191b76ee1c3bca5f4ac49ff66886eb26eadb2249f42821a76", "hash": "819e7bb0ff2ed492baca182bf053996e061a9550dcbac0042c7c38278e7263a8" }, { "seq": 54, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 55, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "society": "safety", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "proposalHash": "f17404db570c364d40e0d7111d7fc63096da458c6caff2cb048aa35457571381" }, "prevHash": "819e7bb0ff2ed492baca182bf053996e061a9550dcbac0042c7c38278e7263a8", "hash": "c4a3526e81ccb68c70ff504a2653687fb9191987f8b61f102be420b3d7fb677a" }, { "seq": 55, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 56, "kind": "blind_commitment", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "society": "concision", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "proposalHash": "27bf92d2b748c8880a2da2f0c08af4b0763c66ad371bbf0f8899b92e7dbacc8d" }, "prevHash": "c4a3526e81ccb68c70ff504a2653687fb9191987f8b61f102be420b3d7fb677a", "hash": "a80fd60aa0090b180053ad3372834a45b740c046ec45ad9d30282ace2ff0b711" }, { "seq": 56, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 57, "kind": "proposals_revealed", "payload": { "proposals": [ { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "society": "evidence", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.72, "factualityRisk": 0.21, "legalRisk": 0.16, "fairnessRisk": 0.2, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.56, "warrant": "Evidence seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.71, "factualityRisk": 0.11, "legalRisk": 0.19, "fairnessRisk": 0.23, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.54, "warrant": "Evidence seat: stopping here is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.59, "factualityRisk": 0.21, "legalRisk": 0.16, "fairnessRisk": 0.22, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.52, "warrant": "Evidence seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "reason": "evidence seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Evidence seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "objections": [] }, { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "society": "adversary", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.56, "factualityRisk": 0.3, "legalRisk": 0.25, "fairnessRisk": 0.31, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.55, "warrant": "Adversary seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.56, "factualityRisk": 0.17, "legalRisk": 0.19, "fairnessRisk": 0.36, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.62, "warrant": "Adversary seat: stopping here survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.5, "factualityRisk": 0.32, "legalRisk": 0.24, "fairnessRisk": 0.26, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.58, "warrant": "Adversary seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "reason": "adversary seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Adversary seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "objections": [ { "id": "obj_7bd073c8dc7f", "targetKey": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.5, "kind": "factual", "raisedBy": "adversary" } ] }, { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "society": "law_policy", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.65, "factualityRisk": 0.2, "legalRisk": 0.24, "fairnessRisk": 0.31, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.6, "warrant": "Law/Policy seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.65, "factualityRisk": 0.15, "legalRisk": 0.26, "fairnessRisk": 0.3, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.54, "warrant": "Law/Policy seat: stopping here satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.52, "factualityRisk": 0.23, "legalRisk": 0.3, "fairnessRisk": 0.23, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.54, "warrant": "Law/Policy seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "reason": "law_policy seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Law/Policy seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "objections": [] }, { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "society": "affected_party", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.65, "factualityRisk": 0.22, "legalRisk": 0.17, "fairnessRisk": 0.31, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.69, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.61, "factualityRisk": 0.29, "legalRisk": 0.24, "fairnessRisk": 0.35, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.72, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.58, "factualityRisk": 0.14, "legalRisk": 0.22, "fairnessRisk": 0.35, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.69, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: stopping here is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "reason": "affected_party seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Affected-party seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "objections": [] }, { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "society": "safety", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.6, "factualityRisk": 0.14, "legalRisk": 0.29, "fairnessRisk": 0.27, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "warrant": "Safety seat: stopping here does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.52, "factualityRisk": 0.3, "legalRisk": 0.29, "fairnessRisk": 0.32, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.62, "warrant": "Safety seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.47, "factualityRisk": 0.31, "legalRisk": 0.33, "fairnessRisk": 0.35, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.61, "warrant": "Safety seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "reason": "safety seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Safety seat: stopping here does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "objections": [ { "id": "obj_e45021e50f6b", "targetKey": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.7, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" } ] }, { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "society": "concision", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "candidates": [ { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.67, "factualityRisk": 0.22, "legalRisk": 0.22, "fairnessRisk": 0.22, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.5, "warrant": "Concision seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.66, "factualityRisk": 0.25, "legalRisk": 0.21, "fairnessRisk": 0.28, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.56, "warrant": "Concision seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.63, "factualityRisk": 0.14, "legalRisk": 0.23, "fairnessRisk": 0.28, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.56, "warrant": "Concision seat: stopping here is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] } ], "rejectedAlternatives": [ { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "reason": "concision seat rejected this as weaker under its mandate." } ], "publicWarrant": "Concision seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "objections": [] } ], "hashChecks": [ { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "committed": "37a6a9dc53cc6a4bc80078319bff546c35385bde09df0c1416f68c9228c4055a", "recomputed": "37a6a9dc53cc6a4bc80078319bff546c35385bde09df0c1416f68c9228c4055a", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "committed": "f6c8530740a6dd4380a7c25fb5e5ddf7564bb4e0da799b8a5fb4fe01d79e4c59", "recomputed": "f6c8530740a6dd4380a7c25fb5e5ddf7564bb4e0da799b8a5fb4fe01d79e4c59", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "committed": "dc66d121faf266426eb011162e341cde19e83d11e876d98bbbf84ccc192213dc", "recomputed": "dc66d121faf266426eb011162e341cde19e83d11e876d98bbbf84ccc192213dc", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "committed": "3cf9f095e4bfef5bbffcdd2ec7e447d475f94fc3ab4336c9841a0a73cd229a1d", "recomputed": "3cf9f095e4bfef5bbffcdd2ec7e447d475f94fc3ab4336c9841a0a73cd229a1d", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "committed": "f17404db570c364d40e0d7111d7fc63096da458c6caff2cb048aa35457571381", "recomputed": "f17404db570c364d40e0d7111d7fc63096da458c6caff2cb048aa35457571381", "ok": true }, { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "committed": "27bf92d2b748c8880a2da2f0c08af4b0763c66ad371bbf0f8899b92e7dbacc8d", "recomputed": "27bf92d2b748c8880a2da2f0c08af4b0763c66ad371bbf0f8899b92e7dbacc8d", "ok": true } ] }, "prevHash": "a80fd60aa0090b180053ad3372834a45b740c046ec45ad9d30282ace2ff0b711", "hash": "45356e10192165744671079678409a2da927e1737cdedf5a47ea630eaf770890" }, { "seq": 57, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 58, "kind": "feedback_issued", "payload": { "packet": { "spanIndex": 1, "roundNo": 1, "summaries": [ { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "supportCount": 6, "meanConfidence": 0.6217, "confidenceDispersion": 0.0495, "strongestArgument": "Evidence seat: stopping here is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceConflicts": [] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "supportCount": 6, "meanConfidence": 0.62, "confidenceDispersion": 0.0821, "strongestArgument": "Evidence seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceConflicts": [] }, { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "isStop": false }, "supportCount": 6, "meanConfidence": 0.5667, "confidenceDispersion": 0.0576, "strongestArgument": "Concision seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "strongestObjection": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "evidenceConflicts": [] } ], "overallDispersion": 0.0631, "guidance": "Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors." }, "anonymized": true }, "prevHash": "45356e10192165744671079678409a2da927e1737cdedf5a47ea630eaf770890", "hash": "adaeefb8cdfb2c8fda5954f9b24554493bf53ecb7305a32467be56ac6d92c7df" }, { "seq": 58, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 59, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_1_evidence", "order": [ 1, 0, 2 ] }, "prevHash": "adaeefb8cdfb2c8fda5954f9b24554493bf53ecb7305a32467be56ac6d92c7df", "hash": "af3d9fb09a692402dd765cd86e073401b4836eb40cf04a997f1f34e3e07c5d0d" }, { "seq": 59, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 60, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_2_adversary", "order": [ 1, 0, 2 ] }, "prevHash": "af3d9fb09a692402dd765cd86e073401b4836eb40cf04a997f1f34e3e07c5d0d", "hash": "fb5c97a7f62e79575b128313fa08dd77c72149ddbf02bb42fe9c190d5652018a" }, { "seq": 60, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 61, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "order": [ 0, 1, 2 ] }, "prevHash": "fb5c97a7f62e79575b128313fa08dd77c72149ddbf02bb42fe9c190d5652018a", "hash": "2ffd5f4c65c019c306d5b073aae1c617006dcd6b9e922815d4ccd9c32e253993" }, { "seq": 61, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 62, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "order": [ 0, 1, 2 ] }, "prevHash": "2ffd5f4c65c019c306d5b073aae1c617006dcd6b9e922815d4ccd9c32e253993", "hash": "d54c1b25b4a1acdfa9912a650b010e1bef01d521b5b748dc909b51eb89898721" }, { "seq": 62, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 63, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_5_safety", "order": [ 1, 2, 0 ] }, "prevHash": "d54c1b25b4a1acdfa9912a650b010e1bef01d521b5b748dc909b51eb89898721", "hash": "bb0a283fdf61c584e455287d68523c1b45ab12c7344a6c5bf7d5f462ef4e0c12" }, { "seq": 63, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 64, "kind": "feedback_view_assigned", "payload": { "recipientSeatId": "seat_6_concision", "order": [ 2, 0, 1 ] }, "prevHash": "bb0a283fdf61c584e455287d68523c1b45ab12c7344a6c5bf7d5f462ef4e0c12", "hash": "8248da92b49cf46eb8b30a04525fa5e08fb40168be2c34a969fcd03fb4d4da10" }, { "seq": 64, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 65, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "8248da92b49cf46eb8b30a04525fa5e08fb40168be2c34a969fcd03fb4d4da10", "hash": "ff6b84b457726c3c61009133c5b000e0a56abde37f9b14a4bb79f810f5ba2f59" }, { "seq": 65, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 66, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_1_evidence", "society": "evidence", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.76, "factualityRisk": 0.21, "legalRisk": 0.16, "fairnessRisk": 0.2, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.56, "warrant": "Evidence seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": false, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the evidence seat.", "maintainedObjections": [] } }, "prevHash": "ff6b84b457726c3c61009133c5b000e0a56abde37f9b14a4bb79f810f5ba2f59", "hash": "33f4d59800131f88d1720409cbd6256f0522a5cfd21da90fab1b82d3291e2775" }, { "seq": 66, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 67, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "33f4d59800131f88d1720409cbd6256f0522a5cfd21da90fab1b82d3291e2775", "hash": "daaf0446364d6e272c8775edf73e5e28f5a57746c3c04308f99eacb4650429e5" }, { "seq": 67, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 68, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_2_adversary", "society": "adversary", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.61, "factualityRisk": 0.3, "legalRisk": 0.25, "fairnessRisk": 0.31, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.55, "warrant": "Adversary seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" survives the sharpest attack I can mount grounded in e_income, but see my objection.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": false, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the adversary seat.", "maintainedObjections": [ { "id": "mobj_ca923b2bf096", "targetKey": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" } ] } }, "prevHash": "daaf0446364d6e272c8775edf73e5e28f5a57746c3c04308f99eacb4650429e5", "hash": "b1f0fe93c98f34fcef6d54f8793b93290c803d6d8ab5bebab837e22451030f7c" }, { "seq": 68, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 69, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "b1f0fe93c98f34fcef6d54f8793b93290c803d6d8ab5bebab837e22451030f7c", "hash": "0b2640e9a26cd1979529777e565622fe33a07994604eb1dd3b1057cc46a50753" }, { "seq": 69, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 70, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_3_law_policy", "society": "law_policy", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.73, "factualityRisk": 0.2, "legalRisk": 0.24, "fairnessRisk": 0.31, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.6, "warrant": "Law/Policy seat: stopping here satisfies the binding constraints and required disclosures grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": true, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: stopping here is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the law_policy seat.", "maintainedObjections": [] } }, "prevHash": "0b2640e9a26cd1979529777e565622fe33a07994604eb1dd3b1057cc46a50753", "hash": "5802ae1c6283610b9880078b365ad332c8c2e5c4590fc26171676a7d5060b58f" }, { "seq": 70, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 71, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "5802ae1c6283610b9880078b365ad332c8c2e5c4590fc26171676a7d5060b58f", "hash": "80023c7d3d2905cce39fe41036f9078e8e17998f234a32c55729fddcb730aa1a" }, { "seq": 71, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 72, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_4_affected_party", "society": "affected_party", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.74, "factualityRisk": 0.22, "legalRisk": 0.17, "fairnessRisk": 0.31, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.69, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: stopping here is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": true, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: stopping here is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the affected_party seat.", "maintainedObjections": [] } }, "prevHash": "80023c7d3d2905cce39fe41036f9078e8e17998f234a32c55729fddcb730aa1a", "hash": "30c1bda3d6949a4cf22c2744577859d15e03d2b0dcf1a9b2ccc52a03581dc1f6" }, { "seq": 72, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 73, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "30c1bda3d6949a4cf22c2744577859d15e03d2b0dcf1a9b2ccc52a03581dc1f6", "hash": "070da0065005b83dedad7140028a6d6d599245e22dcd126bab7fdd59f95d962f" }, { "seq": 73, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 74, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_5_safety", "society": "safety", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.67, "factualityRisk": 0.14, "legalRisk": 0.29, "fairnessRisk": 0.27, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.57, "warrant": "Safety seat: stopping here does not, on review, cross the veto threshold grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": false, "answerToStrongestObjection": "The record (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) supports this span; Feedback is anonymized and your candidate order is shuffled. Weigh arguments, not authors.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Evidence seat: \"Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.\" is the span best supported by the case record grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the safety seat.", "maintainedObjections": [ { "id": "mobj_6259053d28e0", "targetKey": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" } ] } }, "prevHash": "070da0065005b83dedad7140028a6d6d599245e22dcd126bab7fdd59f95d962f", "hash": "02d31de0832733736c54220740d32328ef89022370e8c7f86e61634f3de622f5" }, { "seq": 74, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 75, "kind": "provider_call", "payload": { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "usage": { "provider": "offline", "model": "offline/scripted-v1", "status": "ok", "transport": "offline" } }, "prevHash": "02d31de0832733736c54220740d32328ef89022370e8c7f86e61634f3de622f5", "hash": "e08025bff1f6f008c3ef6bd12130680b8011c59984e94f3a8072464e90b38f87" }, { "seq": 75, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 76, "kind": "revision_received", "payload": { "revision": { "seatId": "seat_6_concision", "society": "concision", "provider": "offline", "spanIndex": 1, "final": { "candidate": { "text": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "isStop": false }, "confidence": 0.73, "factualityRisk": 0.22, "legalRisk": 0.22, "fairnessRisk": 0.22, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.5, "warrant": "Concision seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "changedFromRound1": true, "answerToStrongestObjection": "On \"This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.\": the cited evidence (e_income, e_debt, e_dti_draft, e_score, e_ltv) addresses it, and the concision mandate is satisfied.", "steelmanOfBestRival": "The strongest case for the rival is that Concision seat: \"Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.\" is the shortest span that fully answers the slot grounded in e_income.", "changeMyMind": "A document contradicting e_income would flip the concision seat.", "maintainedObjections": [] } }, "prevHash": "e08025bff1f6f008c3ef6bd12130680b8011c59984e94f3a8072464e90b38f87", "hash": "1f4a58da0859b0856db7a47bda6baa1f1d82858237bc2aeb4b62704231ea7221" }, { "seq": 76, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 77, "kind": "safety_review", "payload": { "verdicts": [ { "candidateKey": "", "veto": false, "legalRisk": 0.29, "publicReason": "Safety seat reviewed \"\"; no veto (legal risk 0.29)." } ], "vetoEnabled": true }, "prevHash": "1f4a58da0859b0856db7a47bda6baa1f1d82858237bc2aeb4b62704231ea7221", "hash": "7f3200355678d81b431f61716a2117a7c76dc931a230342bf3078d0b9af44936" }, { "seq": 77, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 78, "kind": "ratification", "payload": { "decision": { "spanIndex": 1, "method": "cost_sensitive_sufficiency", "metaRule": "R5: the verdict is complete and further text adds risk without value → ratify STOP", "selected": { "candidate": { "text": "", "isStop": true }, "confidence": 0.74, "factualityRisk": 0.22, "legalRisk": 0.17, "fairnessRisk": 0.31, "affectedPartyImpact": 0.69, "warrant": "Affected-party seat: stopping here is the least-harmful span consistent with the evidence grounded in e_income.", "evidenceRefs": [ "e_income" ] }, "publicReason": "The verdict already answers the question; the panel ratifies STOP rather than adding unwarranted text.", "candidateTable": [ { "key": "", "support": 3, "meanConfidence": 0.7133, "dispersion": 0.0309, "maxLegalRisk": 0.29, "meanFactualityRisk": 0.1867, "meanFairnessRisk": 0.2967, "meanAffectedPartyImpact": 0.62, "aggregateScore": 0.2975 }, { "key": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "support": 2, "meanConfidence": 0.685, "dispersion": 0.075, "maxLegalRisk": 0.25, "meanFactualityRisk": 0.255, "meanFairnessRisk": 0.255, "meanAffectedPartyImpact": 0.555, "aggregateScore": 0.2339 }, { "key": "Principal reason: the recomputed debt-to-income ratio is approximately 28.5% ($2,050/$7,200); the drafted 'excessive DTI (52%)' is unsupported and the denial does not stand on that ground.", "support": 1, "meanConfidence": 0.73, "dispersion": 0, "maxLegalRisk": 0.22, "meanFactualityRisk": 0.22, "meanFairnessRisk": 0.22, "meanAffectedPartyImpact": 0.5, "aggregateScore": 0.2003 } ], "vetoes": [], "dissents": [ { "id": "dissent_11af70fe90cb", "spanIndex": 1, "chosenKey": "", "objection": { "id": "mobj_ca923b2bf096", "targetKey": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.55 }, { "id": "dissent_1d28543a8d51", "spanIndex": 1, "chosenKey": "", "objection": { "id": "mobj_6259053d28e0", "targetKey": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.72 }, { "id": "dissent_eaa3b335e98b", "spanIndex": 1, "chosenKey": "", "objection": { "id": "mobj_a3c592562f7a", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.55, "carriedFromSpan": 0 }, { "id": "dissent_dd5086d9df3a", "spanIndex": 1, "chosenKey": "", "objection": { "id": "mobj_7668c56c9482", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.72, "carriedFromSpan": 0 } ], "escalationRounds": 0 } }, "prevHash": "7f3200355678d81b431f61716a2117a7c76dc931a230342bf3078d0b9af44936", "hash": "d41a38fab73d182eb28f12378c80ba9dc4150c342202756b3ff9e8fdc3e8dff5" }, { "seq": 78, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 79, "kind": "dissent_preserved", "payload": { "dissent": { "id": "dissent_11af70fe90cb", "spanIndex": 1, "chosenKey": "", "objection": { "id": "mobj_ca923b2bf096", "targetKey": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.55 } }, "prevHash": "d41a38fab73d182eb28f12378c80ba9dc4150c342202756b3ff9e8fdc3e8dff5", "hash": "aac677eaef3c3fcd98ef0e8fd5da15db4e6269abbc236c040c7a5f407f34d952" }, { "seq": 79, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 80, "kind": "dissent_preserved", "payload": { "dissent": { "id": "dissent_1d28543a8d51", "spanIndex": 1, "chosenKey": "", "objection": { "id": "mobj_6259053d28e0", "targetKey": "Principal reason: recent delinquency history — two 30-day late payments within the last 24 months — and a credit score of 690 below program cutoff.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.72 } }, "prevHash": "aac677eaef3c3fcd98ef0e8fd5da15db4e6269abbc236c040c7a5f407f34d952", "hash": "aaa7a91860269cf2ec97908d746093bcb8b6b5d370dafb57a6c7b18cc6376179" }, { "seq": 80, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 81, "kind": "dissent_preserved", "payload": { "dissent": { "id": "dissent_eaa3b335e98b", "spanIndex": 1, "chosenKey": "", "objection": { "id": "mobj_a3c592562f7a", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "severity": 0.55, "kind": "fairness", "raisedBy": "adversary" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.55, "carriedFromSpan": 0 } }, "prevHash": "aaa7a91860269cf2ec97908d746093bcb8b6b5d370dafb57a6c7b18cc6376179", "hash": "17a5bee941dc65f953b567107b5ce948a04b03733c7569f9525fdf84c1c92a14" }, { "seq": 81, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 82, "kind": "dissent_preserved", "payload": { "dissent": { "id": "dissent_dd5086d9df3a", "spanIndex": 1, "chosenKey": "", "objection": { "id": "mobj_7668c56c9482", "targetKey": "Deny, citing the delinquency history (two 30-day lates in 24 months) and score 690 as the specific principal reason.", "text": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "severity": 0.72, "kind": "legal", "raisedBy": "safety" }, "status": "preserved", "materiality": 0.72, "carriedFromSpan": 0 } }, "prevHash": "17a5bee941dc65f953b567107b5ce948a04b03733c7569f9525fdf84c1c92a14", "hash": "fcb10d09c00fbd825a5e94ffaa72128846fc096b415f7e46932a70241ebc193c" }, { "seq": 82, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 83, "kind": "span_committed", "payload": { "spanIndex": 1, "text": "", "isStop": true, "prefixAfter": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%)." }, "prevHash": "fcb10d09c00fbd825a5e94ffaa72128846fc096b415f7e46932a70241ebc193c", "hash": "81c2afc6fd00c8dddd6e19a141a98e704bfa1ca575d51698ba22fa636bfdc93c" }, { "seq": 83, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 84, "kind": "memory_updated", "payload": { "writes": [ { "layer": "deliberation", "key": "span_1_rule", "content": "cost_sensitive_sufficiency: R5: the verdict is complete and further text adds risk without value → ratify STOP", "spanOrigin": 1 }, { "layer": "unresolved_objection", "key": "dissent_11af70fe90cb", "content": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "spanOrigin": 1 }, { "layer": "unresolved_objection", "key": "dissent_1d28543a8d51", "content": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "spanOrigin": 1 }, { "layer": "unresolved_objection", "key": "dissent_eaa3b335e98b", "content": "This span leans on an inference the record does not fully support for \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\"; the premise should be checked.", "spanOrigin": 1 }, { "layer": "unresolved_objection", "key": "dissent_dd5086d9df3a", "content": "This span risks a compliance gap on \"Should the lender deny this application, and if so, what specific principal reason must the adverse-action notice state?\" — it may omit a required disclosure or overstate certainty.", "spanOrigin": 1 } ] }, "prevHash": "81c2afc6fd00c8dddd6e19a141a98e704bfa1ca575d51698ba22fa636bfdc93c", "hash": "e89b94066c50705dc8500b2d0a06e525108dc16fe5fc238b599e3dab8278f9ac" }, { "seq": 84, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": 1, "ts": 85, "kind": "decision_closed", "payload": { "spanIndex": 1 }, "prevHash": "e89b94066c50705dc8500b2d0a06e525108dc16fe5fc238b599e3dab8278f9ac", "hash": "087ebdc45fd2e5419f01d09e29f4e1a18b8fe29ec960c6da300640e3a9b60d29" }, { "seq": 85, "runId": "run_e6c6225c0d49", "spanIndex": null, "ts": 86, "kind": "run_finished", "payload": { "finalAnswer": "Deny for excessive debt-to-income ratio (52%).", "stoppedBy": "stop_ratified", "spanCount": 2, "totals": { "calls": 24, "tokensOut": 0, "latencyMs": 0, "repaired": 0 } }, "prevHash": "087ebdc45fd2e5419f01d09e29f4e1a18b8fe29ec960c6da300640e3a9b60d29", "hash": "cc375a6e3823e1e0d2e0eb6658201346b448b00c6a217c937c0f639dfac3760d" } ]