| # Independent harness review after a development run |
|
|
| Run execution and review are separate roles. The execution policy sees only its |
| declared observations. The reviewer works after a run is closed and can inspect |
| private evaluator artifacts to audit correctness. Reviewer findings never feed |
| back into a scored episode. |
|
|
| ## Execution record |
|
|
| Before running, record repository revision and dirty patch digest, task matrix, |
| seeds, policy identity, model/provider accounting, native horizons, decision |
| limit, replan interval, and allowed observation channels. Preserve every trial, |
| including unsuccessful and interrupted trials, under a unique run directory. |
|
|
| ## Reviewer instructions |
|
|
| An independent agent reads the released protocol and completed artifacts, then |
| reports evidence for these questions: |
|
|
| 1. Do delivered observations contain only declared image/state channels? Check |
| policy context, metadata, paths, prompts, and exported files for hidden reset |
| seeds, object state, native info, or score feedback. |
| 2. Does the same physical action mean the same thing for every model in a given |
| embodiment? Verify units, frame, rotation, gripper, chunk prefix, and actual |
| environment steps against the pinned upstream implementation. |
| 3. Are native final success, transient success, budget exhaustion, and |
| infrastructure errors distinguished correctly? Recompute summary counts from |
| episode results; do not replace the native scorer with visual judgment. |
| 4. Can another user reconstruct the environment and run from its manifest? |
| Check source/submodule pins, dependencies, assets, renderer, prompts, and |
| whether model usage is measured or only self-reported. |
| 5. Do images/videos/actions support the reported failure explanation? Cite |
| exact artifact filenames and decision/step numbers. State uncertainty when |
| evidence cannot distinguish policy failure from harness failure. |
|
|
| Write findings by severity with evidence, likely cause, proposed shared fix, |
| and whether existing scores remain comparable. Include an explicit verdict: |
| development-ready / requires harness fixes / insufficient evidence. Do not call |
| a development run a public benchmark result, and do not modify its files. |
|
|
| ## Changes following review |
|
|
| Fix only general implementation defects under the existing protocol. If the |
| observation/action/budget/scoring contract must change, version it and repeat |
| the same affected matrix for every compared policy. Keep the original run and |
| review as evidence. Difficult tasks may remain unsuccessful without a harness |
| change. |
|
|
