{
  "_meta": {
    "generated_by": "tests/fixtures/generate_api_examples.py",
    "description": "API schema examples generated from real Pydantic models. Re-run the script to regenerate after contract changes.",
    "seed": 42,
    "scenario_template": "math_reasoning",
    "difficulty": "easy"
  },
  "rest": {
    "POST /reset": {
      "request": {
        "seed": 42,
        "scenario": "math_reasoning",
        "difficulty": "easy",
        "session_id": null
      },
      "response": {
        "session_id": "a1b2c3d4-e5f6-7890-abcd-ef1234567890",
        "episode_id": "ep-deadbeef-1234-5678-9abc-def012345678",
        "observation": {
          "scientist": {
            "paper_title": "Planning a proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality",
            "paper_hypothesis": "A square-expansion argument gives the cleanest proof path.",
            "paper_method": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
            "paper_key_finding": "The proof is accepted only if every inequality step and equality case is justified.",
            "experiment_goal": "Produce a proof-planning workflow for the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for an undergraduate seminar handout.",
            "conversation_history": [],
            "current_protocol": null,
            "round_number": 0,
            "max_rounds": 6
          },
          "lab_manager": {
            "budget_total": 345.0,
            "budget_remaining": 345.0,
            "equipment_available": [
              "Structured proof notebook"
            ],
            "equipment_booked": [],
            "reagents_in_stock": [
              "Reference theorem library",
              "Graduate reviewer"
            ],
            "reagents_out_of_stock": [],
            "staff_count": 1,
            "time_limit_days": 3,
            "safety_restrictions": [
              "The outline should stay concise enough for seminar notes."
            ],
            "conversation_history": [],
            "current_protocol": null,
            "round_number": 0,
            "max_rounds": 6
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "POST /step": {
      "request": {
        "session_id": "a1b2c3d4-e5f6-7890-abcd-ef1234567890",
        "action": {
          "action_type": "propose_protocol",
          "sample_size": 30,
          "controls": [
            "positive_control",
            "negative_control"
          ],
          "technique": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
          "duration_days": 5,
          "required_equipment": [
            "Structured proof notebook"
          ],
          "required_reagents": [
            "Reference theorem library",
            "Graduate reviewer"
          ],
          "questions": [],
          "rationale": "Initial proposal using available resources."
        }
      },
      "response_mid_episode": {
        "observation": {
          "scientist": {
            "paper_title": "Planning a proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality",
            "paper_hypothesis": "A square-expansion argument gives the cleanest proof path.",
            "paper_method": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
            "paper_key_finding": "The proof is accepted only if every inequality step and equality case is justified.",
            "experiment_goal": "Produce a proof-planning workflow for the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for an undergraduate seminar handout.",
            "conversation_history": [
              {
                "role": "scientist",
                "message": "Initial proposal using available resources.",
                "round_number": 1,
                "action_type": "propose_protocol"
              },
              {
                "role": "lab_manager",
                "message": "Budget is within range. Equipment is available.",
                "round_number": 1,
                "action_type": "report_feasibility"
              }
            ],
            "current_protocol": {
              "sample_size": 30,
              "controls": [
                "positive_control",
                "negative_control"
              ],
              "technique": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
              "duration_days": 5,
              "required_equipment": [
                "Structured proof notebook"
              ],
              "required_reagents": [
                "Reference theorem library",
                "Graduate reviewer"
              ],
              "rationale": "Initial proposal using available resources."
            },
            "round_number": 1,
            "max_rounds": 6
          },
          "lab_manager": {
            "budget_total": 345.0,
            "budget_remaining": 345.0,
            "equipment_available": [
              "Structured proof notebook"
            ],
            "equipment_booked": [],
            "reagents_in_stock": [
              "Reference theorem library",
              "Graduate reviewer"
            ],
            "reagents_out_of_stock": [],
            "staff_count": 1,
            "time_limit_days": 3,
            "safety_restrictions": [
              "The outline should stay concise enough for seminar notes."
            ],
            "conversation_history": [
              {
                "role": "scientist",
                "message": "Initial proposal using available resources.",
                "round_number": 1,
                "action_type": "propose_protocol"
              },
              {
                "role": "lab_manager",
                "message": "Budget is within range. Equipment is available.",
                "round_number": 1,
                "action_type": "report_feasibility"
              }
            ],
            "current_protocol": {
              "sample_size": 30,
              "controls": [
                "positive_control",
                "negative_control"
              ],
              "technique": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
              "duration_days": 5,
              "required_equipment": [
                "Structured proof notebook"
              ],
              "required_reagents": [
                "Reference theorem library",
                "Graduate reviewer"
              ],
              "rationale": "Initial proposal using available resources."
            },
            "round_number": 1,
            "max_rounds": 6
          }
        },
        "reward": 0.0,
        "done": false,
        "info": {
          "agreement_reached": false,
          "error": null,
          "reward_breakdown": null,
          "judge_notes": null,
          "verdict": null,
          "top_failure_reasons": []
        }
      },
      "response_terminal": {
        "observation": null,
        "reward": 5.42,
        "done": true,
        "info": {
          "agreement_reached": true,
          "error": null,
          "reward_breakdown": {
            "rigor": 0.8,
            "feasibility": 0.8,
            "fidelity": 0.8,
            "efficiency_bonus": 0.2,
            "communication_bonus": 0.1,
            "penalties": {}
          },
          "judge_notes": "Rigor: 0.80 (strong) — measures structural completeness, success-criteria coverage, and required-element coverage.\nFeasibility: 0.80 (strong) — measures whether the protocol respects budget, equipment, reagent, schedule, and staffing constraints.\nFidelity: 0.80 (strong) — measures alignment with the hidden reference spec, including required elements, substitutions, and target metrics.\nEfficiency bonus: +0.20 (awarded for reaching agreement in fewer rounds).\nCommunication bonus: +0.10.\nNo penalties applied.\nTotal reward: 5.42 (formula: 10 × rigor × feasibility × fidelity + bonuses − penalties).",
          "verdict": "accept",
          "top_failure_reasons": []
        }
      }
    },
    "GET /scenarios": {
      "response": {
        "scenarios": [
          {
            "family": "math_reasoning",
            "difficulties": [
              "easy",
              "medium",
              "hard"
            ]
          },
          {
            "family": "ml_benchmark",
            "difficulties": [
              "easy",
              "medium",
              "hard"
            ]
          },
          {
            "family": "finance_trading",
            "difficulties": [
              "easy",
              "medium",
              "hard"
            ]
          }
        ]
      }
    },
    "GET /replay/{episode_id}": {
      "response": {
        "episode_id": "ep-deadbeef-1234-5678-9abc-def012345678",
        "seed": 42,
        "scenario_template": "math_reasoning",
        "difficulty": "easy",
        "final_state": {
          "seed": 42,
          "scenario_template": "math_reasoning",
          "difficulty": "easy",
          "paper_title": "Planning a proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality",
          "paper_hypothesis": "A square-expansion argument gives the cleanest proof path.",
          "paper_method": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
          "paper_key_finding": "The proof is accepted only if every inequality step and equality case is justified.",
          "experiment_goal": "Produce a proof-planning workflow for the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for an undergraduate seminar handout.",
          "lab_budget_total": 345.0,
          "lab_budget_remaining": 345.0,
          "lab_equipment": [
            "Structured proof notebook"
          ],
          "lab_reagents": [
            "Reference theorem library",
            "Graduate reviewer"
          ],
          "lab_staff_count": 1,
          "lab_time_limit_days": 3,
          "current_protocol": null,
          "conversation_history": [],
          "round_number": 3,
          "max_rounds": 6,
          "done": true,
          "agreement_reached": true,
          "reward": 5.42,
          "rigor_score": 0.8,
          "feasibility_score": 0.8,
          "fidelity_score": 0.8,
          "judge_notes": "Rigor: 0.80 (strong) — measures structural completeness, success-criteria coverage, and required-element coverage.\nFeasibility: 0.80 (strong) — measures whether the protocol respects budget, equipment, reagent, schedule, and staffing constraints.\nFidelity: 0.80 (strong) — measures alignment with the hidden reference spec, including required elements, substitutions, and target metrics.\nEfficiency bonus: +0.20 (awarded for reaching agreement in fewer rounds).\nCommunication bonus: +0.10.\nNo penalties applied.\nTotal reward: 5.42 (formula: 10 × rigor × feasibility × fidelity + bonuses − penalties).",
          "verdict": "accept",
          "top_failure_reasons": []
        },
        "transcript": [
          {
            "role": "scientist",
            "message": "Initial proposal using available resources.",
            "round_number": 1,
            "action_type": "propose_protocol"
          },
          {
            "role": "lab_manager",
            "message": "Budget is within range. Equipment is available.",
            "round_number": 1,
            "action_type": "report_feasibility"
          }
        ],
        "reward_breakdown": {
          "rigor": 0.8,
          "feasibility": 0.8,
          "fidelity": 0.8,
          "efficiency_bonus": 0.2,
          "communication_bonus": 0.1,
          "penalties": {}
        },
        "total_reward": 5.42,
        "rounds_used": 3,
        "agreement_reached": true,
        "judge_notes": "Rigor: 0.80 (strong) — measures structural completeness, success-criteria coverage, and required-element coverage.\nFeasibility: 0.80 (strong) — measures whether the protocol respects budget, equipment, reagent, schedule, and staffing constraints.\nFidelity: 0.80 (strong) — measures alignment with the hidden reference spec, including required elements, substitutions, and target metrics.\nEfficiency bonus: +0.20 (awarded for reaching agreement in fewer rounds).\nCommunication bonus: +0.10.\nNo penalties applied.\nTotal reward: 5.42 (formula: 10 × rigor × feasibility × fidelity + bonuses − penalties).",
        "verdict": "accept",
        "top_failure_reasons": []
      }
    }
  },
  "websocket": {
    "reset": {
      "client_sends": {
        "type": "reset",
        "seed": 42,
        "scenario": "math_reasoning",
        "difficulty": "easy"
      },
      "server_responds": {
        "type": "reset_ok",
        "episode_id": "ep-deadbeef-1234-5678-9abc-def012345678",
        "observation": {
          "scientist": {
            "paper_title": "Planning a proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality",
            "paper_hypothesis": "A square-expansion argument gives the cleanest proof path.",
            "paper_method": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
            "paper_key_finding": "The proof is accepted only if every inequality step and equality case is justified.",
            "experiment_goal": "Produce a proof-planning workflow for the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for an undergraduate seminar handout.",
            "conversation_history": [],
            "current_protocol": null,
            "round_number": 0,
            "max_rounds": 6
          },
          "lab_manager": {
            "budget_total": 345.0,
            "budget_remaining": 345.0,
            "equipment_available": [
              "Structured proof notebook"
            ],
            "equipment_booked": [],
            "reagents_in_stock": [
              "Reference theorem library",
              "Graduate reviewer"
            ],
            "reagents_out_of_stock": [],
            "staff_count": 1,
            "time_limit_days": 3,
            "safety_restrictions": [
              "The outline should stay concise enough for seminar notes."
            ],
            "conversation_history": [],
            "current_protocol": null,
            "round_number": 0,
            "max_rounds": 6
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "step": {
      "client_sends": {
        "type": "step",
        "action": {
          "action_type": "propose_protocol",
          "sample_size": 30,
          "controls": [
            "positive_control",
            "negative_control"
          ],
          "technique": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
          "duration_days": 5,
          "required_equipment": [
            "Structured proof notebook"
          ],
          "required_reagents": [
            "Reference theorem library",
            "Graduate reviewer"
          ],
          "questions": [],
          "rationale": "Initial proposal using available resources."
        }
      },
      "server_responds": {
        "type": "step_ok",
        "observation": {
          "scientist": {
            "paper_title": "Planning a proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality",
            "paper_hypothesis": "A square-expansion argument gives the cleanest proof path.",
            "paper_method": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
            "paper_key_finding": "The proof is accepted only if every inequality step and equality case is justified.",
            "experiment_goal": "Produce a proof-planning workflow for the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for an undergraduate seminar handout.",
            "conversation_history": [
              {
                "role": "scientist",
                "message": "Initial proposal using available resources.",
                "round_number": 1,
                "action_type": "propose_protocol"
              },
              {
                "role": "lab_manager",
                "message": "Budget is within range. Equipment is available.",
                "round_number": 1,
                "action_type": "report_feasibility"
              }
            ],
            "current_protocol": {
              "sample_size": 30,
              "controls": [
                "positive_control",
                "negative_control"
              ],
              "technique": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
              "duration_days": 5,
              "required_equipment": [
                "Structured proof notebook"
              ],
              "required_reagents": [
                "Reference theorem library",
                "Graduate reviewer"
              ],
              "rationale": "Initial proposal using available resources."
            },
            "round_number": 1,
            "max_rounds": 6
          },
          "lab_manager": {
            "budget_total": 345.0,
            "budget_remaining": 345.0,
            "equipment_available": [
              "Structured proof notebook"
            ],
            "equipment_booked": [],
            "reagents_in_stock": [
              "Reference theorem library",
              "Graduate reviewer"
            ],
            "reagents_out_of_stock": [],
            "staff_count": 1,
            "time_limit_days": 3,
            "safety_restrictions": [
              "The outline should stay concise enough for seminar notes."
            ],
            "conversation_history": [
              {
                "role": "scientist",
                "message": "Initial proposal using available resources.",
                "round_number": 1,
                "action_type": "propose_protocol"
              },
              {
                "role": "lab_manager",
                "message": "Budget is within range. Equipment is available.",
                "round_number": 1,
                "action_type": "report_feasibility"
              }
            ],
            "current_protocol": {
              "sample_size": 30,
              "controls": [
                "positive_control",
                "negative_control"
              ],
              "technique": "Outline the proof using one algebraic identity, one equality-case check, and reviewer notes.",
              "duration_days": 5,
              "required_equipment": [
                "Structured proof notebook"
              ],
              "required_reagents": [
                "Reference theorem library",
                "Graduate reviewer"
              ],
              "rationale": "Initial proposal using available resources."
            },
            "round_number": 1,
            "max_rounds": 6
          }
        },
        "reward": 0.0,
        "done": false,
        "info": {
          "agreement_reached": false,
          "error": null,
          "reward_breakdown": null,
          "judge_notes": null,
          "verdict": null,
          "top_failure_reasons": []
        }
      }
    },
    "ping": {
      "client_sends": {
        "type": "ping"
      },
      "server_responds": {
        "type": "pong"
      }
    }
  }
}