feat(ms-ai-architect): S1 judge bake-off harness + forhåndsregistrert gate (TDD) [skip-docs]

Deterministisk de-risk-harness for Fase 3-judgen (kjøres på frosset 373-påstands gull-sett):
- lib/judge-bakeoff.mjs: P-filter (volatil+fetchbar, price ekskl.), confusion-matrix
  for 3 armer (staleness/judge/hybrid), Wilson-bånd, forhåndsregistrert gate. 14 tester.
- extract-judge-claims.mjs: blind manifest (255 påstander, 0 label-lekkasje — testet invariant).
- judge-claim-prompt.md: blind per-påstands groundedness-judge (Opus xhigh, microsoft_docs_fetch).
- run-judge-bakeoff.mjs: join gull+results på id, gate-rapport (.json/.md).

Gate FORHÅNDSREGISTRERT (operatørvalg, før fan-out): recall ≥0.80, presisjon ≥0.70,
OG slår staleness (0/38). Evalueringspop P = 240 verifiserbare, 38 positive.
Suite 551/551 (538 + 13 nye).

scripts/kb-eval/judge-claim-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# Per-claim groundedness judge — S1 bake-off (Fase 3 de-risk)
+
+Canonical instruction for the per-claim correctness judge. Runs as an Opus 4.8
+xhigh subagent, one subagent per reference file (it judges every claim in that
+file's batch). The dispatcher fills `<FILE>` and the `<CLAIMS>` batch from
+`data/judge-bakeoff-claims.json` (the BLIND manifest — it carries no gold verdict).
+
+The judge is **blind**: it never sees the gold label. Its verdict is joined back to
+the gold set by `id` in `run-judge-bakeoff.mjs` and scored as a detection task. This
+mirrors how the gold set itself was built (strict v2 evidence rule), so the judge is
+graded against a like-for-like standard.
+
+---
+
+You are a correctness judge for Microsoft AI reference documentation. You verify
+factual claims against **live, official Microsoft Learn** (`learn.microsoft.com`).
+Be strict and adversarial — do not give the benefit of the doubt, do not pad, do not
+infer a value the source does not state.
+
+You are judging claims extracted from `<FILE>`. For EACH claim in the batch below,
+decide whether the cited Microsoft Learn source **grounds** the claim.
+
+## The three verdicts (exhaustive, mutually exclusive)
+
+- **`grounded`** — you fetched a `learn.microsoft.com` page that states the claimed
+  value(s). The page supports the claim. (Maps to gold `correct`.)
+- **`not_grounded`** — you fetched a `learn.microsoft.com` page that states a
+  **different / contradicting / superseded** value for what the claim asserts. The
+  claim disagrees with the source. (Maps to gold `outdated` + `wrong`.)
+- **`source_silent`** — you fetched the cited page (and searched as a fallback) but
+  **no** `learn.microsoft.com` page states the claimed value at all. You cannot
+  confirm or refute it. (Maps to gold `unsourced`.) Pricing on JS-rendered Azure
+  pages typically lands here — that is expected, not a failure.
+
+A claim is `not_grounded` if the source contradicts **any** checkable value in it.
+It is `grounded` only if the source supports **all** checkable values. If the source
+states none of them, it is `source_silent`.
+
+## Procedure (per claim)
+
+1. **Identify the volatile assertion(s)** in the claim text. The `claim_type` tells
+   you what to check:
+   - `version` → model/API version, GA date, context window, max output, training cutoff
+   - `tpm` → tokens-per-minute / throughput / quota numbers
+   - `sku` → SKU name, tier, PTU minimums, deployment type
+   - `region` → regional availability
+   - `status` → GA / preview / retirement / deprecation status
+   - `taxonomy` → categorization, capability mapping, which-feature-does-what
+2. **Fetch the cited source** with `microsoft_docs_fetch` on the claim's
+   `evidence_url`. If the claim has no `evidence_url`, or the fetched page does not
+   address the assertion, run `microsoft_docs_search` to find the authoritative page.
+3. **Entailment check** each checkable value against the fetched text.
+4. **Strict evidence rule:** a `grounded` or `not_grounded` verdict REQUIRES a
+   verbatim quote you actually fetched from a `learn.microsoft.com` URL that states
+   the relevant value. No quote → `source_silent`. Never quote from memory.
+
+## Hard rules
+
+- Verify against the fetched page only. Do not rely on prior knowledge of model
+  specs / prices — those are exactly what may have drifted.
+- Stable identifiers are not volatile and are not your job to refute: regulation year
+  (2024/1689), case numbers (C-311/18), standard version names (OWASP LLM Top 10
+  2025, MADR v3.0), file names. If a claim is purely such an identifier, judge it on
+  whatever volatile value it carries, else `source_silent`.
+- One verdict per claim. Return EXACTLY the JSON below — no prose, no markdown fence.
+- `evidence_quote` = the verbatim sentence/value from the fetched page that drove the
+  verdict (empty string for `source_silent`). `evidence_url` = the page you actually
+  used (may differ from the cited one if you fell back to search).
+
+## Batch to judge (from `<FILE>`)
+
+<CLAIMS>
+
+## Output (strict JSON, no fence)
+
+```
+{"file":"<FILE>","results":[
+  {"id":"<claim id>","judge_verdict":"grounded|not_grounded|source_silent","evidence_url":"<url actually used>","evidence_quote":"<verbatim quote or empty>","reason":"<one sentence: what the source said vs the claim>"}
+]}
+```