ms-ai-architect/docs/r11-pilot-results.md

# R11 pilot results — measured, 2026-08-03

**The §10 acceptance measurement of `docs/r11-tiered-fix-design.md`, run against
the live ledger. No KB file was edited and no ledger record was written.**

Instrument: `scripts/kb-eval/lib/fix-op.mjs` (+ `tests/kb-eval/test-fix-op-classify.test.mjs`,
49 tests after §4b) driven by `scripts/kb-eval/classify-fix-ops.mjs`. The classifier **is**
the O1 driver with writes disabled — it constructs the swap and checks the §4
invariant, so measurements 1 and 3 come out of the mechanism that would later
touch the corpus, not out of a proxy heuristic.

Artefact: `scripts/kb-eval/data/r11-pilot-classification.json` (untracked,
regenerable; per-flag records so the run can be re-analysed without re-running).
It holds the **pilot** run — `node scripts/kb-eval/classify-fix-ops.mjs --write`.
Every corpus-wide figure below is from `--threshold 1`, and the per-table
reproduce command is stated where it is used.

> **Two different 202s.** This population is 202 flags. §3's "202 flags whose
> claim *and* quote contain a numeric token" is a different 202, measured over
> the full 712-flag population. They are unrelated.

---

## 1. The headline

**Nine provable, correct value swaps exist in the entire 776-flag `not_grounded`
population — 1.2 %.** The machine half of the R11 tiering buys nine edits. Every
other flag needs a human.

| Population | Files | Flags | O1 admitted | O1 hand-verified correct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot (`not_grounded` ≥ 7) | 24 | 202 | 2 | 2 |
| Whole `not_grounded` corpus | 218 | 776 | 15 | **9** |

> These are **numeric-path** figures, and they stay that way. §4b (the status
> synonym table) was implemented afterwards and adds a separate class with its own
> hand-verification — see §8. A run today prints O1 = 7 (pilot) and 23 (corpus)
> because the status proposals are included in the total; the numeric line above
> is unchanged and is still what `s4_as_written` compares against.

Reproduce: `node scripts/kb-eval/classify-fix-ops.mjs` (pilot) and
`node scripts/kb-eval/classify-fix-ops.mjs --threshold 1` (corpus). The nine are
enumerated with verdicts in appendix A — that hand-verification is the only thing
separating 9 from 15, so it is recorded rather than left in a session transcript.

This is the answer §10 asked for, and it is materially worse than the design
assumed: *"If the split is materially worse than assumed, that is known after one
session rather than after ten."*

## 2. §4 as written is not sufficient — measured, not argued

§4 claims its invariant is *"deliberately stronger than human review at scale."*
It is not. Run exactly as specified over the pilot, it admitted **6 swaps, of
which 4 were wrong** — precision **2/6**:

| Proposed swap | Why it is wrong |
|---|---|
| `30-dagers` → `24-dagers` | **Unit crossing.** The quote says 24 **hours**. |
| `3000 requests/sekund` → `50` | **Metric crossing.** The quote is a *query* throttle per index; the claim is an *indexing* rate per replica. |
| `Microsoft Agent 365` → `Agent 7` | **Identifier mutilated.** The `7` was harvested out of `E7`. |
| `text-embedding-ada-002` → `ada-2` | **Identifier mutilated.** The `2` came from a dimensions column. |

The defect is structural, not incidental. §4 constrains **where the new value
came from** (verbatim in the cited quote) and **what the edit looks like** (one
line, rest byte-identical). It constrains nothing about whether the two tokens
**denote the same quantity**. Same-type-and-provenance is not same-referent.

### The added condition

`contextCorresponds()` requires the token to sit under **the same label or the
same trailing unit on both sides**. It is deliberately lexical, with **no
translation table**: `dokumenter` is not taught to equal `documents`, because a
synonym table introduces a new fact source and is an operator decision, not an
engineering one. Consequence, measured: a swap is provable essentially only where
the context is language-neutral — a URL, a code sample, a parameter key.

## 3. The condition is necessary but still not sufficient

Corpus-wide the context condition cut 38 admissions to 15. Hand-verifying all 15
splits them cleanly by token type:

Reproduce: `node scripts/kb-eval/classify-fix-ops.mjs --threshold 1`
(the persisted artefact is the **pilot** run — the corpus-wide tables in §1 and §3
come from this threshold-1 run). Per-proposal verdicts: appendix A.

| Token type | Proposals | Correct | Wrong | Unverified | Failure mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| `iso_date` | 9 | **9** | 0 | 0 | — every one is an `api-version=` bump in a URL or code sample |
| `number` | 5 | 0 | 3 | 2 | `AI-900` → `AI-901`, `gpt-4o` → `gpt-5.1o` (×2) |
| `version` | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Java agent `3.7.5` → `3.4.0` — a downgrade |

A matching identifier *prefix* (`AI-`, `gpt-`) satisfies the context condition
while the digit is part of a **name**, not a quantity. **Only `iso_date` survives
hand-verification**, and the report marks it as the sole recommended class
(`o1_recommended`). `number` and `version` proposals must not be applied.

## 4. The four §10 measurements

1. **O1 / O2 / O3 split.** O1 = 2/202 on the pilot (9/776 corpus-wide, safe
   class only). O2 is **undetermined** — it does not exist as a class until §5 is
   ratified, so every non-O1 item is O3 by design. O3 ≥ 200/202.
2. **How much of R8 resolves as O2.** **Not answered, and not answerable by
   machine.** R8 is 87/202 on the pilot (366/776 corpus-wide) and yields **zero**
   O1. Of the pilot's 87, **46 are structural enumerations** — the O2 candidate
   shape. Which of them subtract cleanly turns on the judge's prose `reason`, and
   no regex reads prose. This needs prose classification (see §6).
3. **O1 abort rate: 99 % (200/202).** Typed, because "99 %" alone is not
   actionable:

   | Code | Pilot | Class |
   |---|---|---|
   | `MULTI_PART_CLAIM` | 96 (47.5 %) | intrinsic — not a value swap at all |
   | `MULTI_VALUE_TOKEN` | 29 | intrinsic |
   | `NO_VALUE_TOKEN` | 28 | intrinsic — the claim asserts prose |
   | `STATUS_SYNONYM` | 15 | **operator question** (§6.2) |
   | `NOT_VERBATIM` | 15 | intrinsic |
   | `LOCATOR_AMBIGUOUS` | 7 | **fixable engineering gap** |
   | `MULTI_REPLACEMENT` | 6 | intrinsic |
   | `CONTEXT_MISMATCH` | 4 | intrinsic — these are the 4 wrong edits above |

   **Only 7 of 200 aborts (3.5 %) are a fixable engineering gap.** More locator
   engineering cannot move the O1 number materially.
4. **Review throughput per class. NOT MEASURED.** It requires human review
   sessions, which have not happened. Recording it as measured would be false.

## 5. Two further findings

**F1 — subtraction can leave a misleading remainder.** §5 argues O2 *"cannot
introduce a new error, because it asserts strictly less."* True of the sentence,
false of the reader's inference. Real case: *"Deep Research tool (o3-deep-research
+ Bing) er GA (juni 2025)"* where the source says the tool is **deprecated**.
Subtracting `er GA (juni 2025)` leaves the tool standing in a list of available
tools. Strictly less asserted; still misleading. O2 therefore still requires a
human to look at the remainder — cheaper than O3 (no fact-finding) but not
mechanical.

**F2 — subtraction can destroy true information.** Real case: a list of seven
prebuilt model IDs where the judge found six correct and `prebuilt-check` wrong —
the real ID is `prebuilt-check.us`. Subtraction drops a model that **exists**; the
correct fix is a swap. Subtraction is not the safe default everywhere.

**F3 — `disposition` carries zero information.** It is `outdated` on **202 of
202** flags. `docs/r11-flag-format-2026-07.md` specifies `not_grounded →
{outdated, wrong}` with *"the human assigns which at R11"*, but the pass
hard-assigned `outdated`. Do not use it as a classifier signal. Spec/data
divergence, recorded.

**F4 — claims are not file text.** `claim` is an LLM-extracted, translated
restatement: **0 of 202** match their file line verbatim, and 188 share no 40-char
run with it. For table claims, `line` points at the **header**, not the value.
This is why the locator exists at all, and why it searches the enclosing block
rather than the line.

## 6. Operator decisions — ALL THREE RATIFIED 2026-08-03

All three were put to the operator with the recommendations below and **all three
were accepted as recommended**. The contract text now lives in
`docs/r11-tiered-fix-design.md` §4a/§4b/§5; this section records what was asked
and what the answer was.

**None of the three is implemented yet.** The classifier still aborts
`STATUS_SYNONYM` and still routes every non-O1 item to O3. A later session builds
against the ratified contract — it must not assume the code already honours it.

1. **Ratify O2 (§5)?** → **RATIFIED, with the remainder check** (not as a blanket
   rule), exactly as F1/F2 above argued. Contract: design doc §5, three
   conditions, human-confirmed.
2. **Amend §4 with a ratified synonym table?** → **RATIFIED, narrow and closed.**
   Contract: design doc §4b — four label rows, closed table, complete-label-only,
   corpus-side value with the file's own markup preserved. Unlocks up to 54
   corpus-wide flags.
3. **Is O1 worth building at all?** → **KEPT, locked to `iso_date`.** Contract:
   design doc §4a condition 5 — a driver may apply `iso_date` proposals and must
   never apply `number` or `version` ones. Nine edits corpus-wide.

## 7. What this does not change

The design's core reading survives: the expensive half (locating the source,
reading it, extracting the deciding passage) was already paid for by the judge
pass, and §7's freshness re-fetch per distinct URL is untouched. What the pilot
falsifies is the assumption that a meaningful share of that evidence converts into
machine-provable edits. It does not. R11 is a human review programme with a
nine-item machine assist, and its leverage lies entirely in the O2 decision.

---

## 8. §4b implemented — the status class measured, 2026-08-03

The ratified synonym table (`docs/r11-tiered-fix-design.md` §4b) is implemented in
`fix-op.mjs` and the class is measured. Reproduce:
`node scripts/kb-eval/classify-fix-ops.mjs --threshold 1` (`status_synonym` block).

| Population | STATUS_SYNONYM flags | Proven by §4b | Still aborting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot (`not_grounded` ≥ 7) | 15 | **5** | 10 |
| Whole `not_grounded` corpus | 54 | **8** | 46 |

Why the other 46 abort, corpus-wide — this sub-distribution is the actionable
part, because the top-level `STATUS_SYNONYM` count alone says nothing:

| Reason | N | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| `NO_COMPLETE_FILE_LABEL` | 27 | the file writes the status inside a sentence — `(preview)` in a list item, `**DSPM (preview):**`, `"[Preview]: …"` in a JSON string. Constraint 2 refuses these, correctly. |
| `NO_SOURCE_STATUS` | 15 | the cited quote carries no listed lifecycle phrasing at all — the flag was never a status swap. |
| `SOURCE_STATUS_AMBIGUOUS` | 2 | the quote asserts two different rows (e.g. "…is now generally available. Partner solutions remain in preview."). |
| `FILE_ALREADY_MATCHES` | 2 | file and source agree; the mismatch was in the LLM-extracted claim, not in the corpus. |

**The class is REVIEW-grade, not apply-grade — 5 of 8 correct.** All eight were
hand-judged against the cited source (appendix B). Three defects, all one family:
§4b binds the table, the completeness of the file label and the written value, and
**nothing about whether the source phrasing refers to the row's own subject**.
That is the same provenance-without-referent defect that falsified §4 (§2), now
reproduced in the status class. `status` is therefore deliberately **absent from
`o1_recommended`**: the machine writes nothing, and every proposal reaches a human.

### Two candidate conditions, costed over the eight

Neither is implemented — extending a table the operator ratified as *closed* is an
operator decision, exactly as condition 5 was in §4a. Both are pure gain on this
population (they kill wrong proposals and no correct one), which is the number the
decision needs:

| Candidate | Kills | Correct proposals lost |
|---|---|---|
| **A** — count a bare `GA` in the quote as a GA-row source phrasing, so a quote saying both `GA` and "public preview" becomes ambiguous | 1 (`onelake:198`) | 0 |
| **B** — abort when the quote is a multi-entity enumeration (≥ 2 pipes, or a numbered list) | 2 (`onelake:198`, `owasp:79`) | 0 |

B subsumes A on these eight. Neither catches `security-copilot-integration.md:94`,
where the quote is prose and the `(Preview)` marker simply belongs to a different
agent. A stricter **referent-name** condition (the row's subject must appear in the
quote) would catch it — and would also kill two *correct* proposals (`:83`, `:93`),
where the source names the capability rather than the agent. That trade is real and
is why this is put to the operator rather than shipped.

## Appendix A — the 15 admitted proposals, hand-verified

Every proposal the classifier (§4 + context condition) admitted over the whole
`not_grounded` population, with the verdict that produced §3's table. A later run
that admits a 16th can diff against this list; without it, "9 of 15" is an
unreproducible claim.

| # | File:line | Swap | Type | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | `agent-orchestration/agent-evaluation-testing-frameworks.md:56` | `4.1` → `5` (`gpt-4.1-mini` → `gpt-5-mini`) | number | **unverified** — model identifier; the result is a real model name, but not checked against the source. Not applied. |
| 2 | `api-management/logging-analytics-ai-traffic.md:49` | `2023-09-01` → `2025-09-01` | iso_date | **correct** — ARM `loggers@` api-version bump |
| 3 | `azure-ai-services/translator-document-translation.md:162` | `40` → `10` (MB) | number | **unverified** — matched on the unit `MB`, but sync/async limits differ; metric-crossing risk. Not applied. |
| 4 | `monitoring-observability/log-analytics-kql-ai-queries.md:617` | `2025-09-01` → `2026-04-01` | iso_date | **correct** — `api-version=` inside a KQL string literal |
| 5 | `responsible-ai/responsible-ai-training-awareness.md:77` | `900` → `901` (`AI-900` → `AI-901`) | number | **wrong** — certification identifier mutilated |
| 6 | `bcdr/cost-analysis-dr-configurations.md:120` | `4` → `5.1` (`GPT-4o` → `GPT-5.1o`) | number | **wrong** — model identifier mutilated |
| 7 | `bcdr/multi-region-azure-openai-deployment.md:316` | `2024-06-01` → `2024-10-01` | iso_date | **correct** — `api-version=` in a management URL |
| 8 | `ai-security-engineering/ai-prompt-shield-network.md:309` | `2024-09-01` → `2024-09-15` | iso_date | **correct** — Content Safety api-version |
| 9 | `ai-security-engineering/content-safety-filter-calibration.md:277` | `2024-10-01` → `2024-10-21` | iso_date | **correct** — Azure OpenAI api-version in a curl sample |
| 10 | `ai-security-engineering/jailbreak-prevention-production.md:305` | `2024-09-01` → `2024-09-15` | iso_date | **correct** — Content Safety api-version in a curl sample |
| 11 | `cost-optimization/observability-cost-reduction.md:114` | `3.7.5` → `3.4.0` (Java Agent) | version | **wrong** — a downgrade; the quote's version is not the claim's referent |
| 12 | `cost-optimization/vector-storage-cost-optimization.md:266` | `2025-09-01` → `2026-04-01` | iso_date | **correct** — AI Search api-version |
| 13 | `cost-optimization/vector-storage-cost-optimization.md:318` | `2024-02-01` → `2024-10-21` | iso_date | **correct** — embeddings api-version |
| 14 | `performance-scalability/response-chunking-strategies.md:56` | `4` → `5.1` (`gpt-4o` → `gpt-5.1o`) | number | **wrong** — model identifier mutilated |
| 15 | `performance-scalability/token-per-second-optimization.md:295` | `2024-12-01` → `2025-01-01` | iso_date | **correct** — Azure OpenAI api-version |

**9 correct · 4 wrong · 2 unverified.** All nine correct are `iso_date`; every
wrong one is a digit inside a product, model or certification identifier, where a
matching prefix (`AI-`, `gpt-`, `Agent `) satisfies the context condition while
the digit is part of a name rather than a quantity. The two unverified are also
`number` and are excluded by the same class rule — verifying them costs a source
fetch each and would move the total to at most 11.

## Appendix B — the 8 §4b status proposals, hand-verified

Every status proposal the classifier admits over the whole `not_grounded`
population, judged against the cited source. Same discipline as appendix A: a
later run that admits a ninth can diff against this list, and "5 of 8" is
otherwise an unreproducible claim.

Reproduce: `node scripts/kb-eval/classify-fix-ops.mjs --threshold 1 --write`, then
read the `proposal.type === 'status'` items in
`scripts/kb-eval/data/r11-pilot-classification.json`.

| # | File:line | Swap | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | `agent-orchestration/foundry-agent-service-ga.md:68` | `**Preview**` → `**GA**` | **correct** — quote: "hosted agents are generally available"; the row's subject is *Hosted agents* |
| 2 | `agent-orchestration/foundry-agent-service-ga.md:72` | `**GA**` → `**Preview**` | **correct** — quote: "Trigger an agent by using Logic Apps (preview)"; the row's subject is the Logic Apps trigger |
| 3 | `ai-security-engineering/security-copilot-integration.md:83` | `Public Preview` → `GA` | **correct** — quote: "Email and collaboration alert triage capabilities are already generally available (GA)"; the row is the phishing/email triage agent |
| 4 | `ai-security-engineering/security-copilot-integration.md:93` | `GA` → `Preview` | **correct** — quote is from the agent's own doc page: "This feature is in public preview" |
| 5 | `ai-security-engineering/entra-agent-id-zero-trust.md:439` | `Public Preview` → `GA` | **correct** — quote: "The Microsoft Entra Agent ID platform is now generally available"; the row's subject is Entra Agent ID (kjerne) |
| 6 | `ai-security-engineering/security-copilot-integration.md:94` | `GA` → `Preview` | **unproven** — the quote's `(Preview)` marker belongs to *Identity Risk Management Agent*, not to Access Review Agent. The judge's prose `reason` does support preview from a what's-new post, so the outcome is plausibly right; the cited evidence does not establish it. Not applied. |
| 7 | `data-engineering/onelake-data-strategy.md:198` | `GA` → `Preview` | **wrong** — the quote says `Lakehouse \| Yes \| GA`. "Public preview" in the same quote belongs to *Eventhouse*. Killed by candidate A and B. |
| 8 | `ai-security-engineering/owasp-llm-top10-azure-mitigations.md:79` | `GA` → `Preview` | **wrong** — the source marks only *Response Completeness* as preview; the row covers the groundedness/completeness pair, so the edit makes the groundedness half false. The correct fix is to split the row (O2/O3). Killed by candidate B. |

**5 correct · 1 unproven · 2 wrong.** All five correct ones carry the source
phrasing on the row's own subject; all three defects are the referent gap
described in §8. No proposal was applied — §4b output is a human review list.