The operator is not a domain expert, so the domain content is mine to own --
and the one thing the loop asks a human for is exactly the thing no example
existed for. docs/ekspert-svar.md is written for whoever has to deliver the
verdict: the two forms a judgement can take (a --rationale string during the
run, a JSON file in the inbox for later runs), where each field comes from, and
four complete paste-ready answers.
Every command and every verdict in it was RUN from a fresh clone before it was
written. The `hitl pending` line quoted is verbatim output. The rejection
answers close the gap STATE has carried since the demo shipped: the README
shows the VALIDATOR refusing a number, but nothing showed an EXPERT refusing a
proposal whose numbers are fine -- the only judgement in the whole loop that a
machine cannot make. Two rejection shapes are given, because "not feasible
here" and "right measure, wrong cost base" teach the system different things.
Everything is marked AI-authored and not verified professional judgement.
Also corrects the --outbox-dir help text, which claimed sharing a folder with
--verdict-dir "re-ingests raw agent output past the Step-8 promotion gate".
Measured, by pointing both at one folder and running twice: it does not. The
outbox artefacts are named {run_id}-*.json and carry none of the verdict keys,
so the tolerant inbox loader skips them and the run is unaffected. The hazard is
real but latent -- a future verdict-shaped artefact in the outbox -- so the
warning stays and says what is actually true. This also answers STATE's open
question about enforcing the distinction in the CLI: no. There is no reachable
contamination to refuse, and a guard for an unreachable case is the kind of
error handling this repo declines to write.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0118noV9rCfrdREH26XqZB5z
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
51739455ae