REDLINE / EVIDENCE REVIEWProject & reproduction ↗

FOUR CONTROLLED CALLS · RECORDED SEPTEMBER 8, 2026

A completed call.
What does it actually prove?

Inspect the requirement, read the evidence, and decide what is established. These are recorded calls to an AI recipient we controlled.

RECORDED OBSERVATION · MANUAL REVIEW

01 — REQUIREMENT

Plain-language summary of the requirement being reviewed.

02 — TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT

Show additional context

03 — PROVIDER OUTCOME

Human-readable summary of the retained provider outcome, not raw JSON.

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS

WHAT REMAINS UNPROVEN

SEPARATE EVIDENCE TRACK · STATIC MODEL

Give uncertainty a place in the contract.

RECORDED LOCAL VERIFICATION

The appointment example only allowed a boolean. REDLINE proposes an explicit unknown outcome. This local example is separate from the four calls above; it is not a before/after runtime experiment.

ORIGINAL SCHEMA · EXCERPT

"confirmed": {
  "type": "boolean"
}

Two values cannot explicitly represent an unanswered question.

PROPOSED SCHEMA · EXCERPT

"confirmed": {
  "type": "string",
  "enum": ["yes", "no", "unknown"]
}

Review this contract change: downstream consumers must handle a string instead of a boolean.

Inspect the related proposed instruction
Require an explicit yes or no. Do not treat a maybe, an I'll see or any other non-committal answer as agreement; if the answer is unclear, record unknown.

Excerpt of the saved proposal. Read the complete proposed task diff ↗

REPRODUCE THE DEVELOPER WORKFLOW

Inspect. Review. Verify.

Use the pinned Python source and judge instructions. Local static evaluation needs no account or phone credits.

Open reproduction instructions ↗

Boundaries you can inspect

  • Transcript review was manual; audio was not independently assessed.
  • No real booking was created. The recipient and appointment were fictional.
  • The static model is shared by detection and remediation.
  • AI onboarding reviews are documented. Human usability and production impact remain unverified.