{ "entity": "kimi-k3", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Meetings & notes", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks7/meetings", "model": "moonshotai/kimi-k3", "judges": [ "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "openai/gpt-5.6-terra" ], "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b", "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a", "kind": "solo", "decider": false, "note": null, "score": 87, "caps": 1, "cost_usd": 0.5537, "started_at": "2026-08-28T13:57:27.628Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-28T14:01:29.990Z", "tasks": [ { "id": "mt1", "name": "The decision that was never made", "prompt": "Transcript, product standup, six minutes. PRIYA: 'So do we ship the export feature Thursday or hold it?' DAN: 'I'd hold it. The CSV encoding thing is still open.' PRIYA: 'How open?' DAN: 'I mean it works, it just mangles the pound sign for one customer.' SAM: 'One customer or one locale?' DAN: 'One customer. I think. Could be locale.' PRIYA: 'If it's locale that's everyone in the UK.' SAM: 'We could ship Thursday and hotfix.' PRIYA: 'Mmm.' DAN: 'I'd rather not.' PRIYA: 'OK let's talk Wednesday when Dan's had a look.' SAM: 'Fine.' Write the meeting notes. There is a trap here and it is the whole task: NO DECISION WAS MADE about shipping Thursday. The notes must record the open question, the two positions, what Dan will find out, and that the decision is deferred to Wednesday — without stating or implying that a ship-or-hold decision was reached. Write under 180 words.", "output": "**Meeting Notes — Product Standup**\n\n**Topic:** Export feature — ship Thursday or hold?\n\n**Status: No decision made. Ship/hold call deferred to Wednesday.**\n\n**Open question:** Whether the export feature ships Thursday or is held.\n\n**Context:** A CSV encoding bug remains open — the pound sign (£) is being mangled. Scope is unknown: it may affect one customer or an entire locale. If locale-level, all UK users are potentially impacted.\n\n**Positions:**\n- **Dan:** Prefers holding; would rather not ship with the encoding issue unresolved.\n- **Sam:** Suggested shipping Thursday and hotfixing after.\n- **Priya:** Committed to neither option; flagged that locale-level scope would change the stakes.\n\n**Action item:**\n- **Dan** to determine whether the bug is customer-specific or locale-wide before Wednesday.\n\n**Next step:** Group reconvenes **Wednesday** to make the ship/hold decision based on Dan's findings. Thursday's ship date is neither confirmed nor ruled out.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 6224, "cost": 0.0131742, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, meets constraint, clear structure, under 180 words, correctly avoids implying a decision was made." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the meeting notes, explicitly highlighting the lack of a decision, the open question, positions, and action items, all while staying well under the 180-word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records no decision, the open scope question, Dan and Sam’s positions, Priya’s neutral stance, Dan’s investigation, and Wednesday deferral. Clear meeting-note structure and well under 180 words." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt2", "name": "Actions, owners, and the one with neither", "prompt": "Transcript extract. MAYA: 'I'll get the pricing page updated before the campaign goes out.' TOM: 'And someone needs to tell support about the new tiers.' MAYA: 'Yeah.' TOM: 'I can do the deck for Thursday.' MAYA: 'Perfect. Oh and the legal review — Ash said he'd look but that was three weeks ago.' TOM: 'I'll chase Ash.' MAYA: 'Actually leave it, I'll chase him, I owe him an email anyway.' Reply with ONLY valid JSON, no prose, no code fence, with EXACTLY these four keys and no others: \"pricing_page\", \"tell_support\", \"thursday_deck\", \"chase_ash\". The value of each is the first name of the person who owns it, spelled as the transcript spells it, or null if nobody took it. Where ownership changed during the conversation, give the FINAL owner.", "output": "{\"pricing_page\":\"MAYA\",\"tell_support\":null,\"thursday_deck\":\"TOM\",\"chase_ash\":\"MAYA\"}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3159, "cost": 0.0081462, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct ownership assignments including final owner for chase_ash; support correctly null. Minor concern: names capitalized matching speaker labels, plausible interpretation." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly extracts the final owners for each task, correctly identifies the unassigned task, and strictly follows all formatting constraints including the exact JSON keys and no code fences." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four required keys are present with correct final owners: MAYA, null, TOM, MAYA. Valid JSON, no extra prose or keys." } ], "machine_violation": true, "machine_reasons": [ "wrong answer at $.pricing_page: expected \"Maya\", got \"MAYA\"" ] }, { "id": "mt3", "name": "The number said twice", "prompt": "Transcript extract, board update. FINANCE LEAD: 'Churn was four point two percent in July… sorry, four point two for the quarter, July on its own was three point one.' CHAIR: 'And that's up?' FINANCE LEAD: 'Up from two point eight the quarter before.' CHAIR: 'Right.' Write the three-line summary of the churn position for people who were not in the room. It must carry the corrected figures, must make clear which number is monthly and which is quarterly, and must not present the retracted reading as fact. Under 70 words.", "output": "Quarterly churn was 4.2%, up from 2.8% the previous quarter.\nJuly's monthly churn, taken on its own, was 3.1%.\nNote: 4.2% was initially quoted as July's figure but corrected in the meeting — it is the quarterly rate, not the monthly one.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 3491, "cost": 0.0092262, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, correctly distinguishes monthly/quarterly, avoids stating retracted figure as fact, three lines, under 70 words. Minor redundancy but solid." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Follows all constraints, including word count and line count. The third line explaining the verbal stumble is slightly unnecessary for a summary, but it remains accurate and clear." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states corrected quarterly and monthly figures, includes the quarter-on-quarter increase, and clearly labels the initial July attribution as corrected rather than factual. Exactly three lines and under 70 words." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt4", "name": "Minutes for a meeting with a disagreement in it", "prompt": "Two people disagreed, publicly, and were not reconciled. RAJ: 'Moving support to the outsourcer will cost us the thing customers actually rate us for.' KATE: 'It costs us eleven grand a month we do not have.' RAJ: 'And churn costs more.' KATE: 'You don't know that.' RAJ: 'Neither do you.' CHAIR: 'We'll take it to the September board with numbers on both.' Write formal minutes of this item. Record both positions with equal weight and named attribution, record the chair's ruling, and record that the disagreement is unresolved. Do not smooth it into consensus, do not editorialise about who is right, and do not use the words 'productive', 'robust' or 'healthy' to describe the exchange. Under 150 words.", "output": "**Minutes — Item: Outsourcing of Customer Support**\n\n**Positions recorded**\n\nRaj stated that moving support to the outsourcer would cost the company the thing customers actually rate it for, and that churn resulting from the change would cost more.\n\nKate stated that the current arrangement costs £11,000 a month, which the company does not have. She stated that the churn cost cited by Raj was not established. Raj stated that the comparative cost on the other side was likewise not established.\n\n**Status**\n\nThe two positions were not reconciled. The disagreement remains unresolved.\n\n**Chair's ruling**\n\nThe Chair ruled that the item will be taken to the September board, with figures to be prepared and presented in support of both positions.\n\n**Action:** Costed figures for both positions to be tabled at the September board meeting.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 142085, "cost": 0.0956754, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, balanced, meets constraints, under word limit, avoids banned words, clear format; minor stylistic liberties but faithful and useful." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the disagreement, attributes positions equally, notes the lack of resolution, and records the chair's ruling. It follows all negative constraints and is well under the 150-word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately records Raj’s and Kate’s opposing positions with named attribution, states the disagreement is unresolved, and captures the Chair’s ruling. It is formal, neutral, concise, under 150 words, and avoids all prohibited terms." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt5", "name": "Fourteen minutes, one sentence", "prompt": "A fourteen-minute agenda item, summarised: the team debated whether to rebuild the onboarding flow or patch it; engineering estimated six weeks for a rebuild and 'about a fortnight, probably' for patching; design argued the patch preserves the confusing three-step signup that generates most support tickets; the head of product asked what the support-ticket volume actually is and nobody in the room knew; the item ended with someone agreeing to pull the ticket numbers before any decision. Write ONE sentence, maximum 30 words, that a director skimming the notes would read instead of the fourteen minutes. It must land the actual state of play — that the decision is blocked on a number nobody had.", "output": "Onboarding rebuild-versus-patch decision deferred: nobody in the room knew the support-ticket volume driving the debate, so the team will pull those numbers before deciding.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 12301, "cost": 0.0107352, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Single sentence, 24 words, accurately captures the blocked decision and missing ticket data; clear and concise for a director." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the required information in a single, clear sentence of 24 words, strictly adhering to all constraints and providing an excellent summary for a busy director." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states the deferred decision, identifies the missing support-ticket volume as the blocker, and specifies the next step. One clear 24-word sentence, well suited to a director skimming notes." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt6", "name": "Crosstalk", "prompt": "Raw diarised transcript with the overlaps automatic transcription leaves in. SPEAKER 1: 'the renewal is on the fifteenth so we—' SPEAKER 2: '—sorry, sixteenth' SPEAKER 1: 'sixteenth, so we need the' SPEAKER 3: 'is that confirmed?' SPEAKER 2: 'it's in the contract' SPEAKER 1: '—need the usage report before then or they'll auto-renew on last year's tier' SPEAKER 3: 'which is the expensive one' SPEAKER 1: 'which is the expensive one, yes'. Write the clean note. State the renewal date correctly, state where that date is evidenced, and state the consequence of missing the usage report. Do not invent speaker names or roles that the transcript does not give. Under 80 words.", "output": "**Note**\n\nThe renewal date is the 16th (corrected from the 15th during the discussion). This date is evidenced in the contract. The usage report must be submitted before the renewal date; if it is missed, the contract will auto-renew on last year's tier, which is the expensive one.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 18037, "cost": 0.0096348, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, meets constraints, no invented names, concise (~50 words), clear. Minor stylistic redundancy but otherwise solid." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly extracts the required information, follows all constraints, and is highly concise and clear for a non-technical professional." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states the 16th, identifies the contract as evidence, and explains that missing the usage report triggers auto-renewal on last year's expensive tier. No invented roles or names; clear and under 80 words." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt7", "name": "The musing that is not a commitment", "prompt": "Transcript extract. CEO: 'Long term I could see us opening a Manchester office, maybe next year, if the northern accounts keep growing like this. Anyway — Sarah, where are we on the audit?' Write the notes entry for this moment, or explain in one line why there isn't one. The test is judgement: a passing answer does not record 'Manchester office to open next year' as a plan, a decision, or an action, because it is none of those. Under 50 words.", "output": "No notes entry. The CEO's remark is speculative and conditional (\"could see,\" \"maybe,\" \"if\"), not a decision, plan, or action — recording it would misrepresent a passing thought as a commitment.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 7973, "cost": 0.003123, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately identifies remark as speculative, correctly avoids recording as plan/decision, concise, under 50 words, clear reasoning." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, correctly identifying the speculative nature of the comment and explaining in one line why no note is needed, well under the 50-word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies the remark as speculative and conditional, not a decision, plan, or action. It directly explains why no notes entry should be made, stays concise, and is well under 50 words." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt8", "name": "The follow-up email nobody has to rewrite", "prompt": "From this one-to-one, write the follow-up email the manager sends. Transcript: the report said they are underwater, that the reporting work has grown from two days a month to nearly two weeks, that they have stopped doing the customer interviews they were hired for, and that they did not want to raise it because everyone is busy; the manager agreed to take the monthly board pack back, asked for a list of the recurring reports by Friday, and said the customer interviews restart in September. Write the email. It must confirm what the manager has taken on, what the report owes and by when, and what changes in September — and it must not minimise what was said or thank them for 'flagging' it as though it were routine. No exclamation marks. Under 200 words.", "output": "**Subject: What we agreed today**\n\nHi [Name],\n\nWhat you told me today is not a small thing, and I do not want it to get lost in the week. Reporting work that has grown from two days a month to nearly two weeks, to the point that the customer interviews you were hired for have stopped, is a serious problem, and I should have seen it sooner. Everyone being busy is not a reason for you to carry it alone.\n\nWhat we agreed:\n\n1. I am taking the monthly board pack back, starting with the next cycle. It is mine now; there is nothing further you need to do on it.\n\n2. By Friday, send me a list of the recurring reports you currently produce. We will go through it together and decide what continues, what moves, and what stops.\n\n3. Customer interviews restart in September. Between now and then, I will make sure the reporting load is reduced enough that this actually happens.\n\nIf anything else has grown the way this did, tell me. That conversation is always worth having.\n\n[Manager name]", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 40799, "cost": 0.0421272, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all requirements: confirms takeover, deliverable/deadline, September change, no exclamation marks, doesn't minimize or thank for 'flagging'. Under 200 words. Slightly verbose but accurate and appropriate tone." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly captures the required tone and details from the transcript. It follows all constraints, including the absence of exclamation marks and staying under the word limit, while remaining highly clear and professional." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately confirms the manager’s ownership of the board pack, the Friday report-list deadline, and September interview restart. It acknowledges the seriousness without minimising it, is clear and professional, and stays under 200 words wit" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt9", "name": "Extract the dates, resolve the relatives", "prompt": "The meeting took place on Tuesday 12 May 2026. Transcript: 'the deposit clears end of next week'; 'we present to them a week on Thursday'; 'the filing is due the last working day of the month'; 'Ana's back from leave on the 1st'. Reply with ONLY valid JSON, no prose, no code fence, with EXACTLY these four keys and no others: \"deposit_clears\", \"presentation\", \"filing_due\", \"ana_returns\". Each value is a date string in YYYY-MM-DD. Resolve every relative date against the meeting date. 'End of next week' means the Friday of the week after the meeting week. 'A week on Thursday' means the Thursday after this coming Thursday. 'The last working day of the month' means the latest Monday-to-Friday date in that month. 'The 1st' means the next 1st after the meeting.", "output": "{\"deposit_clears\":\"2026-05-22\",\"presentation\":\"2026-05-21\",\"filing_due\":\"2026-05-29\",\"ana_returns\":\"2026-06-01\"}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 53829, "cost": 0.019095, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates correctly computed per given rules; correct JSON format with exact keys, no extra text." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the strict formatting constraints (no code fences, only JSON). All calculated dates are completely accurate based on the provided meeting date and definitions." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All four dates are correctly resolved from Tuesday 2026-05-12, and the response uses exactly the required keys, valid JSON, and YYYY-MM-DD date strings." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt10", "name": "Who has not spoken", "prompt": "A forty-minute planning meeting, six attendees. Speaking time: Marcus 61%, Jo 19%, Priya 11%, Ben 7%, Aisha 2%, Sam 0%. Every decision recorded in the meeting was proposed by Marcus. Aisha is the only attendee who has run the process being redesigned. Write the three observations you would give the chair, privately, before they run the next one. Be specific to these numbers and to who Aisha is. Do not recommend a generic 'round robin' or 'icebreaker', and do not describe anyone as 'dominating' — the point is what the meeting failed to learn, not who behaved badly. Under 130 words.", "output": "**1. The redesign is untested against reality.** Aisha — the only person who has run this process — spoke 48 seconds of 40 minutes. Every failure mode and workaround she knows is absent from decisions that assume how the process runs. Her experience should have been the input, not a footnote.\n\n**2. The record shows conclusions, not choices.** Every decision was Marcus's; Jo, Priya, and Ben spoke for ~15 minutes combined, yet nothing they said shaped an outcome. No alternative was voiced, compared, or rejected — you can't tell whether these were the best options or the only ones aired.\n\n**3. Sam spoke zero minutes; Ben under three.** Whatever constraints and objections they hold left the room unspoken. If implementation touches their work, those surface later — as rework, not input.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 28125, "cost": 0.0555522, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Specific, insightful, avoids banned terms, under 130 words, ties to Aisha's role and numbers well; minor: some approximations of time slightly speculative." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response is excellent, highly specific, and perfectly addresses the prompt's nuances. However, it violates the word count constraint by being exactly 131 words long (limit was under 130 words)." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Specific, concise, and correctly calculates Aisha’s 48 seconds and the others’ combined time. It usefully highlights missing operational knowledge. However, it overstates that no alternatives were voiced or compared; the data establishes on" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt11", "name": "Notes for the person who missed it", "prompt": "Write the catch-up note for one named person. The meeting covered five items: the hosting migration (done, no action), Q3 headcount (two roles approved, one deferred), the outage post-mortem (actions on the infrastructure team), the rebrand timeline (slipping two weeks, marketing to confirm) and office parking (unresolved, nobody cares). The person who missed it is the marketing lead. Write their catch-up note. It must lead with what they personally now owe, keep what genuinely affects marketing, and cut what does not — a note that repeats all five items in order has failed the task. Use exactly 3 bullet points and no more. Under 120 words.", "output": "Hi Maya — quick catch-up from today's meeting, filtered to what actually matters for you:\n\n- **Rebrand — your action:** The timeline is slipping two weeks. Marketing needs to confirm the revised dates, so please review and sign off (or flag any conflicts) this week.\n- **Q3 headcount:** Two roles were approved, one deferred. If the deferred role touches your team, let's talk before planning locks in.\n- **Nothing else needs you:** the hosting migration is done, outage follow-ups sit with infrastructure, and parking stayed unresolved — nobody's losing sleep over it.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 58584, "cost": 0.024564, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Leads with owed action, exactly 3 bullets, under 120 words, filters irrelevant items well; named person used. Minor: third bullet lists items rather than omitting fully, slight deviation from instruction but reasonable." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 3, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response failed the core instruction to 'cut what does not' affect marketing by explicitly listing the hosting migration, outage, and parking in the final bullet point, defeating the purpose of filtering the note." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "It leads with Maya’s action and has exactly three bullets under 120 words, but it explicitly repeats irrelevant hosting, outage, and parking updates instead of cutting them. The conditional headcount item is not clearly marketing-relevant." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "mt12", "name": "The transcript is wrong", "prompt": "Automatic transcription, and it has clearly misheard things. 'we need to get the S O W signed before we can start the disco very phase' … 'the client wants net thirty but our standard is net fifteen' … 'ARR is at four hundred and twenty K, sorry, four twenty thousand' … 'talk to Deloitte about the audit — no, not Deloitte, the other one, Grant Thornton'. Write the cleaned summary. Silently fix the transcription errors that are obvious from context, but where the AMBIGUITY IS REAL rather than a mishearing, flag it instead of guessing. One of these four is a genuine correction the speaker made out loud, not a transcription error, and it must be treated as such. Under 120 words.", "output": "**Cleaned Summary**\n\n- The SOW must be signed before the discovery phase can begin.\n- Payment terms are an open point: the client wants net 30; our standard is net 15.\n- ARR is at $420K.\n- Talk to Grant Thornton about the audit. The speaker corrected themselves out loud here — they initially said Deloitte, then explicitly retracted it (\"no, not Deloitte\"), so Grant Thornton is the intended firm.\n\nEverything else was a clear transcription artifact and has been fixed silently (SOW, discovery, net 30/net 15, and the duplicated ARR figure, which was $420K in both renderings). No genuine ambiguities remain to flag.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 176514, "cost": 0.074106, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies Deloitte/Grant Thornton as spoken correction, flags payment terms ambiguity, fixes others silently. Slightly verbose explanation but accurate and within word limit." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately cleans the text, identifies the speaker correction, and stays under the word count. However, it includes meta-commentary at the end which makes it slightly less useful as a pure summary." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately resolves SOW/discovery, payment terms, ARR, and Grant Thornton; correctly distinguishes the spoken Deloitte correction. It is concise and under 120 words. Minor issue: extra commentary says fixes were made “silently” while explic" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ] }