mirror of
https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC.git
synced 2026-10-26 18:35:05 +00:00
montjeffrey
7b03721135
soft-limit-overage asked for { allowed, overage }. Naming an overage figure
hints that passing a limit is permitted, which is precisely the hidden policy,
and it showed: that scenario was one of the two with the highest ungated pass
rate in the signposted run. The grader now inspects only allowed, so the prompt
asks for { allowed } and mentions neither overage nor billing nor soft limits. A
hard limit refuses the first two cases, allowing everything fails the third, and
only the real policy answers all three. --check-graders still separates start,
trap and reference on all six.
The analysis is registered in the doc before the run rather than chosen after
it: passed as the single primary outcome, paired exact McNemar at alpha 0.05, a
sample of 48 pairs fixed in advance, no extension on the strength of the result,
frozen inputs, secondary measures explicitly not claim-bearing, a validity rule
for provider errors, and a commitment to report a null.
12 lines
717 B
JSON
12 lines
717 B
JSON
{
|
|
"id": "soft-limit-overage",
|
|
"ambiguity": "You asked for the plan limits to be applied without saying what passing one does: refuse the request, or let it through.",
|
|
"facts": [
|
|
{ "id": "policy", "fact": "The limits are soft, so going over is still permitted and we bill the excess afterwards. The free plan is the one exception: it refuses once usage passes 110 percent of its limit.", "decisive": true },
|
|
{ "id": "rounding", "fact": "We are not fussy about rounding.", "decisive": false },
|
|
{ "id": "unknownplan", "fact": "An unrecognised plan name will never reach this function.", "decisive": false }
|
|
],
|
|
"stonewall": "No strong view on that one - use your judgement.",
|
|
"volunteer": false
|
|
}
|