← graph

.verify-cross-document-consistency

Verify (FLIP 0.56): Cross-document consistency validation

Metadata

Statusdone
Assignedagent-156
Agent identity3184716484e6f0ea08bb13539daf07686ee79d440505f1fdf2de0357707034c3
Modelclaude-opus-4-6
Created2026-04-02T14:56:55.631376110+00:00
Started2026-04-02T14:56:57.735594697+00:00
Completed2026-04-02T15:00:25.908136713+00:00
Tagsverification, agency, eval-scheduled
Eval score0.82
└ blocking impact0.90
└ completeness0.85
└ coordination overhead0.90
└ correctness0.90
└ downstream usability0.75
└ efficiency0.95
└ intent fidelity0.92
└ style adherence0.80

Description

FLIP Verification & Repair

FLIP score 0.56 is below threshold 0.70 — independently verify and, if needed, fix this task's work.

Your Authority

You are a senior engineer reviewing a junior's PR. You have full authority to:

  • Edit source files, run builds, run tests, and commit fixes
  • Correct mistakes, resolve test failures, and improve the implementation
  • Only reject (fail) the source task if the approach is fundamentally wrong

Fix first, fail last. If the work is close but has issues, repair it yourself.

Original Task

ID: cross-document-consistency Title: Cross-document consistency validation Description:

Objective

Verify that related documents are internally consistent with each other.

Tasks

  1. Compare RSPA vesting terms across all co-founder versions (Erik, Luca, Vaughn)
  2. Verify Board resolutions authorize correct share issuances
  3. Check Certificate of Amendment matches board authorizations
  4. Ensure stockholder consents cover the right actions
  5. Validate 83(b) election templates match RSPA terms

Validation

  • RSPA vesting terms identical across co-founders (4-year, 1-year cliff, monthly)
  • Board resolutions match equity allocations exactly
  • Certificate amendment authorizes what board resolutions approve
  • All acceleration triggers consistent (double-trigger on change of control)

Artifacts:

  • /home/erik/poietic/corporate/cross-document-consistency-evaluation.md

FLIP Evaluation Results

Dimension scores:

  • hallucination_rate: 0.40
  • requirement_coverage: 1.00
  • semantic_match: 0.30
  • specificity_match: 0.40

Evaluator reasoning: The inferred description captures all five core validation tasks and four validation criteria correctly, but fundamentally misframes the task type. The actual task is a direct execution (perform the validation), while the inferred version reconstructs it as a meta-task (evaluate a completed validation and grade it). The inferred version adds substantial hallucinated content: framing as evaluation of 'agent-142's work', requesting 'detailed grade breakdowns', 'strengths and areas for improvement', rubric application, and 'accept/reject' recommendations. These meta-evaluation elements do not appear in the original task description, representing ~40% hallucination by content volume. All literal validation requirements are preserved, but the task structure is inverted.

FLIP metadata: {"comparison_model":"claude-haiku-4-5-20251001","inference_model":"claude-sonnet-4-20250514","inferred_prompt":"Evaluate the completed cross-document consistency validation task (validate-revised-formation by agent-142) using the following assessment criteria: (1) Compare RSPA vesting terms across all co-founder versions (Erik, Luca, Vaughn), (2) Verify Board resolutions authorize correct share issuances, (3) Check Certificate of Amendment matches board authorizations, (4) Ensure stockholder consents cover the right actions, and (5) Validate 83(b) election templates match RSPA terms. Also assess these validation points: RSPA vesting terms identical across co-founders (4-year, 1-year cliff, monthly), Board resolutions match equity allocations exactly, Certificate amendment authorizes what board resolutions approve, and All acceleration triggers consistent (double-trigger on change of control). Provide a detailed grade breakdown, identify strengths and areas for improvement, and recommend whether to accept or reject the validation work. Use standard rubric application with reasonable benefit of doubt and produce a calibrated grade with transparent rationale."}

Verification Steps

Independently check whether the work was actually completed. Do NOT trust the original agent's claims.

  1. Check git log --oneline -10 for recent commits related to this task
  2. Check git diff to see if meaningful changes were made
  3. Run cargo build && cargo test to verify nothing is broken
  4. Verify any artifacts mentioned in the task description exist

Repair & Verdict

  • If everything looks good: log verification passed and mark this task done.
  • If problems found: fix them directly — edit code, resolve test failures, correct logic errors, then run the verification again. Commit your fixes with a descriptive message. Once fixed, mark this task done.
  • Only as a last resort, if the approach is fundamentally wrong and cannot be salvaged: run wg fail 'cross-document-consistency' --reason "FLIP verification failed: <reason>" then mark this task done.

Remember: your job is to make the work pass, not to find reasons to reject it.

Depends on

Required by

Log