Run 17: SPEC.md, deferral clause, second run
- Document: SPEC.md
- Pull request: 5, editor’s branch
editor/pr-5at 61e9f00 - Cohort: five fresh Haiku readers, no shared context, none reused from run 16
- Run within the pull request: 2
- Verdict: PASS
Marks
| Reader | Q1 restatement | 2a | 2b | 2c | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.6 | Remediation | Defence | Section 4 | Q4 confusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | correct | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | none |
| B | correct | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | none |
| C | correct | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | none |
| D | correct | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | none |
| E | correct | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | miss | ok | none |
Against the criteria
- Load-bearing statements: five of five on 2a, 2b and 2c. All five quoted the new section 7 sentence for 2c.
- Restatement and application: five of five on every item but one; four of five on the defence’s conformance, where reader E wrote “Partial” whilst listing the clauses it fails. The reasoning does not quote the document for that grade, so it is a reader miss, recorded and not blocking.
- No wrong answer traceable to the text.
- No passage quoted as confusing by any reader.
Findings applied
None required. Single-reader miss recorded above. After this run the header, status paragraph and citation moved to 1.1.0-dev, which changes no normative text; the independent review of the editor’s branch then asked for two wording edits in section 2 and the Appendix A framing line, which did, so run 18 followed.