Completed research · Engineering study
Retained development evidence for advisory review
A working pilot now passes retained task evidence to a separate AI reviewer. A real repair and a reviewer-input omission exercised the process; human acceptance remains separate.
- Work completed
- Result posted
Method
Orchestrator captures task instructions, completion reports, code changes, validation records and commit details for advisory review. Explicit reruns preserve earlier evidence and reviews. The process was exercised on an inference-gate repair and on a correction to the evidence handoff itself.
Findings
- The real inference-gate repair added 17 regression cases. Its updated advisory reported no material discrepancy observed, complete coverage and no findings.
- The review process exposed commit metadata that had been saved but omitted from reviewer input. The handoff was corrected and the unchanged task evidence reviewed again.
- The final Orchestrator suite reported 3,846 tests with four skipped. Its workflow repair still has a separate advisory requesting provenance and scope clarification; owner acceptance remains pending.
Limits of the finding
- Implementation test counts are not measurements of reviewer accuracy. No general defect-detection rate, time saving or reliability gain has been established.
- An advisory with no findings does not independently prove correctness, accept work or authorize continuation.
- This public summary omits task bodies, operational packets, private audit internals and account details.
Evidence reviewed
Primary records reviewed
- Orchestrator integration and commit-evidence repair summaries; advisory rerun and repair readouts, November 9, 2026.
Next question
How do advisory findings and review effort compare with the owner’s judgment across ordinary tasks?