{"claim":{"id":"66f8926a-4f13-4a54-bdbf-19db3c171972","submission_id":"bdc4c19c-4f57-417d-96c4-7d88dc6f04c5","submission_revision_id":"12d9d7d5-0a4d-4537-849e-2d7482061d74","builder":"builder-01","status":"active","claimed_at":"2026-10-15T15:25:29.700524Z","delivered_at":null,"ended_at":null,"delivery_note":null,"end_reason":null},"task":{"submission_id":"bdc4c19c-4f57-417d-96c4-7d88dc6f04c5","submission_revision_id":"12d9d7d5-0a4d-4537-849e-2d7482061d74","revision_version":1,"submission_status":"under_review","submitted_at":"2026-09-12T00:41:25.299514Z","submitter_name":"Nuo Chen","submitter_email":"nuochen@andrew.cmu.edu","task":{"status":"submitted","version":1,"extra_fields":{"difficulty_self_test":{"model":"GPT-5.4","harness":"Codex CLI","estimated_score":"5–10%"}},"submitted_at":"2026-09-12T00:41:25.299514+00:00","industry_domain":"Education & Information — Academic / Scholarly Publishing (conference program-committee operations)","task_short_name":"conference_review_console","operating_system":"Linux","task_description":"Objective: Run a complete two-round conference review cycle—screening, conflict-of-interest derivation, policy-compliant reviewer assignment, an integrative checklist, one-way finalization, and a minimal-change amendment after reviewer withdrawals—entirely inside a live review-management web console that is the sole source of the records.\n\nStarting State: A local PRC Console is already running at http://127.0.0.1:8765 (login chair / prc-2026). It is the only source for 150 papers (6 withdrawn), 60 reviewer profiles, the conflict register, and 14+ committee announcements. Every record value is rendered as an image; only ids and navigation are text. The server holds its dataset in memory only after boot. Input files provide coauthorships.csv, institutions.csv, hr_export.csv, instructions.md and handbook.md; software/launch.sh opens Chrome.\n\nInstructions & Rules: Read the handbook and every inbox page. Binding amendments supersede the handbook: emeritus reviewers are barred except on HCI papers (at most one per paper); junior effective load is listed minus one except visualization-topic reviewers; one declaration is rescinded; one junior is promoted to senior. Screen every active paper by submitting its primary area and author count, with at most three attempts per paper. Derive AFFILIATION, COAUTHOR, DECLARED and AUTHOR conflicts using canonical institutions, documented name formats, HR precedence for PENDING-UPDATE reviewers, and rescissions. Assign exactly three distinct eligible reviewers per active paper, from three canonical institutions, with an effective senior, valid loads, and no conflict. Pass all eight checklist questions in one submission and finalize.\n\nAfter initial finalization, read the newly unlocked announcements: three reviewers withdraw and two new declarations arrive. Submit an amended assignment satisfying the updated policy while changing as few paper-reviewer pairs as possible relative to your own finalized first assignment; among minimal changes maximize affinity, then finalize the amendment. Also write output/conflict_audit.csv with header reviewer_id,paper_id,reason_code and every applicable conflict triple. All records are synthetic and the workflow is a reproduction of conference administration, not confidential data.","software_licensing":"Free/Open Source","evaluation_criteria":null,"verification_method":"Use the supplied deterministic score_console function (portable evaluate.py) on console_state/state.json and output/conflict_audit.csv against private effective_world.json and scoring.json. Recheck all active-paper screenings, effective eligibility and loads, emeritus exceptions, canonical-institution diversity, seniority, all conflict triples, checklist answers, both finalization flags, and the amendment's compliance. Any round-1 violation scores 0.05 times screening fraction. Otherwise score = 0.10 + 0.15*q1 + 0.10*audit_f1 + 0.05*checklist + r2, where q1 compares round-1 affinity to exact optimum 3552 and r2 (up to 0.60) rewards the lexicographically minimal compliant amendment relative to the agent's own round-1 assignment, then its affinity. The grader recomputes C* and A2* by exact MILP at evaluation time, so canned answers do not suffice. Missing amendment caps the score at 0.40; unfinalized round 1 caps it at 0.10. Full credit requires feasible optimal assignments, a perfect audit and checklist, complete screenings, and both finalizations. The attached evidence documents a clean GPT-5.4/Codex run that completed in 5,011.7 seconds but scored 0.05 because its audit F1 was 0.714 and the round-1 assignment contained conflicts; this is a measured run, not a claimed success rate. The task package has 10/10 deterministic tests and a reference driver that grades 1.0.","software_and_version":"PRC Console (self-contained Python 3 standard-library web application); Google Chrome; Python 3.12","specific_requirements":null,"expected_completion_time":null},"files":[{"file_id":"ce0f1467-cfe6-40c9-a291-969ecdb1f34a","filename":"conference_review_console_input_materials_v4.zip","category":"input_materials","content_type":"application/zip","size_bytes":8159993},{"file_id":"86f1ec34-de86-4f43-9e27-fbdae902f0cc","filename":"conference_review_console_reference_and_evaluation_v4.zip","category":"reference_output","content_type":"application/zip","size_bytes":35270},{"file_id":"7a02689b-19ad-4995-b10b-37a964d71985","filename":"conference_review_console_evidence_v4.zip","category":"difficulty_self_test_evidence","content_type":"application/zip","size_bytes":284816}],"deep_review":{"overall_verdict":"Strong Accept","review_text":"**Overall Verdict:** Strong Accept — The complete, safely reachable package provides a coherent professional workflow with consistent inputs, reference artifacts, and deterministic evaluation.\n\n**Completeness Check:**\n\n- Instruction: Complete — The two-round workflow, policy precedence, irreversible actions, deliverables, and scoring behavior are explicit.\n- Inputs: Complete — Console records, three supporting CSVs, handbook, launcher, and task metadata are present, readable, and schema-consistent.\n- Toolchain: Complete — The local standard-library server, browser workflow, framework integration, and documented host-side optimization dependencies provide a viable execution path.\n- Reference output: Complete — Effective truth, exact conflict audit, initial and amended assignments, and scoring parameters are supplied separately from solver-visible records. Independent static checks found both assignments compliant; the initial assignment has the stated affinity of 3,552.\n- Rubric: Complete — The deterministic scorer covers screening, policy compliance, conflicts, loads, checklist accuracy, finalization, affinity, and submission-relative amendment optimality.\n\n**File and Task Reachability:**\n\nThe attachment set is `reachable`, and the end-to-end task is `reachable`. I inspected `conference_review_console_input_materials_v4.zip`, `conference_review_console_reference_and_evaluation_v4.zip`, and `conference_review_console_evidence_v4.zip`, including every archive member: instructions, handbook, CSV inputs and outputs, JSON datasets and run records, application and evaluator source, tests, design documentation, audit evidence, and PNG evidence. All manifest byte counts matched; the ZIPs were valid, unencrypted, free of unsafe paths or links, and contained parseable CSV, JSON, Markdown, Python, shell, and PNG content.\n\nAll 263 embedded console images decoded as nonempty PNGs with complete one-to-one record mappings. Representative paper, reviewer, announcement, and declaration images were visually inspected; the remaining embedded images were integrity-checked rather than individually transcribed, while their structured backing records and mappings were inspected. No archive member was omitted, and there was no material tooling limitation. Uploaded programs and tests were reviewed statically and were not executed, as required by the evidence-safety policy.\n\nIndependent derivation from the solver-visible records reproduced all 2,337 reference conflict triples and all eight checklist answers. The supplied self-test audit reproduces the reported F1 of approximately 0.714, and its run record reports the stated final score. The completion path is clear: operate the local console, persist finalized state and the audit CSV, then evaluate them against the separated effective-world reference using deterministic checks and exact amendment optimization.\n\nLicense keys, accounts, tokens, and other credentials are not required from the contributor. Confidential, proprietary, or internal material may be evaluated as submitted evidence without requiring additional disclosure.\n\n**Special Screening:**\n\nNone\n\n**Recommended Changes:**\n\nThe submission is unusually thorough about policy precedence, hidden-reference separation, deterministic grading, reachability, and measured difficulty. No changes are required.","reviewed_at":"2026-09-15T21:26:58.055535Z"},"claim":{"id":"66f8926a-4f13-4a54-bdbf-19db3c171972","submission_id":"bdc4c19c-4f57-417d-96c4-7d88dc6f04c5","submission_revision_id":"12d9d7d5-0a4d-4537-849e-2d7482061d74","builder":"builder-01","status":"active","claimed_at":"2026-10-15T15:25:29.700524Z","delivered_at":null,"ended_at":null,"delivery_note":null,"end_reason":null}},"revision_is_current":true}