{ "documentType": "case_input", "schemaVersion": "0.1.0", "caseId": "case-example-001", "createdAt": "2026-07-15T12:10:00Z", "contractRef": { "contractId": "example-grounded-analysis", "contractVersion": "0.1.0", "contentHash": "sha256:c99c25a0a010f6e69774d0d7a187753a0cb328e8673a74b2b051fff44b1bf3a5" }, "task": { "taskId": "task-example-001", "taskType": "evidence_grounded_analysis", "prompt": "Using Evidence E1 and E2, assess whether Initiative X is the primary cause of the observed improvement in Outcome Y. Give a concise conclusion and explain the evidence.", "taskInstructions": [], "expectedOutputFormat": "One concise analytical paragraph with evidence identifiers.", "contentHash": "sha256:deae115ef5c75b4b125e4dbb09937257231c21abcefcfb6b9c024804a1d14ec6", "metadata": { "requiresCausalAssessment": true } }, "evidenceBundle": [ { "evidenceId": "E1", "evidenceClassId": "supplied-study", "title": "Observational comparison", "content": "An observational comparison found Outcome Y was 18% higher in units using Initiative X. The authors state that units self-selected into the initiative and that the study does not identify a causal effect.", "contentHash": "sha256:192359f876334c9282c7e79247a6b78b913f63cfb032b68d8c0f7466e6cdce82", "authorityRank": 3, "permitted": true, "capturedAt": "2026-07-15T12:05:00Z", "metadata": { "studyDesign": "observational" } }, { "evidenceId": "E2", "evidenceClassId": "supplied-study", "title": "Randomized pilot", "content": "A randomized pilot estimated a 4% improvement in Outcome Y. The confidence interval included zero, so the pilot did not establish a statistically distinguishable effect.", "contentHash": "sha256:b3bba4e3b5b48b3ace0ec78b81738a837464d94d945689b57065d2f8f50c4428", "authorityRank": 3, "permitted": true, "capturedAt": "2026-07-15T12:05:00Z", "metadata": { "studyDesign": "randomized_pilot" } } ], "attempt": { "attemptId": "attempt-example-001", "authorId": "worker-104", "content": "Initiative X is associated with higher Outcome Y, but the supplied evidence does not establish that it is the primary cause. E1 reports an 18% observational difference while explicitly noting self-selection and no causal identification. E2 estimates a 4% improvement, but its interval includes zero. The strongest justified conclusion is that X may contribute to the improvement; primacy remains unproven.", "contentHash": "sha256:8d0c8290f24f40ae2ca136a7556dbaa2938591a756497506d927d6fc28d43a64", "submittedAt": "2026-07-15T12:08:00Z", "attachments": [], "toolTraces": [] }, "humanReview": { "annotationId": "review-example-001", "reviewerId": "reviewer-207", "label": "fail", "score": 0, "reasonCodes": [ "not_direct_answer" ], "rationale": "Fail. The attempter did not choose yes or no and therefore did not answer the question directly.", "criterionAnnotations": [ { "criterionId": "C1-direct-response", "verdict": "not_met", "severity": "major", "rationale": "The response did not choose yes or no.", "citedSpans": [ { "artifactType": "attempt", "artifactId": "attempt-example-001", "quotedText": "the supplied evidence does not establish that it is the primary cause", "locator": "sentence 1" } ] } ], "reviewerConfidence": { "rawScore": 0.9, "band": "uncalibrated" }, "submittedAt": "2026-07-15T12:09:00Z" }, "referenceAnswers": [ { "referenceId": "reference-example-001", "role": "illustrative", "content": "The evidence suggests a possible contribution from X but does not establish that X is the primary cause.", "contentHash": "sha256:83260b932b3b8b56d7785dc4ff7d859c2cc77426b927cba51ae6f2571d9c04d0" } ], "declaredExpectedElements": [], "caseTags": [ "synthetic", "positive-attempt", "incorrect-human-fail", "causal-warrant" ], "metadata": { "example": true } } |
Worked Example - Case Input
A strong attempt incorrectly failed by a human reviewer for not forcing an unsupported binary conclusion.