{"slug":"website-launch-gate","run":"2026-09-20-corrected","tasks":[{"name":"checkout-validation","title":"Checkout Validation","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We are supposed to launch this small website tomorrow. Please make the files actually launch-ready, fix the issues you find, and keep the existing product positioning and visual direction. Do not deploy it or create any external accounts. Put a concise record of what you verified and anything still blocked in output/launch-report.md.","followup":"","limits":{"max_turns":60,"harbor_agent_timeout_s":2400,"cpus":2,"memory_mb":4096,"check_timeout_s":120},"rubric":[{"criterion":"browser validation enabled","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: browser validation enabled."},{"criterion":"email required","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: email required."},{"criterion":"terms required","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: terms required."},{"criterion":"honeypot","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: honeypot."},{"criterion":"HTTPS API","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: HTTPS API."},{"criterion":"server validation","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: server validation."},{"criterion":"rate limiting","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: rate limiting."},{"criterion":"terms page","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: terms page."}],"why":"The page appears to validate in the browser but lacks server enforcement, consent evidence, abuse protection and transport safety.","baseline_modes":["Reports issues without fixing them","Marks unverified items as passed","Misses launch surfaces outside the visible body"],"inputs":[],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":40.5,"base_overall":31.5,"skill_rubric":44.375,"base_rubric":18.125,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"browser validation enabled","note":"Both forms explicitly retain novalidate; custom JavaScript validation does not enable native submission validation.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"email required","note":"Both provide type=email, required, and JavaScript checks for email validity.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"terms required","note":"A has no consent control. B requires a checked terms checkbox in JavaScript and markup, but does not transmit or enforce consent server-side.","skill":8,"base":0},{"criterion":"honeypot","note":"B adds an offscreen website field and checks it locally, but excludes it from the request and provides no server enforcement. A has none.","skill":5,"base":0},{"criterion":"HTTPS API","note":"Both replace explicit HTTP with /api/pay, which inherits the page protocol. B additionally supplies host-dependent HSTS configuration; neither guarantees HTTPS.","skill":5,"base":4},{"criterion":"server validation","note":"Neither implements a server endpoint or server-side input and payment validation.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"rate limiting","note":"Neither implements rate limiting; documenting it as future work does not satisfy the criterion.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"terms page","note":"B supplies a linked terms page, but essential organizer and cancellation provisions remain placeholders, and some business rules are invented. A supplies no terms page.","skill":6,"base":0}],"overall_skill":43,"overall_base":33,"summary":"B addresses more launch requirements through required consent, a client-side honeypot, and a terms page, but neither delivers a working payment backend, server validation, or rate limiting. Both retain novalidate and use a relative API URL that does not enforce HTTPS. A's supplied renders are polished; B's checkout renders are unstyled with resource-loading errors, although its root-relative assets can work under HTTP hosting. B also falsely assures customers that failed requests mean their card was not charged. Both reports claim tests without observable execution evidence; B's visual verification claims are not supported by the supplied renders. Both correctly disclose major payment blockers, but neither completes launch readiness."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"browser validation enabled","note":"Both forms explicitly retain novalidate; custom JavaScript validation does not enable native submission validation.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"email required","note":"Both use required email inputs and check validity in their submission handlers.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"terms required","note":"A includes a required checkbox and checks acceptance before submitting. B has no terms acceptance control.","skill":10,"base":0},{"criterion":"honeypot","note":"A includes a honeypot checked in JavaScript, but does not transmit it for server enforcement. B has none.","skill":6,"base":0},{"criterion":"HTTPS API","note":"Both remove the explicit HTTP endpoint and use /api/pay, which inherits the page protocol. Neither guarantees HTTPS; A\u2019s host-dependent HSTS configuration is unverified.","skill":5,"base":5},{"criterion":"server validation","note":"Neither delivers a server endpoint or server-side validation.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"rate limiting","note":"Neither implements rate limiting.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"terms page","note":"A supplies a linked terms page, but essential organizer and cancellation provisions remain placeholders. B supplies no terms page.","skill":6,"base":0}],"overall_skill":38,"overall_base":30,"summary":"A addresses more launch requirements, adding required consent, a client-side honeypot, and draft terms. B renders cleanly, while A\u2019s supplied checkout renders are unstyled with missing-resource errors. Both retain novalidate, provide no backend validation or rate limiting, and replace the HTTP endpoint with a relative URL that does not enforce HTTPS. Neither delivers working payments. Both reports acknowledge blockers, but their claimed browser tests have no accompanying execution evidence. A additionally makes an unsafe claim that failed requests mean the customer was not charged. B invents workshop positioning beyond the supplied description. A wins narrowly on the specified requirements, despite its rendering defects and incomplete legal content."}],"_base_attempt_id":"checkout-validation-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"checkout-validation-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":32.5,"base_overall":27.0,"skill_rubric":26.25,"base_rubric":17.5,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"browser validation enabled","note":"Both forms explicitly retain novalidate; custom JavaScript checks do not enable native browser submission validation.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"email required","note":"Both use required email inputs and JavaScript that rejects missing email.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"terms required","note":"A has no terms acceptance. B includes agreement-by-continuing text but no required acceptance control or enforcement.","skill":2,"base":0},{"criterion":"honeypot","note":"Neither implements a honeypot.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"HTTPS API","note":"Both use /api/checkout, which inherits the page protocol. Neither supplies HTTPS enforcement; payment redirect checks do not secure the API request.","skill":4,"base":4},{"criterion":"server validation","note":"Neither supplies server implementation or server-side validation.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"rate limiting","note":"Neither implements rate limiting. B identifies it as outstanding.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"terms page","note":"A supplies no terms page. B supplies and links terms.html, but essential operator and cancellation provisions remain placeholders, and some business rules are invented.","skill":6,"base":0}],"overall_skill":35,"overall_base":30,"summary":"Both remove card-token collection and improve client-side error handling, but neither delivers a payment backend, server validation, rate limiting, honeypot, or enforced terms acceptance. Both retain novalidate. Relative API URLs remove the hard-coded insecure endpoint but do not enforce HTTPS. A renders cleanly; B's supplied page renders are unstyled and show missing-resource errors, although its root-relative assets could work under an HTTP server. B provides an incomplete terms page and more explicit blocker documentation, giving it a narrow advantage. Verification claims are not corroborated by execution logs; B supplies test code, but that does not establish successful execution. Neither result is launch-ready."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"browser validation enabled","note":"Both forms explicitly retain novalidate; custom JavaScript validation does not enable native submission validation.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"email required","note":"Both use required email inputs and explicitly reject empty email values in JavaScript.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"terms required","note":"Neither requires affirmative terms acceptance. A's notice and link do not implement a required acceptance control.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"honeypot","note":"Neither implementation includes a honeypot.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"HTTPS API","note":"Both remove the explicit HTTP endpoint and use /api/checkout, which inherits the page protocol. Neither supplies an implemented HTTPS API or HTTPS enforcement.","skill":4,"base":4},{"criterion":"server validation","note":"Neither delivers server code; client validation alone does not satisfy this criterion.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"rate limiting","note":"Neither implements rate limiting.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"terms page","note":"A delivers a linked terms page, but essential operator and cancellation provisions remain placeholders. B only lists terms as future work.","skill":6,"base":0}],"overall_skill":30,"overall_base":24,"summary":"Neither response makes the site launch-ready. Both retain novalidate, require email, and omit required terms acceptance, a honeypot, server validation, and rate limiting. Both replace the insecure payment URL with a same-origin endpoint, but neither implements that endpoint or establishes HTTPS enforcement. A requires HTTPS payment redirects; B permits non-HTTPS redirects to localhost. A supplies an incomplete terms page and a more explicit blocker report, whereas B supplies no terms page. B's delivered screenshots are styled and readable; A's page renders unstyled with missing-resource errors. A includes browser tests, but their claimed execution is not independently evidenced in the supplied action record. B claims ignore rules were added, but none are delivered. A narrowly wins through its terms-page implementation, stricter redirect check, and more complete identification of remaining blockers."}],"_base_attempt_id":"checkout-validation-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"checkout-validation-skill-s2"}]},{"name":"developer-docs-links","title":"Developer Docs Links","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We are supposed to launch this small website tomorrow. Please make the files actually launch-ready, fix the issues you find, and keep the existing product positioning and visual direction. Do not deploy it or create any external accounts. Put a concise record of what you verified and anything still blocked in output/launch-report.md.","followup":"","limits":{"max_turns":60,"harbor_agent_timeout_s":2400,"cpus":2,"memory_mb":4096,"check_timeout_s":120},"rubric":[{"criterion":"no insecure asset","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: no insecure asset."},{"criterion":"meaningful alt","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: meaningful alt."},{"criterion":"guide target","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: guide target."},{"criterion":"api target","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: api target."},{"criterion":"CTA target","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: CTA target."},{"criterion":"clear CTA","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: clear CTA."},{"criterion":"description","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: description."}],"why":"The fixture tests link integrity, secure assets, alt text and CTA clarity in documentation rather than a marketing homepage.","baseline_modes":["Reports issues without fixing them","Marks unverified items as passed","Misses launch surfaces outside the visible body"],"inputs":[],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":61.5,"base_overall":70.5,"skill_rubric":100.0,"base_rubric":100.0,"pref":0,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"no insecure asset","note":"Both remove the HTTP image and use local resources.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"meaningful alt","note":"Neither retains content images requiring alt text; code examples are real text and decorative marks are hidden.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"guide target","note":"Both deliver guide.html; B's get-started fragment also exists.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"api target","note":"Both deliver the linked api.html.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"CTA target","note":"Both replace the dead CTA with existing local destinations.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"clear CTA","note":"Quickstart and API labels clearly describe their destinations.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"description","note":"Both add relevant homepage meta descriptions.","skill":10,"base":10}],"overall_skill":61,"overall_base":72,"summary":"Both remove the insecure image, repair navigation and CTAs, and add descriptions. Removing the image eliminates the missing-alt issue; neither preserves a diagram. Both invent SDK installation instructions and API behavior unsupported by the supplied files, leaving a major launch blocker despite acknowledging it in their reports. A delivers a more concise, appropriately scoped report. B adds unnecessary legal content and an invalid root-relative sitemap, and incorrectly claims legal links appear in every page footer: its 404 page has no footer. Neither provides observable tool evidence supporting its reported runtime checks. The renders are readable overall, although B's hero code is visibly clipped horizontally. No original styling was supplied, so preservation of an established palette cannot be verified."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"no insecure asset","note":"Both remove the HTTP image and use local resources.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"meaningful alt","note":"Neither retains content images requiring alt text; examples are readable HTML text and decorative marks are hidden.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"guide target","note":"Both supply guide.html; A's get-started fragment also exists. Documentation accuracy remains a separate blocker.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"api target","note":"Both link to an existing api.html.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"CTA target","note":"Primary CTAs resolve to the supplied guide rather than a dead # link.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"clear CTA","note":"Both use clear quickstart and API labels matching their destinations.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"description","note":"Both add relevant homepage meta descriptions and explanatory product copy.","skill":10,"base":10}],"overall_skill":62,"overall_base":69,"summary":"Both remove the insecure image, repair navigation and CTAs, add descriptions, and deliver readable layouts with accessible text replacing imagery. Neither establishes launch readiness: both invent package names and SDK APIs unsupported by the supplied files, then leave confirmation to the owner. Their claimed tests have no observable execution evidence. A additionally introduces an invalid relative-URL sitemap and unfinished social metadata; its report is unnecessarily expansive. B delivers a more focused result and clearer blocker record. The original files provide no established palette to verify either redesign against."}],"_base_attempt_id":"developer-docs-links-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"developer-docs-links-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":76.5,"base_overall":54.0,"skill_rubric":90.71428571428571,"base_rubric":87.85714285714286,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"no insecure asset","note":"Both remove the original HTTP image and use local resources.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"meaningful alt","note":"Neither retains content images requiring alt text. A's replacement workflow contains readable text.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"guide target","note":"Both supply guide.html; A's get-started fragment exists. Documentation accuracy and completeness are reflected in overall scores.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"api target","note":"Both supply API pages matching the navigation targets.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"CTA target","note":"Both replace the dead hash link with an existing local destination.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"clear CTA","note":"Both replace 'Click here' with specific guide-related action labels.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"description","note":"Both add relevant page descriptions.","skill":10,"base":10}],"overall_skill":79,"overall_base":59,"summary":"Both resolve the seven narrow rubric checks: insecure images are removed, local Guide/API and CTA targets exist, CTA labels are descriptive, and metadata descriptions are present. A replaces the image with readable workflow text; B removes in-page imagery entirely, so neither leaves an image needing alt text. However, A invents the package name, client API, authentication requirements, and error behavior without support in the supplied files. Its report acknowledges uncertainty but leaves those claims published as instructions. B honestly identifies missing documentation as a launch blocker, although its homepage overpromises what the holding pages contain. Both rendered designs are legible; A has a reported 5px horizontal overflow. Neither provides observable execution logs supporting its reported checks. B's report is unnecessarily long, but its delivery is substantially more trustworthy."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"no insecure asset","note":"Both remove the HTTP placeholder image and use local resources.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"meaningful alt","note":"A removes the image without providing an equivalent diagram. B provides readable workflow text, although aria-label on a generic div is not a reliable image alternative.","skill":5,"base":7},{"criterion":"guide target","note":"Both provide a resolving guide route. A honestly identifies missing instructions; B supplies unsupported package and setup instructions.","skill":7,"base":4},{"criterion":"api target","note":"Both retain a resolving API route. A exposes the missing reference content; B presents invented API contracts.","skill":7,"base":4},{"criterion":"CTA target","note":"Both replace the dead fragment link with existing local destinations; B's installation fragment exists.","skill":9,"base":9},{"criterion":"clear CTA","note":"Both use descriptive guide and API action labels.","skill":9,"base":9},{"criterion":"description","note":"Both add relevant page-specific meta descriptions.","skill":10,"base":10}],"overall_skill":74,"overall_base":49,"summary":"A is safer for launch: it fixes navigation, insecure assets, metadata, and CTA wording while explicitly identifying missing SDK documentation. Its guide and API remain holding pages, and homepage copy overpromises their contents. B delivers polished pages but invents installation commands, authentication requirements, API methods, and error behavior unsupported by either input file. Flagging those inventions in the report does not make publishing them appropriate. Both rendered designs are readable; B has a reported 5px horizontal overflow despite claiming none. Neither response supplies observable execution evidence for its reported checks. A's report is unnecessarily lengthy; B's is concise but leaves unsupported product instructions in public pages."}],"_base_attempt_id":"developer-docs-links-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"developer-docs-links-skill-s2"}]},{"name":"local-service-mobile","title":"Local Service Mobile","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We are supposed to launch this small website tomorrow. Please make the files actually launch-ready, fix the issues you find, and keep the existing product positioning and visual direction. Do not deploy it or create any external accounts. Put a concise record of what you verified and anything still blocked in output/launch-report.md.","followup":"","limits":{"max_turns":60,"harbor_agent_timeout_s":2400,"cpus":2,"memory_mb":4096,"check_timeout_s":120},"rubric":[{"criterion":"viewport","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: viewport."},{"criterion":"no forced overflow","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: no forced overflow."},{"criterion":"responsive rule","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: responsive rule."},{"criterion":"working CTA","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: working CTA."},{"criterion":"image alt","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: image alt."},{"criterion":"optimized image reference","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: optimized image reference."},{"criterion":"optimized image exists","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: optimized image exists."},{"criterion":"contrast fixed","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: contrast fixed."}],"why":"The site looks plausible on desktop but has a broken CTA, forced overflow, weak contrast and an oversized asset.","baseline_modes":["Reports issues without fixing them","Marks unverified items as passed","Misses launch surfaces outside the visible body"],"inputs":[],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":48.5,"base_overall":64.0,"skill_rubric":73.125,"base_rubric":57.5,"pref":0,"order_votes":[-1,-1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"viewport","note":"Both include appropriate viewport metadata.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"no forced overflow","note":"Both remove the original 1200px minimum width. Supplied views show no horizontal overflow; mobile rendering was not demonstrated.","skill":9,"base":9},{"criterion":"responsive rule","note":"Both define responsive breakpoints, but B's stylesheet does not load in the delivered rendering.","skill":5,"base":10},{"criterion":"working CTA","note":"A reaches a functioning form but targets an unsupported mailbox. B reaches an explicitly unfinished booking section.","skill":1,"base":3},{"criterion":"image alt","note":"A replaces the placeholder with appropriately hidden decorative artwork. B supplies descriptive hero alt text, visible when its image fails.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"optimized image reference","note":"A has no optimized hero image reference, using CSS artwork instead. B references WebP with JPEG fallback, but those references fail in the supplied rendering.","skill":5,"base":0},{"criterion":"optimized image exists","note":"A supplies no optimized replacement image asset. B supplies the listed WebP and JPEG assets.","skill":10,"base":0},{"criterion":"contrast fixed","note":"A improves body text contrast but retains insufficient contrast for white text on orange buttons and orange service numbers. B specifies generally readable colors, although its intended styling is absent from the rendered result.","skill":7,"base":5}],"overall_skill":46,"overall_base":64,"summary":"A delivers a visibly styled, substantially improved site, but its booking form sends to an invented, unverified mailbox and its white-on-orange buttons retain poor contrast. B supplies optimized image files and avoids inventing contact details, but the delivered screenshots show missing styling and a broken hero image, consistent with the reported resource errors and root-relative paths. Neither provides a verified working booking destination. Both reports claim checks without observable execution evidence; B's successful-resource claims do not establish that the delivered rendering works."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"viewport","note":"Both include an appropriate viewport meta tag.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"no forced overflow","note":"Both remove the original 1200px minimum width. Supplied desktop views show no horizontal overflow; narrow-screen behavior was not visibly verified.","skill":8,"base":8},{"criterion":"responsive rule","note":"Both provide responsive breakpoints and collapsing layouts. A\u2019s stylesheet fails to load in the supplied renders; B\u2019s styling renders successfully.","skill":7,"base":9},{"criterion":"working CTA","note":"A reaches a booking placeholder with no contact path. B implements validation and a mailto action, but its recipient is invented and unverified, preventing reliable booking.","skill":1,"base":3},{"criterion":"image alt","note":"A supplies descriptive hero alt text. B removes the image and appropriately hides decorative artwork from assistive technology.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"optimized image reference","note":"A references WebP with JPEG fallback, but root-relative paths fail in the supplied render. B uses CSS artwork and has no optimized image reference.","skill":6,"base":0},{"criterion":"optimized image exists","note":"A delivers the listed WebP and JPEG assets. B delivers no optimized hero image, instead eliminating the raster dependency.","skill":10,"base":0},{"criterion":"contrast fixed","note":"A defines substantially improved dark text and button colors, although its intended stylesheet is absent from the supplied renders. B improves body text but white text on #e77748 orange buttons remains below normal-text contrast requirements.","skill":8,"base":5}],"overall_skill":51,"overall_base":64,"summary":"B delivers the stronger visible result: its supplied renders are styled and complete, while A\u2019s renders show unstyled content and a broken hero because root-relative resources fail in the supplied rendering context. A\u2019s paths can work when served at an HTTP origin root, so this is not proof the assets are absent. Both preserve the headline and local positioning, but neither is launch-ready: A leaves booking unavailable; B invents a booking mailbox absent from the inputs and routes customer details to it, despite flagging verification as blocked. B also retains low-contrast white text on orange buttons. Both reports claim local checks without observable execution evidence; A\u2019s report is unnecessarily extensive. B\u2019s CSS artwork legitimately removes the placeholder-image dependency, although it does not deliver the optimized image files explicitly requested by the rubric."}],"_base_attempt_id":"local-service-mobile-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"local-service-mobile-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":79.5,"base_overall":70.5,"skill_rubric":91.25,"base_rubric":90.0,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"viewport","note":"Both declare a device-width viewport with initial-scale=1.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"no forced overflow","note":"Both remove the original 1200px minimum width. B's 420px minimum artwork column creates tighter intermediate-width constraints.","skill":9,"base":10},{"criterion":"responsive rule","note":"Both include meaningful breakpoints that stack content and adapt spacing.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"working CTA","note":"A reaches a form but routes submissions to an unsupported mailbox. B reaches the services section reliably, while leaving booking explicitly blocked.","skill":6,"base":4},{"criterion":"image alt","note":"A provides descriptive image alt text. B appropriately hides decorative artwork and supplies social-image alternative metadata.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"optimized image reference","note":"A references a local WebP. B replaces the PPM with CSS artwork, eliminating the hero image request.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"optimized image exists","note":"A's 62,332-byte WebP is delivered and visibly renders. B's replacement artwork is implemented in the delivered CSS; its referenced social PNG also exists.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"contrast fixed","note":"Both replace the original faint text and CTA colors. A's textarea placeholder remains relatively faint on the dark form.","skill":10,"base":9}],"overall_skill":81,"overall_base":73,"summary":"Both fix the viewport, fixed-width layout, readability, and responsive styling; the supplied desktop renders are legible. A provides an optimized WebP with descriptive alt text, but its booking form sends requests to an invented, unverified mailbox. B's services CTA resolves correctly but leaves the original booking goal blocked, explicitly documenting the missing contact details. B uses lightweight decorative CSS artwork appropriately hidden from assistive technology and supplies a social image. Both substantially expand the original page; B better preserves its sans-serif direction. Neither provides observable execution logs supporting the report's claimed tests. B's report is unnecessarily lengthy and incorrectly calls the deleted hero.ppm unused. B wins primarily for avoiding fabricated contact information and clearly identifying the conversion blocker."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"viewport","note":"Both include an appropriate viewport meta tag.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"no forced overflow","note":"Both remove the original 1200px minimum width and use bounded containers. Desktop renders fit; mobile execution evidence is not supplied.","skill":9,"base":9},{"criterion":"responsive rule","note":"Both provide meaningful media queries that stack layouts and adapt spacing.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"working CTA","note":"A links successfully to services but removes booking. B reaches a form, but submission targets an invented, unverified business mailbox.","skill":5,"base":3},{"criterion":"image alt","note":"A appropriately hides decorative CSS artwork from assistive technology. B gives the technician image descriptive alt text.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"optimized image reference","note":"A eliminates the unsupported PPM reference using lightweight CSS artwork. B references and preloads its local WebP with explicit dimensions.","skill":9,"base":10},{"criterion":"optimized image exists","note":"A supplies renderable CSS artwork rather than a replacement content-image file; its social PNG exists. B supplies the referenced 62,332-byte WebP.","skill":8,"base":10},{"criterion":"contrast fixed","note":"Both replace the original pale text and CTA with readable colors. B's textarea placeholder remains relatively faint.","skill":10,"base":9}],"overall_skill":78,"overall_base":68,"summary":"A is the stronger handoff because it explicitly blocks launch on missing contact details rather than inventing them. Its services anchor works, but replacing Book service removes the conversion path. B supplies a responsive page and an actual optimized WebP, but its form sends customer details to service@northstarhvac.com, an address unsupported by the inputs. An owner-check note does not make that destination verified. B also changes the original Arial direction substantially through serif typography and photography. Both supplied desktop renders are readable and orderly. Both reports claim browser/testing results without observable execution evidence; A additionally recommends removing hero.ppm despite listing it as deleted. Neither result is fully launch-ready."}],"_base_attempt_id":"local-service-mobile-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"local-service-mobile-skill-s2"}]},{"name":"newsletter-consent","title":"Newsletter Consent","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We are supposed to launch this small website tomorrow. Please make the files actually launch-ready, fix the issues you find, and keep the existing product positioning and visual direction. Do not deploy it or create any external accounts. Put a concise record of what you verified and anything still blocked in output/launch-report.md.","followup":"","limits":{"max_turns":60,"harbor_agent_timeout_s":2400,"cpus":2,"memory_mb":4096,"check_timeout_s":120},"rubric":[{"criterion":"analytics not unconditional","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: analytics not unconditional."},{"criterion":"accept and reject","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: accept and reject."},{"criterion":"stored choice","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: stored choice."},{"criterion":"analytics gated","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: analytics gated."},{"criterion":"privacy","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: privacy."},{"criterion":"unsubscribe","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: unsubscribe."},{"criterion":"email required","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: email required."}],"why":"A cosmetic banner is present, but analytics runs before consent and rejection is impossible. The Skill explicitly distinguishes display from control.","baseline_modes":["Reports issues without fixing them","Marks unverified items as passed","Misses launch surfaces outside the visible body"],"inputs":[],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":58.5,"base_overall":43.0,"skill_rubric":47.142857142857146,"base_rubric":36.42857142857143,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"analytics not unconditional","note":"Both remove the tracker entirely; neither loads analytics.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"accept and reject","note":"Neither delivers accept and reject controls.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"stored choice","note":"Neither stores a consent preference.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"analytics gated","note":"Tracking is prevented by removal, but neither implements consent-dependent loading.","skill":5,"base":5},{"criterion":"privacy","note":"A only records privacy as blocked. B links a substantive draft, but operator, contact, and provider details remain unresolved.","skill":6,"base":0},{"criterion":"unsubscribe","note":"Both promise unsubscribe and flag lifecycle testing as blocked. B additionally explains unsubscribe in its privacy draft; neither supplies a working mechanism.","skill":4,"base":3},{"criterion":"email required","note":"Both use required email inputs and JavaScript checks that reject empty or malformed addresses.","skill":10,"base":10}],"overall_skill":57,"overall_base":44,"summary":"Both remove the unconditional tracker, require valid email input, and honestly identify missing subscription infrastructure. Neither implements accept/reject controls, persists a consent choice, or provides a working unsubscribe flow. Removing analytics prevents tracking but does not implement consent gating. B delivers a linked privacy draft and configurable signup integration; A lacks privacy content and marks its unavailable-signup message as success. B's desktop and mobile renders are usable; A's render reports slight horizontal overflow. Neither is launch-ready. Claimed browser and audit runs lack observable execution evidence; B also incorrectly describes its footer privacy link as beside the form."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"analytics not unconditional","note":"Both remove the original external tracker and introduce no replacement.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"accept and reject","note":"Neither provides accept and reject controls.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"stored choice","note":"Neither stores a consent choice.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"analytics gated","note":"Removal prevents tracking, but neither implements consent-gated analytics.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"privacy","note":"A links a substantive privacy draft with unresolved operator, contact, and provider details. B only records the missing policy as a blocker.","skill":6,"base":0},{"criterion":"unsubscribe","note":"Both promise unsubscribe and flag lifecycle testing as blocked. A additionally describes unsubscribe and retention in its privacy draft; neither implements a working mechanism.","skill":5,"base":3},{"criterion":"email required","note":"Both use required email inputs and JavaScript validation despite disabling native form validation.","skill":10,"base":10}],"overall_skill":60,"overall_base":42,"summary":"A is stronger: it supplies a linked privacy draft, configurable signup handling, explicit failure states, and clear launch blockers. Its desktop and mobile renders are readable. B preserves the headline but invents a numbered sample issue and an unsupported activation chart; its supplied render also shows slight horizontal overflow. Both remove analytics entirely, preventing unconditional tracking, but neither implements accept/reject controls, persisted consent, or consent-gated loading. Both require and validate email and mention unsubscribe, but neither delivers a working unsubscribe flow. A's privacy notice remains incomplete; B supplies none. Both report browser checks without observable execution evidence. Neither is actually ready to accept subscriptions, and both disclose that blocker."}],"_base_attempt_id":"newsletter-consent-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"newsletter-consent-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":62.5,"base_overall":47.5,"skill_rubric":55.71428571428571,"base_rubric":42.14285714285714,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"analytics not unconditional","note":"Both remove the external tracker and make no analytics requests.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"accept and reject","note":"Neither provides accept and reject controls.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"stored choice","note":"Neither stores a consent preference.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"analytics gated","note":"Removing analytics prevents tracking, but neither implements consent-dependent loading.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"privacy","note":"A has no privacy disclosure or link. B supplies a linked policy, but operator details and provider-specific practices remain unconfirmed.","skill":7,"base":0},{"criterion":"unsubscribe","note":"A only promises unsubscribe availability. B explains using a newsletter link. Neither can verify an actual unsubscribe flow without the missing provider.","skill":7,"base":4},{"criterion":"email required","note":"Both use required email inputs and check validity before proceeding; B additionally sets aria-invalid.","skill":10,"base":10}],"overall_skill":60,"overall_base":45,"summary":"B wins by adding a linked privacy page, clearer unsubscribe instructions, and better accessible validation. Both remove the unconditional tracker, but neither implements accept/reject controls, persisted consent, or consent-gated analytics. Both correctly disclose that subscriptions remain blocked rather than claiming success. B's desktop/mobile renders are readable; A's section renders are also legible. B leaves an unnecessary example.com sitemap and an unconfirmed privacy policy. A omits privacy entirely. Both reports claim checks without observable execution evidence; those claims cannot be independently confirmed from the supplied material."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"analytics not unconditional","note":"Both remove the external tracker and contain no replacement analytics request.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"accept and reject","note":"Neither delivers accept and reject controls; removing tracking makes them unnecessary operationally but does not satisfy this explicit criterion.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"stored choice","note":"Neither stores a consent preference.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"analytics gated","note":"Analytics is fully disabled through removal, although neither implements conditional consent-based loading.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"privacy","note":"A provides a linked policy but leaves operator/provider confirmation blocked. B only mentions a future privacy disclosure in the report.","skill":8,"base":1},{"criterion":"unsubscribe","note":"Both advertise unsubscribe availability and flag provider testing. A also explains the intended email-link mechanism in its policy; neither supplies a verified working flow.","skill":6,"base":4},{"criterion":"email required","note":"Both use required type=email inputs and check validity before handling a submission.","skill":10,"base":10}],"overall_skill":65,"overall_base":50,"summary":"A is stronger: it supplies a linked privacy policy, clearer launch blockers, and visibly usable desktop/mobile layouts. B preserves the newsletter positioning but omits a privacy page or link. Both remove the unconditional tracker entirely, so neither can load analytics, but neither implements accept/reject controls or a stored consent choice. Both require and validate email through JavaScript and honestly block signup rather than inventing success. Unsubscribe is promised but cannot be verified without a provider. Neither result is launch-ready; missing provider details reasonably block completion. A introduces an unnecessary example.com sitemap placeholder. Reported command executions lack supporting action logs, so they are not independently established by the supplied evidence."}],"_base_attempt_id":"newsletter-consent-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"newsletter-consent-skill-s2"}]},{"name":"product-launch-discovery","title":"Product Launch Discovery","kind":"transfer","prompt":"We are supposed to launch this small website tomorrow. Please make the files actually launch-ready, fix the issues you find, and keep the existing product positioning and visual direction. Do not deploy it or create any external accounts. Put a concise record of what you verified and anything still blocked in output/launch-report.md.","followup":"","limits":{"max_turns":60,"harbor_agent_timeout_s":2400,"cpus":2,"memory_mb":4096,"check_timeout_s":120},"rubric":[{"criterion":"indexable","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: indexable."},{"criterion":"description","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: description."},{"criterion":"social image","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: social image."},{"criterion":"twitter card","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: twitter card."},{"criterion":"favicon","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: favicon."},{"criterion":"robots","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: robots."},{"criterion":"sitemap","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: sitemap."},{"criterion":"custom 404 recovery","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: custom 404 recovery."}],"why":"The task tests whether the agent checks crawler and sharing surfaces that are invisible in the main page body.","baseline_modes":["Reports issues without fixing them","Marks unverified items as passed","Misses launch surfaces outside the visible body"],"inputs":[],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":63.0,"base_overall":56.5,"skill_rubric":75.0,"base_rubric":66.25,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"indexable","note":"Both remove noindex/nofollow from the homepage and allow crawling.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"description","note":"Both provide a relevant homepage meta description preserving the core positioning.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"social image","note":"A supplies no social image or image metadata. B delivers a PNG and image metadata, but leaves root-relative URLs; the social artwork itself is not shown in the supplied renders.","skill":6,"base":0},{"criterion":"twitter card","note":"A declares a summary card with usable OG text fallback but no image. B includes large-image card metadata, title, description, and image reference, pending an absolute production image URL.","skill":8,"base":7},{"criterion":"favicon","note":"A embeds an SVG favicon in the homepage; B references a delivered SVG asset. Neither supplies observable browser confirmation of the icon.","skill":9,"base":9},{"criterion":"robots","note":"Both supply permissive robots.txt files. B's Sitemap directive incorrectly uses a relative URL.","skill":8,"base":10},{"criterion":"sitemap","note":"A omits the sitemap. B supplies XML, but every loc is relative rather than an absolute URL, leaving it unsuitable for launch.","skill":2,"base":0},{"criterion":"custom 404 recovery","note":"Both deliver a custom noindex 404 document with a home recovery link. Actual unknown-route handling and HTTP 404 status remain unverified hosting dependencies.","skill":8,"base":8}],"overall_skill":64,"overall_base":57,"summary":"B covers more launch requirements, including delivered social assets and a sitemap scaffold, but its relative social and sitemap URLs remain unfinished. A omits the social image and sitemap entirely. Both remove the homepage indexing restriction, add descriptions, favicons, crawler rules, and recovery pages. Both supplied renders are unstyled with resource-loading errors, so neither demonstrates a visually launch-ready result. A's conversion path uses an invented, unverified mailbox; B's form targets a nonexistent backend. Both disclose these blockers. A claims browser verification without observable supporting actions; B more clearly acknowledges its verification limits, although its responsiveness and contrast PASS labels exceed the evidence. B also adds unfinished legal pages and unsupported product-workflow details. Neither fully completes the request, but B satisfies more of the specified rubric."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"indexable","note":"Both remove the original homepage noindex directive and permit crawling.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"description","note":"Both provide a relevant homepage meta description.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"social image","note":"A supplies a PNG and OG image metadata, but uses an origin-relative URL; the image itself is not shown for visual verification. B supplies neither.","skill":6,"base":0},{"criterion":"twitter card","note":"A includes large-image card metadata with title, description, and a relative image URL. B declares a summary card with OG fallback text but no image.","skill":8,"base":6},{"criterion":"favicon","note":"A references a supplied SVG asset; B embeds an SVG favicon directly.","skill":9,"base":9},{"criterion":"robots","note":"Both allow crawling. A additionally includes a sitemap directive lacking the required absolute URL.","skill":7,"base":10},{"criterion":"sitemap","note":"A supplies XML with relative loc values, leaving it unusable as a valid production sitemap. B supplies none.","skill":2,"base":0},{"criterion":"custom 404 recovery","note":"Both provide custom 404 documents with home recovery links, but neither establishes host routing or an actual 404 response.","skill":7,"base":7}],"overall_skill":62,"overall_base":56,"summary":"A wins narrowly by delivering social-image assets and more complete metadata. Both remove noindex, add descriptions and favicons, permit crawling, and supply recovery pages. A's sitemap uses invalid relative locations, and its social URLs still need a production origin. B omits the sitemap and social image entirely. Neither completes a reliable conversion path: A posts to an absent backend; B invents an unverified recipient address. Both expand the minimal original into unsupported product claims. The supplied renders show unstyled content and missing-resource errors for both; successful hosted rendering is not established by these images. Their reports claim testing without observable execution records. A candidly identifies major blockers but overstates some checks and incorrectly says the privacy link is beside the form. B's report is more concise but understates missing launch essentials as follow-ups."}],"_base_attempt_id":"product-launch-discovery-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"product-launch-discovery-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":64.5,"base_overall":39.5,"skill_rubric":78.125,"base_rubric":34.375,"pref":1,"order_votes":[1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"indexable","note":"Both remove the homepage noindex directive.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"description","note":"Both provide relevant homepage meta descriptions.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"social image","note":"A supplies none. B supplies a readable PNG and og:image metadata, but leaves the image URL relative to an unknown production origin.","skill":8,"base":0},{"criterion":"twitter card","note":"A declares a summary card with OG text fallback. B declares summary_large_image with an available OG image, pending production URL verification.","skill":9,"base":8},{"criterion":"favicon","note":"A supplies none. B supplies and references favicon.svg; deployed resolution remains unverified.","skill":9,"base":0},{"criterion":"robots","note":"A has no robots.txt. B supplies a valid allow-all file.","skill":10,"base":0},{"criterion":"sitemap","note":"Neither supplies a sitemap. B explicitly records the missing production hostname as a blocker.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"custom 404 recovery","note":"A supplies no recovery page. B supplies 404.html with a home link and correctly identifies host routing as unverified.","skill":8,"base":0}],"overall_skill":68,"overall_base":40,"summary":"B covers substantially more launch requirements, including a real social image, favicon, robots.txt, and recovery page. Neither supplies a sitemap or a verified onboarding destination. A renders coherently, with minor horizontal overflow, but omits several required assets. B's supplied homepage renders are unstyled and report missing resources; its root-relative stylesheet may work under HTTP, but the delivered visual result does not substantiate its verification claims. B's social image is readable and consistent with the product positioning. Both reports claim checks without observable execution evidence, and both invent an unconfirmed contact mailbox. B additionally publishes unsupported business privacy commitments. B wins on requirement coverage, but neither is launch-ready."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"indexable","note":"Both remove the original noindex,nofollow directive from the homepage.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"description","note":"Both provide relevant homepage meta descriptions consistent with the product positioning.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"social image","note":"A supplies a legible, branded PNG and og:image metadata, but uses a relative URL requiring production completion. B supplies neither an image nor an image reference.","skill":7,"base":0},{"criterion":"twitter card","note":"A declares summary_large_image with OG fallback metadata, subject to image URL completion. B declares summary with title/description fallback but no image.","skill":9,"base":7},{"criterion":"favicon","note":"A includes favicon.svg and its link, although the supplied render reports unresolved resources. B has no favicon.","skill":8,"base":0},{"criterion":"robots","note":"A delivers robots.txt allowing crawling. B delivers no robots file; its absence does not itself prevent indexing.","skill":10,"base":0},{"criterion":"sitemap","note":"Neither supplies a sitemap. A explicitly records the missing production origin as a blocker.","skill":0,"base":0},{"criterion":"custom 404 recovery","note":"A provides a custom 404 page with a home recovery link but explicitly leaves routing unconfigured. B provides no custom recovery page.","skill":7,"base":0}],"overall_skill":61,"overall_base":39,"summary":"A completes substantially more launch checks: it removes noindex and supplies descriptions, a real social image, Twitter metadata, favicon, robots.txt, and a recovery page. However, its supplied renders are unstyled with missing-resource errors, its social image URL remains relative, and sitemap and 404 routing remain unfinished. B renders a cohesive styled page but omits most requested launch infrastructure and shows slight horizontal overflow. Both replace signup with an unverified, invented mailbox and neither delivers a verified conversion path. A records blockers more thoroughly, although its claimed successful browser checks conflict with the supplied render evidence; B similarly overstates its CTA as working. Neither has observable action logs substantiating its verification claims."}],"_base_attempt_id":"product-launch-discovery-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"product-launch-discovery-skill-s2"}]},{"name":"saas-waitlist","title":"Saas Waitlist","kind":"direct","prompt":"We are supposed to launch this small website tomorrow. Please make the files actually launch-ready, fix the issues you find, and keep the existing product positioning and visual direction. Do not deploy it or create any external accounts. Put a concise record of what you verified and anything still blocked in output/launch-report.md.","followup":"","limits":{"max_turns":60,"harbor_agent_timeout_s":2400,"cpus":2,"memory_mb":4096,"check_timeout_s":120},"rubric":[{"criterion":"specific title","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: specific title."},{"criterion":"meta description","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: meta description."},{"criterion":"privacy link","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: privacy link."},{"criterion":"privacy page","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: privacy page."},{"criterion":"email validation","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: email validation."},{"criterion":"accessible status","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: accessible status."},{"criterion":"no exposed secret","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: no exposed secret."},{"criterion":"error state","weight":1,"description":"Observable final-state check: error state."}],"why":"The fixture mixes legal, metadata, secret exposure and form-state failures that are easy to miss without a fixed launch pass.","baseline_modes":["Reports issues without fixing them","Marks unverified items as passed","Misses launch surfaces outside the visible body"],"inputs":[],"pairs":[{"sample":1,"skill_overall":66.5,"base_overall":71.5,"skill_rubric":82.5,"base_rubric":71.25,"pref":0,"order_votes":[-1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"specific title","note":"Both replace Home with a specific AcmeFlow finance-approvals title.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"meta description","note":"Both include relevant product-specific descriptions.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"privacy link","note":"A has none. B includes a footer link, but its root-relative navigation requires appropriate hosting.","skill":8,"base":0},{"criterion":"privacy page","note":"B supplies a page, though its operational promises and contact mechanism remain unverified. A supplies none.","skill":7,"base":0},{"criterion":"email validation","note":"Both implement required email validation in JavaScript. B's demonstrated missing script is consequential because novalidate disables native submission validation.","skill":5,"base":9},{"criterion":"accessible status","note":"Both define labeled fields and polite live status regions. B's missing script prevents demonstrated dynamic feedback.","skill":6,"base":9},{"criterion":"no exposed secret","note":"Both remove the key from executable code and requests. A unnecessarily reproduces the original credential-like literal in its report.","skill":10,"base":9},{"criterion":"error state","note":"Both source implementations catch network failures and non-2xx responses. A's assets render successfully; B's demonstrated asset-loading failures undermine the error handler.","skill":4,"base":9}],"overall_skill":59,"overall_base":73,"summary":"A delivers a styled, readable page and fixes client-side validation, secret submission, and HTTP/network error handling, but omits both a privacy link and privacy page. B includes all eight rubric features in source, but its delivered render is unstyled, exposes the honeypot, and reports missing resources; root-relative asset paths prevent CSS and JavaScript loading in the demonstrated context. B\u2019s social preview also contains severely clipped headline text. Both correctly identify the missing waitlist backend as a blocker. Neither provides observable execution evidence for its claimed tests. B additionally misstates that its privacy link is beside the form; it is in the footer. A\u2019s report is more concise and its delivered result more usable, although neither is fully launch-ready."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"specific title","note":"Both provide specific AcmeFlow finance-approval titles.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"meta description","note":"Both include relevant product descriptions.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"privacy link","note":"A links privacy.html in the footer; B has no privacy link.","skill":10,"base":0},{"criterion":"privacy page","note":"A supplies a substantive policy, but processor, retention, and contact practices still require confirmation. B supplies none.","skill":8,"base":0},{"criterion":"email validation","note":"Both implement required email validity checks and invalid-field feedback. A's script fails to load in the supplied render; neither provides server-side validation.","skill":8,"base":9},{"criterion":"accessible status","note":"Both define polite live status regions. A's resource-loading failure prevents confirming working feedback in the rendered context.","skill":8,"base":10},{"criterion":"no exposed secret","note":"Both remove the credential from browser code and submission payloads.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"error state","note":"Both catch non-2xx and network failures and restore the button. A has the script-loading limitation; B's client-only honeypot branch still reports success without submission.","skill":8,"base":9}],"overall_skill":74,"overall_base":70,"summary":"A covers all eight rubric requirements; B omits both the privacy link and privacy page. Both remove the credential from client code and implement email validation, live status feedback, and HTTP/network error handling. Neither supplies the waitlist backend, and both disclose that blocker. A's delivered page renders unstyled with resource-loading errors, and its social image contains clipped, garbled headline text. Root-relative asset paths can work under HTTP, so these renders do not prove every hosting configuration fails. B renders cleanly. A's report incorrectly says the privacy link is beside the form; it is in the footer. Verification claims in both reports lack observable execution records. A wins narrowly for more complete launch requirements despite substantial presentation defects."}],"_base_attempt_id":"saas-waitlist-base-s1","_skill_attempt_id":"saas-waitlist-skill-s1"},{"sample":2,"skill_overall":67.5,"base_overall":70.0,"skill_rubric":85.625,"base_rubric":71.875,"pref":0,"order_votes":[-1,1],"judgments":[{"order":"base_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"specific title","note":"Both provide a specific AcmeFlow finance-approvals title.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"meta description","note":"Both include relevant product descriptions.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"privacy link","note":"A has none. B includes form and footer links, although root-relative navigation depends on the hosting context.","skill":8,"base":0},{"criterion":"privacy page","note":"B supplies a page, but its contact mechanism remains incomplete and operational promises are unverified.","skill":7,"base":0},{"criterion":"email validation","note":"Both implement required email validation in JavaScript. B's missing script in the supplied render undermines validation because its form disables native submission validation.","skill":6,"base":10},{"criterion":"accessible status","note":"Both define polite live status regions and associate them with the email input; B's rendered resource failure prevents confidence in dynamic announcements.","skill":7,"base":9},{"criterion":"no exposed secret","note":"Neither delivered script contains or submits the original credential.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"error state","note":"Both scripts handle network and non-2xx failures with retry messaging. A's script reference resolves in the delivered context; B's failure UI depends on a script that fails to load there.","skill":5,"base":9}],"overall_skill":62,"overall_base":73,"summary":"A delivers a styled, coherent landing page and working client-side validation, loading, success, and failure handling, but omits both a privacy link and privacy page. B supplies those privacy elements and more supporting pages, but its delivered desktop and mobile renders are unstyled, expose the honeypot field, and report missing resources. B uses root-relative asset paths, which can work on an HTTP host but fail in the supplied rendering context; its claimed browser verification therefore does not establish that the delivered result works. Both remove the exposed credential and correctly identify the absent waitlist backend as a blocker. A's report is concise and acknowledges its browser-testing limitation; B overstates frontend readiness and includes privacy commitments unsupported by the supplied inputs."},{"order":"skill_first","criteria":[{"criterion":"specific title","note":"Both provide an AcmeFlow-specific title describing finance approvals.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"meta description","note":"Both include relevant product descriptions.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"privacy link","note":"A links its privacy page beside the form and in the footer; B has no privacy link.","skill":10,"base":0},{"criterion":"privacy page","note":"A supplies a substantive but provisional policy with an unresolved contact route; B supplies none.","skill":7,"base":0},{"criterion":"email validation","note":"Both implement required email inputs and explicit client-side validity checks; server-side validation remains unavailable.","skill":9,"base":9},{"criterion":"accessible status","note":"Both include polite live status regions and associated input descriptions. B also announces sending and sets aria-busy.","skill":9,"base":9},{"criterion":"no exposed secret","note":"The supplied launch code removes the original credential and excludes it from requests.","skill":10,"base":10},{"criterion":"error state","note":"Both catch network and non-2xx failures, show retry guidance, and restore the submit button. Neither provides an operational backend.","skill":9,"base":9}],"overall_skill":73,"overall_base":67,"summary":"A covers all eight rubric requirements, including a linked privacy page; B omits both the privacy link and page. Both remove the exposed credential, validate email, provide live status and recoverable errors, and acknowledge that the waitlist backend is missing. A\u2019s supplied desktop and mobile renders are unstyled and expose the honeypot field; root-relative asset paths explain the file-render failures, though they can work on a root-hosted website. Its report\u2019s claims of clean rendered layouts are not corroborated by the supplied images or action trace. B\u2019s rendered sections are substantially more polished, with slight horizontal overflow, and its report appropriately distinguishes source review from browser testing. Neither completes a working waitlist. A\u2019s privacy text also remains provisional, lacking a usable dedicated contact and asserting unverified operational practices. A wins narrowly for more complete launch essentials."}],"_base_attempt_id":"saas-waitlist-base-s2","_skill_attempt_id":"saas-waitlist-skill-s2"}]}]}