{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "case_id": "policy",
  "date": "2026-11-11",
  "scope": "Textual source-fidelity review, not a readability benchmark or cross-runtime compatibility test",
  "path_base": "repository_root",
  "fact_ledger": {
    "id": "policy",
    "genre": {
      "en": "Transport-policy evaluation memo",
      "ko": "교통정책 평가 메모"
    },
    "topic": {
      "en": "What MTA's December 17, 2025 board presentation supports about congestion pricing, and what evidence remains necessary",
      "ko": "MTA의 2025년 12월 17일 이사회 발표 자료로 확인할 수 있는 혼잡통행료 관련 주장과 추가로 필요한 근거"
    },
    "audience": {
      "en": "A transport-policy reviewer deciding what further evidence to request",
      "ko": "추가로 요청할 근거를 판단하는 교통정책 검토자"
    },
    "source_mode": "source_based",
    "sources": [
      {
        "id": "MTA2025",
        "url": "https://www.mta.info/document/194491",
        "locator": "2025 in Data, title page identifying the December 17, 2025 board update, and page 13",
        "rights": "MTA reserves rights. Only attributed facts inform these original drafts. No slides, figures, tables, slogans, or substantial wording are reproduced. Citation is not a reuse license."
      },
      {
        "id": "MTATERMS",
        "url": "https://www.mta.info/terms-and-conditions",
        "locator": "Website license restrictions, reservation of rights, and Copyrights and permissions",
        "rights": "The website terms limit the stated license to non-commercial personal use and prohibit commercial use. They do not grant this project a general reproduction license."
      },
      {
        "id": "MTACOPYRIGHT",
        "url": "https://www.mta.info/copyright-notice",
        "locator": "Copyright notice, updated January 1, 2020, reservation of rights and document-specific proprietary notices",
        "rights": "All rights reserved. Third-party materials do not become MIT-licensed through attribution or inclusion in the project's source notes."
      }
    ],
    "facts": [
      {
        "id": "P01",
        "kind": "reported_fact",
        "en": "The memo addresses page 13 of MTA's 2025 in Data presentation to its board on December 17, 2025. The selected traffic and PM2.5 figures are MTA's reported claims, not measurements made by the memo author.",
        "ko": "메모의 검토 대상은 MTA가 2025년 12월 17일 이사회에 발표한 2025 in Data의 13쪽이다. 선택한 교통 및 PM2.5 수치는 메모 작성자가 측정한 결과가 아니라 MTA가 보고한 주장이다.",
        "source_ids": [
          "MTA2025"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "P02",
        "kind": "reported_fact",
        "en": "MTA reports 11% fewer vehicle entries into the central business district, or CBD, and 71,000 fewer per day. Entry counts must not be restated as unique cars or vehicle-miles. The rounded figures do not establish an exact baseline count.",
        "ko": "MTA는 중심업무지구인 CBD의 차량 진입 건수가 11%, 하루 71,000건 줄었다고 보고한다. 진입 건수를 고유 차량 수나 차량 주행거리로 바꿔 표현해서는 안 된다. 반올림된 수치로 정확한 기준 진입 건수를 확정할 수 없다.",
        "source_ids": [
          "MTA2025"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "P03",
        "kind": "reported_fact",
        "en": "Page 13 does not specify the vehicle-entry observation and comparison periods or how the baseline was constructed. These remain unknown in the memo.",
        "ko": "13쪽에는 차량 진입 건수의 관측기간과 비교기간, 기준치 산정 방식이 명시되어 있지 않다. 메모에서도 이를 미상으로 남긴다.",
        "source_ids": [
          "MTA2025"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "P04",
        "kind": "reported_fact",
        "en": "MTA reports a 4.3% increase in car speeds within the CBD, not a 4.3% reduction in travel time. Page 13 does not specify absolute speeds, weighting, hours covered, measurement provider, baseline, or observation and comparison periods.",
        "ko": "MTA는 CBD 내 승용차 통행속도가 4.3% 증가했다고 보고한다. 이는 통행시간이 4.3% 줄었다는 뜻이 아니다. 13쪽에는 절대 속도, 가중 방식, 포함 시간대, 측정기관, 기준치, 관측기간과 비교기간이 명시되어 있지 않다.",
        "source_ids": [
          "MTA2025"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "P05",
        "kind": "reported_fact",
        "en": "MTA reports a 22% PM2.5 reduction in the first six months and credits Cornell University, 2025. This concentration claim does not establish a 22% reduction in emissions, all pollutants, or individual exposure.",
        "ko": "MTA는 첫 6개월간 PM2.5가 22% 감소했다고 보고하며 Cornell University, 2025를 출처로 제시한다. 이 농도 관련 주장만으로 배출량, 모든 오염물질 또는 개인별 노출이 22% 감소했다고 볼 수 없다.",
        "source_ids": [
          "MTA2025"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "P06",
        "kind": "reported_fact",
        "en": "The slide places its air-quality claim under a Congestion Relief Zone heading but does not specify exact study dates, the concentration statistic, the percentage denominator, or detailed geographic coverage. The memo does not generalize 22% citywide or infer a common full-year comparison for all metrics from the presentation title.",
        "ko": "슬라이드는 혼잡통행료 적용 구역인 Congestion Relief Zone을 다루는 제목 아래 대기질 주장을 제시하지만, 정확한 연구 날짜, 농도 통계량, 백분율의 분모, 상세한 지리적 범위는 명시하지 않는다. 메모는 22%를 뉴욕시 전체에 일반화하거나 발표 제목만으로 모든 지표가 동일한 연간 비교에 해당한다고 추정하지 않는다.",
        "source_ids": [
          "MTA2025"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "P07",
        "kind": "author_judgment",
        "en": "The memo author treats this implementing agency's summary as a record of attributed claims, not independent causal proof of the policy's effects.",
        "ko": "메모 작성자는 시행기관의 요약을 출처가 명시된 주장에 대한 기록으로 다루며, 정책 효과에 대한 독립적인 인과적 입증으로 보지 않는다.",
        "source_ids": [
          "MTA2025"
        ]
      },
      {
        "id": "P08",
        "kind": "author_judgment",
        "en": "The memo author requests the traffic series and calculation methods, missing periods and baselines, and the underlying air-quality study's geography, statistic, counterfactual method, and uncertainty, for independent review. This is the memo author's evidence request, not MTA's recommendation or a recommendation to repeal or expand congestion pricing.",
        "ko": "메모 작성자는 독립적인 검토를 위해 교통 시계열과 계산 방식, 누락된 기간과 기준치, 대기질 원연구의 지역 범위·통계량·정책 미시행 시의 추정 방식·불확실성을 요청한다. 이는 메모 작성자의 근거 요청이며, MTA의 권고도 혼잡통행료 폐지나 확대 권고도 아니다.",
        "source_ids": []
      }
    ],
    "review_checks": [
      {
        "id": "policy-attribution",
        "en": "Both drafts retain MTA, the board-update date, page 13, and the Cornell attribution beside the PM2.5 claim. Neither presents the figures as the memo author's measurements.",
        "ko": "두 초안 모두 MTA, 이사회 발표 날짜, 13쪽을 유지하며 PM2.5 주장에 Cornell 출처를 붙인다. 수치를 메모 작성자의 측정값으로 제시하지 않는다."
      },
      {
        "id": "policy-entries",
        "en": "Both drafts preserve 11% and 71,000 fewer entries per day into the CBD, unknown entry periods and baseline construction, and the prohibition on inferring unique cars, vehicle-miles, or an exact baseline from rounded figures.",
        "ko": "두 초안 모두 CBD 차량 진입 건수 11% 및 하루 71,000건 감소, 미상인 기간과 기준치 산정 방식, 고유 차량 수·주행거리·정확한 기준 진입 건수로의 변환 불가를 유지한다."
      },
      {
        "id": "policy-speed",
        "en": "Both drafts preserve the 4.3% CBD car-speed increase, all listed measurement unknowns, and the distinction from a same-percentage travel-time reduction.",
        "ko": "두 초안 모두 CBD 승용차 통행속도 4.3% 증가, 열거된 측정 관련 미상 항목, 같은 비율의 통행시간 감소와의 구분을 유지한다."
      },
      {
        "id": "policy-pm-scope",
        "en": "Both drafts preserve 22%, the attributed first-six-month wording, the slide's zone context, and unknown exact dates, statistic, denominator, and detailed geography. Neither substitutes emissions, all pollution, individual exposure, or a citywide result.",
        "ko": "두 초안 모두 22%, 출처가 명시된 첫 6개월 표현, 슬라이드의 구역 맥락, 미상인 정확한 날짜·통계량·분모·상세 지역을 유지한다. 배출량·모든 오염·개인별 노출·뉴욕시 전체 결과로 바꾸지 않는다."
      },
      {
        "id": "policy-evidence-not-decision",
        "en": "Both drafts reject a shared full-year inference and independent causal proof from the slide alone. The evidence request remains the memo author's proposal, not an MTA request, a completed review, or a repeal or expansion decision. No unselected study findings or correction details are added.",
        "ko": "두 초안 모두 슬라이드만으로 공통 연간 비교나 독립적인 인과적 입증을 도출하지 않는다. 근거 요청은 메모 작성자의 제안으로 남고 MTA의 요청, 완료된 검토, 폐지·확대 결정으로 바뀌지 않는다. 선택하지 않은 원연구 결과나 정정 세부사항을 추가하지 않는다."
      }
    ]
  },
  "source_notes": {
    "path": "examples/professional/policy/sources.md",
    "sha256": "272d772c5492feb2e134c1d0041b611669760a330860ccd608b8440ab4c51e08",
    "text": "# Policy source packet\n\n## Topic, reader, and purpose\n\nThis is an original transport-policy evaluation memo for a professional reviewer deciding what evidence to request about New York congestion pricing. Its bounded question is what page 13 of MTA's December 17, 2025 board presentation reports about vehicle entries, car speeds, and PM2.5, and what the slide does not establish. The case ID is `policy`.\n\nThe drafts are project-authored first drafts, not excerpts from MTA and not native skill outputs. Their evidence request is the original memo author's stated proposal. MTA is not credited with that proposal. Neither draft recommends repeal, expansion, replication elsewhere, or a decision on the program's overall merits. The implemented program is not described as a trial.\n\n## Sources used\n\n- `MTA2025`. [MTA, 2025 in Data](https://www.mta.info/document/194491). The title page identifies the board update as December 17, 2025. Page 13 supplies the selected entry, speed, and PM2.5 claims and the Cornell University, 2025 attribution. The slide's Congestion Relief Zone heading supplies context, not a detailed geographic definition for every metric. The source was read directly for this packet.\n- `MTATERMS`. [MTA website terms and conditions](https://www.mta.info/terms-and-conditions). The website license states non-commercial personal use, prohibits commercial use, and reserves rights. The sections on materials and permissions do not establish a general reproduction license for this project. This source supports the rights note, not a policy-outcome claim.\n- `MTACOPYRIGHT`. [MTA copyright notice](https://www.mta.info/copyright-notice). The notice is marked updated January 1, 2020. It reserves rights and warns that individual documents may have their own proprietary notices. This source also supports only the rights note.\n\n## Selected facts and bilingual coverage\n\nThe eight selected records in `facts.json` are the complete preservation target for both drafts. The earlier planning ledger is not an additional set of mandatory draft facts.\n\n| Fact | English draft location | Korean draft location |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| P01 | First results paragraph identifies MTA, the board date, presentation, and page. The next two paragraphs keep MTA attribution. | 첫 결과 문단에 기관·이사회 날짜·자료명·쪽수를 적고, 이어지는 두 문단에서도 MTA 귀속을 유지한다. |\n| P02 | First results paragraph retains both entry figures and the limits on interpreting counts and rounded values. | 첫 결과 문단에 두 진입 수치와 건수·반올림 해석의 한계를 적는다. |\n| P03 | First results paragraph ends with the unknown entry periods and baseline construction. | 첫 결과 문단 끝에 진입 지표의 미상 기간과 기준치 산정 방식을 적는다. |\n| P04 | Second results paragraph retains the speed figure, travel-time distinction, and all measurement unknowns. | 둘째 결과 문단에 속도 수치·통행시간과의 구분·측정 관련 미상 항목을 적는다. |\n| P05 | Third results paragraph retains 22%, first six months, Cornell attribution, and the concentration limits. | 셋째 결과 문단에 22%·첫 6개월·Cornell 귀속·농도 해석의 한계를 적는다. |\n| P06 | Third results paragraph retains the zone context, unspecified study definitions, no citywide inference, and no shared full-year inference. | 셋째 결과 문단에 구역 맥락·연구 정의의 미상 항목·시 전체 및 공통 연간 비교 추정의 제한을 적는다. |\n| P07 | Evidence section states the author's judgment that the summary is not independent causal proof. | 근거 요청 절에 독립적인 인과적 입증이 아니라는 작성자의 판단을 적는다. |\n| P08 | Evidence section states the requested materials and expressly excludes MTA authorship and repeal or expansion advice. | 근거 요청 절에 요청 자료와 작성자 귀속을 적고 MTA 권고 및 폐지·확대 권고가 아님을 밝힌다. |\n\nThe source-packet authoring review compared the written draft content against these eight records. Both languages retain the same quantities, unknowns, qualifications, and proposal strength. This is a source-authoring check, not a native-output or readability assessment.\n\n## Metric and condition checks\n\n- Entries retain the CBD geography and the daily unit for 71,000. Neither a unique-vehicle population nor vehicle-miles can be recovered from entry counts. Dividing a rounded daily reduction by a rounded percentage would not establish an exact baseline. No calculated baseline is supplied.\n- The entry observation period, comparison period, and baseline construction remain unknown from page 13. They do not inherit the PM2.5 first-six-month window or a full-year window from the presentation title.\n- Speed retains the CBD geography and the 4.3% increase. A percentage change in speed is not the same percentage change in travel time. The draft does not introduce an absolute speed, fixed trip distance, weighting rule, observation period, comparison period, hours, baseline, or measurement provider.\n- PM2.5 retains MTA's 22% and attributed first-six-month wording. The slide does not state the exact study dates, concentration statistic, percentage denominator, or detailed study geography. The memo does not substitute a prior-year denominator or a modeled denominator. It requests those definitions.\n- The slide's zone heading does not license a citywide conclusion or establish that CBD and the study's geographic sample are identical. No tolling map or road-exclusion list is supplied.\n- No percentage is changed to percentage points. Concentration is not emissions, all pollution, or individual exposure. The agency summary is not recast as an independent causal evaluation.\n- P07 and P08 are identified as `author_judgment`. The requested independent review has not been performed by this packet, and the request does not express a repeal or expansion decision.\n\n## Background leads not selected for the memo\n\nThe previous plan named the following possible follow-up materials.\n\n- [Fraser and colleagues, npj Clean Air](https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2).\n- [Cornell's account of the study](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2025/12/congestion-pricing-improved-air-quality-nyc-and-suburbs).\n- [The article's correction page](https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00047-0).\n\nThese are background leads from planning, not sources used to establish additional results in this packet. The earlier plan raised date, study-window, and correction questions. This production packet does not claim to resolve those questions or repeat a correction date or correction-content claim. It deliberately preserves the board slide's attribution and its unspecified details instead. Resolving the underlying study is unnecessary for a memo that requests that evidence rather than endorses its causal result.\n\nThe unselected material includes modeled concentration differences and denominators, monitor counts, monitor-day counts, regional results, exact study dates, model limitations, and correction details. None is a hidden preservation requirement for these drafts. No health, equity, displacement, long-term persistence, revenue, ridership, or net-welfare conclusion is made. Page 13's separate noise-complaint and visit claims are also outside the selected question.\n\n## Rights boundaries\n\nThe drafts independently express attributed facts and the memo author's reasoning. They do not reuse the slide, its graphics, tables, promotional headings, or substantial wording. No MTA or Cornell logo, image, screenshot, or figure is included.\n\nMTA's government-adjacent status is not evidence of public-domain status. The project's license can cover project-authored prose and packet structure, not third-party source material merely because it is cited. The MTA terms and copyright notice reserve rights, and citation does not establish permission for commercial reuse or reproduction. Any proposed reproduction or use requiring permission needs a separate rights review before publication. This packet records no permission grant. It also makes no license claim about the background paper, its correction, or Cornell news material.\n\n## Terminology and editorial rationale\n\n| English | Korean | Meaning to preserve |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Vehicle entries | 차량 진입 건수 | Counts of entry events, not a count of unique cars. |\n| Central business district, CBD | 중심업무지구, CBD | The geography explicitly attached to the entry and speed claims. |\n| Congestion Relief Zone | 혼잡통행료 적용 구역 | The slide's zone context, not a substituted study-sample definition. |\n| Car speed | 승용차 통행속도 | Not travel time. |\n| PM2.5 concentration | PM2.5 농도 | Not emissions or personal exposure. |\n| Percentage denominator | 백분율의 분모 | Unknown on the slide, not silently filled from another source. |\n| Counterfactual method | 정책 미시행 시의 추정 방식 | A requested method, not a validated result in this memo. |\n| Independent causal proof | 독립적인 인과적 입증 | Not established by citing an implementing agency's summary. |\n\nThe drafts use metric-by-metric paragraphs followed by an evidence request. Some qualifications and unknowns are grouped after the reported values, as in a working memo. The edit can change their ordering without importing a full research review or converting the memo into a policy verdict.\n\n## Recorded outputs\n\nThe [English attempt](../../../verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en/attempt.json) and [Korean attempt](../../../verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko/attempt.json) record actual requests, model, package hashes and observed reference reads. The [fidelity review](review.md) checks P01–P08 against the unchanged outputs.\n"
  },
  "initial_review": {
    "path": "examples/professional/policy/review.json",
    "json": {
      "case_id": "policy",
      "scope": "Independent agent review of input parity and textual source fidelity; not human comprehension",
      "source_parity": {
        "status": "pass",
        "issues": []
      },
      "languages": {
        "en": {
          "status": "pass",
          "attempt": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en/attempt.json",
          "output_sha256": "2efa5820352c7e314ae4c71f0434927c0949e77bbf337ac8ea3005dfd73a46d7",
          "facts": [
            {
              "id": "P01",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The introduction retains MTA, December 17, 2025, the board presentation title and page 13. It explicitly attributes all three table results to that presentation rather than to the memo author's measurements."
            },
            {
              "id": "P02",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The first table row retains 11% fewer CBD vehicle entries and 71,000 fewer per day, explicitly distinguishes entries from unique cars and vehicle-miles, and says rounded figures cannot establish an exact baseline count."
            },
            {
              "id": "P03",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The entry row identifies observation and comparison periods and baseline construction as unspecified on the slide. It supplies no inferred dates or baseline."
            },
            {
              "id": "P04",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The speed row retains the 4.3% increase in CBD car speeds, rejects an equal-percentage travel-time decrease, and retains every unknown: absolute speeds, weighting, hours covered, measurement provider, baseline, and observation and comparison periods."
            },
            {
              "id": "P05",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The PM2.5 row retains MTA's attributed 22% first-six-month claim and Cornell University, 2025 credit. It preserves the concentration distinction and the exclusions of a 22% reduction in emissions, all pollutants or individual exposure."
            },
            {
              "id": "P06",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The table preserves unspecified exact study dates, concentration statistic, percentage denominator and detailed geography. The following paragraph retains the Congestion Relief Zone heading context and rejects a common full-year comparison inferred from the title. The table explicitly rejects a citywide generalization."
            },
            {
              "id": "P07",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The author's first-person judgment still treats the implementing agency's summary as a record of attributed claims, not independent causal proof of policy effects."
            },
            {
              "id": "P08",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The author's evidence request retains traffic series, calculation methods, missing periods and baselines, and the underlying air-quality study's geography, statistic, counterfactual method and uncertainty. The closing sentence excludes MTA authorship and repeal or expansion advice. It does not claim that independent review has occurred."
            }
          ],
          "issues": []
        },
        "ko": {
          "status": "pass",
          "attempt": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko/attempt.json",
          "output_sha256": "909188e7c67127b505a8e94261d32cf678ad38556b8a7e00c228fa5da051e9a9",
          "facts": [
            {
              "id": "P01",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The first metric paragraph retains MTA, the December 17, 2025 board presentation, 2025 in Data and page 13. All three metric paragraphs explicitly identify MTA as the reporting agency, not the memo author as the measurer."
            },
            {
              "id": "P02",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The vehicle-entry paragraph retains the CBD, 11% and 하루 71,000건 reductions. It explicitly distinguishes 진입 건수 from 고유 차량 수 and 차량 주행거리 and rejects an exact baseline count inferred from rounded values."
            },
            {
              "id": "P03",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The entry paragraph preserves the unspecified observation period, comparison period and baseline construction without supplying a date range or baseline."
            },
            {
              "id": "P04",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The speed paragraph retains the 4.3% CBD car-speed increase and explicitly rejects a 4.3% travel-time reduction. It preserves all unknowns: absolute speed, weighting, included hours, measurement provider, baseline, observation period and comparison period."
            },
            {
              "id": "P05",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The PM2.5 paragraph retains MTA's report, Cornell University, 2025 attribution, 첫 6개월간 and 22%. It retains the concentration limitation and does not assert a corresponding reduction in emissions, all pollutants or individual exposure."
            },
            {
              "id": "P06",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The PM2.5 paragraph retains the Congestion Relief Zone heading context and unspecified exact dates, concentration statistic, percentage denominator and detailed geographic coverage. It explicitly rejects generalization to all New York City and an inferred shared annual comparison."
            },
            {
              "id": "P07",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The first-person judgment preserves the distinction between an implementing agency's attributed claims and independent causal proof of the policy's effects."
            },
            {
              "id": "P08",
              "status": "pass",
              "note": "The request retains traffic time series and calculation methods, missing observation and comparison periods and baselines, and the underlying air-quality study's geography, statistic, counterfactual method and uncertainty. The closing sentences preserve author ownership and explicitly exclude MTA advice and repeal or expansion advice. No completed review is asserted."
            }
          ],
          "issues": []
        }
      }
    },
    "markdown": {
      "path": "examples/professional/policy/review.md",
      "sha256": "5c4d0bf022c87a55aa5c2dccb9a0a55d5ab78771849d436bf81d134aded618f5",
      "text": "# Policy input and source-fidelity review\n\nThe review checks whether both native revisions preserve the policy memo's evidence request and selected claims. Input parity passes. English passes P01 through P08. Korean passes P01 through P08. No consequential textual source-fidelity issue was found.\n\n## Evidence examined\n\nI examined both complete source drafts, the current `facts.json`, `sources.md`, the frozen `remaining-run/policy/facts.json`, and both languages' complete `request.md`, `output.md` and `attempt.json` under `verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/`.\n\nThe current and frozen fact ledgers are structurally identical. Each request embeds its corresponding current source draft exactly. SHA-256 values calculated from both source drafts, requests and outputs match the corresponding attempt records. The inspected output hashes are:\n\n- English `2efa5820352c7e314ae4c71f0434927c0949e77bbf337ac8ea3005dfd73a46d7`.\n- Korean `909188e7c67127b505a8e94261d32cf678ad38556b8a7e00c228fa5da051e9a9`.\n\nBoth attempts record native Claude Code runtime `2.1.322 (Claude Code)`, requested and observed model `claude-sonnet-5-5`, `capture_status` of `captured`, exit code 0 and no provider errors. Both record `manifest_read: true` with a successful MANIFEST tool-read entry. Korean also records `korean_reference_read: true` with a successful Korean-reference tool-read entry. English records that reference as unread, which is not a missing Korean-language prerequisite for its English revision. These observations come from the published derived tool-read evidence in the attempt records, not a fresh inspection of private raw initialization events. Capture success and the records' `fidelity_status: not_reviewed` are not fidelity verdicts.\n\n## Findings\n\nThe English and Korean inputs carry equivalent selected facts, attribution, exclusions, unknowns and author judgments. Neither supplies a hidden denominator, exact baseline, shared annual comparison or independent causal finding. The memo's attribution and the author's request have the same strength in both languages.\n\nBoth revisions retain MTA, the board date, title and page 13. They preserve the CBD entry reductions of 11% and 71,000 per day as entry counts, not unique cars or vehicle-miles. They preserve the rounded-baseline limitation and unknown observation and comparison periods and baseline construction.\n\nBoth retain the 4.3% CBD car-speed increase without converting it into a 4.3% travel-time decrease. Absolute speed, weighting, hours, measurement provider, baseline and periods remain unspecified.\n\nBoth retain the attributed 22% PM2.5 first-six-month claim and Cornell University, 2025 credit. They retain the concentration limitation, the Congestion Relief Zone heading context, and unknown study dates, statistic, denominator and detailed geography. Neither substitutes emissions, all pollutants, personal exposure or a citywide result. Neither infers a common full-year comparison from the title.\n\nThe author's distinction between agency summary and independent causal proof remains explicit. The requested traffic data, calculation methods, periods, baselines and underlying study definitions and uncertainty remain requested evidence. Neither revision converts the request into MTA advice, a completed independent review, or a repeal or expansion decision.\n\nThe English table and Korean metric labels are legitimate restructuring. Review of the complete outputs found no added study findings, correction specifics, policy outcomes or guarantees. Unselected Cornell study and correction details were not preservation requirements.\n\nOnly text and evidence review was performed. This was not a native rerun, external validation of MTA's reported results, a reader study or a comprehension benchmark. No build, lint, test or formatter was run. Source drafts, native outputs and historical evidence were not changed.\n"
    }
  },
  "initial_run": {
    "manifest_path": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/manifest.json",
    "metadata": {
      "scope": "Native professional writing examples, not a readability benchmark",
      "source": "Working-tree package snapshot; not a claim of GitHub default-branch availability",
      "base_commit": "a0d872b26fe32942e4e5be6080735352b771bddd",
      "runtime": "2.1.322 (Claude Code)",
      "model": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
      "package_sha256": {
        "SKILL.md": "8d37ce712ab2eee77f942bc62d2b38167a0d4b4ce62c5fa7a6a9f6f9c10b6699",
        "MANIFEST.md": "d9d0e6ecded683bc7bd491b22bf7b707500bf7c132d23049a30f9303b8281ae1",
        "LICENSE": "0b3028bbef0f1c2ff27877b3dfca784d9d2c8c476f447678eea29834046ae4ce",
        "NOTICE.md": "2c320bc687fe7961812e427ddd35aa3067dce245bf749734a466a3694eed73d2",
        "agents/openai.yaml": "4ec3dc6030df054e84787b9ba51729936087384522fb502b8344ffdbc2425cce",
        "references/korean.md": "e4db3c4cc65e7965b4eff7daf5cee36480a73d6fa1feb707279e2a12ac4ee149",
        "references/language-support.md": "7439f6abaa48ac5226a1f3d4dd8ba4c91609029225d70fc169c1c9b9fc6d3f51"
      },
      "fidelity_status": "not_reviewed"
    },
    "records": [
      {
        "case_id": "policy",
        "language": "en",
        "capture_status": "captured",
        "fidelity_status": "not_reviewed",
        "path": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en"
      },
      {
        "case_id": "policy",
        "language": "ko",
        "capture_status": "captured",
        "fidelity_status": "not_reviewed",
        "path": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko"
      }
    ],
    "runner_sha256": "78170a67fac79639b483f183b9d80a49e6a92fc9413e8fa3abcb72c65a26ab0e"
  },
  "project_terms": {
    "license": {
      "path": "LICENSE",
      "sha256": "0b3028bbef0f1c2ff27877b3dfca784d9d2c8c476f447678eea29834046ae4ce",
      "text": "MIT License\n\nCopyright (c) 2026 Hyunbin Jang\n\nPermission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy\nof this software and associated documentation files (the \"Software\"), to deal\nin the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights\nto use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell\ncopies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is\nfurnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:\n\nThe above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all\ncopies or substantial portions of the Software.\n\nTHE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED \"AS IS\", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR\nIMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,\nFITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE\nAUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER\nLIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,\nOUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE\nSOFTWARE.\n"
    },
    "notice": {
      "path": "NOTICE.md",
      "sha256": "2c320bc687fe7961812e427ddd35aa3067dce245bf749734a466a3694eed73d2",
      "text": "# Notice\n\nCopyright (c) 2026 Hyunbin Jang\n\n[English](#english) · [한국어](#한국어)\n\n## English\n\nThis notice covers the human-readable-writing repository at <https://github.com/JangHyun-bin/human-readable-writing>. It also covers the installable skill directory, `skills/human-readable-writing/`, including copies installed from it. The repository root and that directory contain the same notice and [LICENSE](LICENSE). This notice is provided in English and Korean.\n\n### License for this project\n\nThe material written for this project is licensed under the MIT License in [LICENSE](LICENSE). This material includes the skill instructions, writing guidance, documentation, hypothetical examples, scripts, and evaluation tasks. The writing guidance is the project's own work, based on ideas from the research cited below.\n\nThe MIT License covers only the project's own material. It does not apply to the following, and this project does not relicense them:\n\n- Quotations from third-party works, including the papers listed below. Each quotation keeps the terms that apply to its source.\n- The cited works themselves, including their text, figures, data, and code. They keep the licenses recorded below or the terms set by their rights holders.\n\nThis notice also records the sources and use of the original paper. It does not apply the paper's CC BY 4.0 license to all of the separately written code, guidance, and evaluation material.\n\n### Model outputs in research records\n\nSome files in this project contain or adapt text generated by AI models and coding-agent tools. The research records in [`research/`](https://github.com/JangHyun-bin/human-readable-writing/tree/main/research) and [`VALIDATION.md`](https://github.com/JangHyun-bin/human-readable-writing/blob/main/VALIDATION.md) keep such outputs as evidence. The MIT License applies to these outputs only to the extent that the copyright holder has rights in them. This notice does not claim unrestricted rights to every recorded or adapted output. Terms set by the model and tool providers may also apply.\n\n### Original paper\n\n- Title: *Why is AI-generated language so hard to understand?*\n- Authors: Thomas Hikaru Clark, Matias B. Martin, Kyle Mahowald\n- Version: arXiv:2610.29162v1, submitted on 2026-10-21\n- Source: [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29162v1)\n- License of the original paper: [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)\n- Checked: 2026-10-27. The `view license` link for that arXiv version pointed to CC BY 4.0.\n\nFor the license terms of the original paper, see the [CC BY 4.0 legal code](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en).\n\n### Use of and changes to the paper\n\nThis project summarizes and interprets the paper's findings in Korean. It builds separate writing guidance, hypothetical examples, and evaluation tasks from those findings. The quotations and research findings that the repository's analysis documents take from the paper are attributed to the paper. These interpretations and the writing guidance do not mean that the paper's authors reviewed them or validated their effects.\n\nThe repository's tracked files do not include the paper's PDF, figures, TeX source, research code, or original corpus. The benchmark scripts, hypothetical tasks, and recorded model responses were written or collected separately for this project.\n\nExpressions reused from the paper, and the changes made to them, follow the paper's license terms. This attribution does not mean that the paper's authors approve, sponsor, or endorse this repository.\n\n### Follow-up references, 2026-10-29\n\nThe detailed sources for the follow-up research notes are recorded in the [related literature notes](https://github.com/JangHyun-bin/human-readable-writing/blob/main/research/related-literature.md), in Korean. The following two key works are available under a different license from the original Clark paper.\n\n| Work | Source and license checked |\n|---|---|\n| Martínez, Mollica & Gibson (2022), a study of reading legal text | [Publisher PDF](https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/256304933/Poor_Writing_MARTINEZ_DOA17022022_VOR_CC_BY_NC_ND.pdf), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 |\n| Reinhart et al. (2025), a comparison of LLM writing styles | [arXiv v2](https://arxiv.org/html/2410.16107v2), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 |\n\nEach license above applies to its own source. The CC BY 4.0 license of the original Clark paper does not extend to the other references. The follow-up notes summarize and interpret research findings and add separately written hypothetical examples. This repository does not include the original PDFs, figures, research code, or original corpora of these works. The notes do not mean that the papers' authors reviewed, approved, or validated them.\n\n## 한국어\n\n이 notice는 <https://github.com/JangHyun-bin/human-readable-writing> repository에 적용된다. 설치용 skill directory인 `skills/human-readable-writing/`과 이 directory에서 설치한 사본에도 적용된다. Repository root와 이 directory에는 같은 notice와 [LICENSE](LICENSE)가 있다. 이 notice는 영어와 한국어로 제공된다.\n\n### 이 project의 license\n\n이 project를 위해 작성한 자료에는 [LICENSE](LICENSE)의 MIT License를 적용한다. 이 자료에는 skill 지침, 작성 지침, 문서, 가상 예시, script, 평가 과제가 포함된다. 작성 지침은 아래 연구의 착안을 바탕으로 이 project에서 직접 작성한 것이다.\n\nMIT License는 이 project의 자료에만 적용된다. 다음 자료에는 적용되지 않으며, 이 project가 다시 license하지 않는다.\n\n- 아래 논문을 포함한 제3자 저작물의 인용문. 각 인용문은 해당 출처에 적용되는 조건을 따른다.\n- 인용한 저작물 자체와 그 본문·figure·data·code. 아래에 기록한 license 또는 권리자가 정한 조건을 따른다.\n\n이 notice는 원논문에 대한 출처와 이용 내역을 명시한다. 별도로 작성한 code·지침·평가 자료 전체에 CC BY 4.0을 일괄 적용하는 선언은 아니다.\n\n### 연구 기록의 model 출력\n\n이 project의 일부 file은 AI model과 coding agent 도구가 생성한 text를 포함하거나 각색해 사용한다. [`research/`](https://github.com/JangHyun-bin/human-readable-writing/tree/main/research)와 [`VALIDATION.md`](https://github.com/JangHyun-bin/human-readable-writing/blob/main/VALIDATION.md)의 연구 기록은 이러한 출력을 근거 자료로 보존한다. MIT License는 저작권자가 권리를 가진 범위에서만 이 출력에 적용된다. 이 notice는 기록하거나 각색한 모든 출력에 대해 제한 없는 권리를 주장하지 않는다. Model과 도구 제공자의 이용 조건도 적용될 수 있다.\n\n### 원논문\n\n- 제목: *Why is AI-generated language so hard to understand?*\n- 저자: Thomas Hikaru Clark, Matias B. Martin, Kyle Mahowald\n- Version: arXiv:2610.29162v1, 2026-10-21 제출\n- 원문: [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29162v1)\n- 원논문의 license: [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)\n- 확인일: 2026-10-27. 해당 arXiv version의 `view license` link가 CC BY 4.0을 가리킴을 확인하였다.\n\n원논문의 실제 license 조건은 [CC BY 4.0 legal code](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en)를 참조한다.\n\n### 이 repository의 이용과 변경\n\n원논문의 연구 결과를 한국어로 요약·해석하고, 별도의 작성 지침·가상 예시·평가 과제로 구성하였다. 분석 문서의 원문 인용과 연구 결과는 위 논문에 귀속된다. 이러한 해석과 작성 지침은 논문 저자들이 검토하거나 효과를 검증한 결과라는 의미가 아니다.\n\n현재 tracked file에는 원논문의 PDF·figure·TeX source·연구용 code·원본 corpus를 포함하지 않는다. Benchmark script와 가상 과제·실측 model 답변은 이 작업에서 별도로 작성·수집한 자료이다.\n\n원논문에서 재사용한 표현과 변경한 내용에는 원논문의 license 조건을 따른다. 위 출처 표시는 논문 저자들의 이 repository에 대한 승인·후원·보증을 의미하지 않는다.\n\n### 후속 참고문헌 — 2026-10-29\n\n후속 연구 노트의 상세 출처는 [관련 문헌](https://github.com/JangHyun-bin/human-readable-writing/blob/main/research/related-literature.md)에 기록하였다. 다음 두 핵심 문헌은 최초 Clark 논문과 다른 license로 제공된다.\n\n| 문헌 | 원문과 확인한 license |\n|---|---|\n| Martínez, Mollica & Gibson (2022), 법률 문장 독해 연구 | [Publisher PDF](https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/256304933/Poor_Writing_MARTINEZ_DOA17022022_VOR_CC_BY_NC_ND.pdf), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 |\n| Reinhart et al. (2025), LLM 문체 비교 연구 | [arXiv v2](https://arxiv.org/html/2410.16107v2), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 |\n\n위 license는 해당 원문에 관한 것이며, 최초 Clark 논문의 CC BY 4.0을 다른 참고문헌에 일괄 적용하지 않는다. 후속 노트는 연구 결과의 요약·해석과 별도로 작성한 가상 예시이며, 원문 PDF·figure·연구 code·원본 corpus를 이 repository에 포함하지 않았다. 논문 저자들의 검토·승인·효과 검증을 의미하지 않는다.\n"
    }
  },
  "languages": {
    "en": {
      "original": {
        "path": "examples/professional/policy/before.en.md",
        "sha256": "c968607873f4bf46fe963ce1777aa6a10c246835dba39186d8e86f145913db3a",
        "text": "# Evidence request on New York congestion pricing\n\nTo the transport-policy reviewer\n\n## Reported results and missing definitions\n\nPage 13 of MTA's December 17, 2025 board presentation, *2025 in Data*, reports 11% fewer vehicle entries into the central business district, or CBD, and 71,000 fewer per day. These are entry counts, not unique cars or vehicle-miles, and the rounded figures do not establish an exact baseline count. Observation and comparison periods and baseline construction are unspecified on the slide.\n\nMTA also reports car speeds within the CBD up 4.3%, which does not mean travel time fell 4.3%. Absolute speeds, weighting, hours covered, measurement provider, baseline, and observation and comparison periods are unspecified.\n\nMTA reports PM2.5 down 22% in the first six months, crediting Cornell University, 2025. The slide places this claim under a Congestion Relief Zone heading without specifying exact study dates, the concentration statistic, the percentage denominator, or detailed geographic coverage. The concentration claim does not establish a 22% reduction in emissions, all pollutants, or individual exposure, and cannot be generalized citywide. The presentation title does not establish a common full-year comparison for these metrics.\n\n## Evidence requested\n\nI treat the implementing agency's summary as a record of attributed claims, not independent causal proof of the policy's effects. For independent review, I request the traffic series and calculation methods, the missing periods and baselines, and the underlying air-quality study's geography, statistic, counterfactual method, and uncertainty. This is my request for evidence, not MTA's recommendation or a recommendation to repeal or expand congestion pricing.\n"
      },
      "initial": {
        "selection": {
          "case_id": "policy",
          "language": "en",
          "attempt": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en/attempt.json",
          "review": "examples/professional/policy/review.json",
          "revision": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en/output.md",
          "status": "pass",
          "output_sha256": "2efa5820352c7e314ae4c71f0434927c0949e77bbf337ac8ea3005dfd73a46d7"
        },
        "attempt": {
          "capture_status": "captured",
          "exit_code": 0,
          "observed_models": [
            "claude-sonnet-5-5"
          ],
          "manifest_read": true,
          "korean_reference_read": false,
          "tool_reads": [
            {
              "path": ".claude/skills/human-readable-writing/MANIFEST.md",
              "succeeded": true
            }
          ],
          "provider_errors": [],
          "fidelity_status": "not_reviewed",
          "case_id": "policy",
          "language": "en",
          "started_at": "2026-11-11T08:38:56.818761+00:00",
          "finished_at": "2026-11-11T08:39:02.990748+00:00",
          "runtime": "2.1.322 (Claude Code)",
          "requested_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
          "argv": [
            "claude",
            "-p",
            "--model",
            "claude-sonnet-5-5",
            "--setting-sources",
            "project,local",
            "--settings",
            "{\"disableAllHooks\":true}",
            "--strict-mcp-config",
            "--mcp-config",
            "{\"mcpServers\":{}}",
            "--tools",
            "Read,Skill",
            "--allowedTools",
            "Read,Skill",
            "--permission-mode",
            "dontAsk",
            "--output-format",
            "stream-json",
            "--verbose",
            "--no-session-persistence",
            "${REQUEST}"
          ],
          "request_file": "request.md",
          "output_file": "output.md",
          "input_sha256": "c968607873f4bf46fe963ce1777aa6a10c246835dba39186d8e86f145913db3a",
          "request_sha256": "ea5ca9e4ddcc4270733a2803eeeac7564f812e703e349501ae09393ae7b5f61c",
          "output_sha256": "2efa5820352c7e314ae4c71f0434927c0949e77bbf337ac8ea3005dfd73a46d7",
          "raw_event_stream_sha256": "2a2ed588d1f533644f9beb78dc4b713515278d372c9a449f35ea1e4c5b22b790",
          "package_sha256": {
            "SKILL.md": "8d37ce712ab2eee77f942bc62d2b38167a0d4b4ce62c5fa7a6a9f6f9c10b6699",
            "MANIFEST.md": "d9d0e6ecded683bc7bd491b22bf7b707500bf7c132d23049a30f9303b8281ae1",
            "LICENSE": "0b3028bbef0f1c2ff27877b3dfca784d9d2c8c476f447678eea29834046ae4ce",
            "NOTICE.md": "2c320bc687fe7961812e427ddd35aa3067dce245bf749734a466a3694eed73d2",
            "agents/openai.yaml": "4ec3dc6030df054e84787b9ba51729936087384522fb502b8344ffdbc2425cce",
            "references/korean.md": "e4db3c4cc65e7965b4eff7daf5cee36480a73d6fa1feb707279e2a12ac4ee149",
            "references/language-support.md": "7439f6abaa48ac5226a1f3d4dd8ba4c91609029225d70fc169c1c9b9fc6d3f51"
          },
          "privacy": "Only derived tool-read evidence is public; raw initialization events are not published."
        },
        "request": {
          "path": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en/request.md",
          "sha256": "ea5ca9e4ddcc4270733a2803eeeac7564f812e703e349501ae09393ae7b5f61c",
          "text": "/human-readable-writing Edit this Transport-policy evaluation memo in English for A transport-policy reviewer deciding what further evidence to request. Return only the revised document. Preserve its genre, tables, specialized terms, facts, quantities, units, periods, denominators, conditions, exclusions, negation, uncertainty, attribution, and the strength of judgments. Add no evidence, assumptions, outcomes, approvals, guarantees, or recommendations absent from the source.\n\nSource text:\n\n# Evidence request on New York congestion pricing\n\nTo the transport-policy reviewer\n\n## Reported results and missing definitions\n\nPage 13 of MTA's December 17, 2025 board presentation, *2025 in Data*, reports 11% fewer vehicle entries into the central business district, or CBD, and 71,000 fewer per day. These are entry counts, not unique cars or vehicle-miles, and the rounded figures do not establish an exact baseline count. Observation and comparison periods and baseline construction are unspecified on the slide.\n\nMTA also reports car speeds within the CBD up 4.3%, which does not mean travel time fell 4.3%. Absolute speeds, weighting, hours covered, measurement provider, baseline, and observation and comparison periods are unspecified.\n\nMTA reports PM2.5 down 22% in the first six months, crediting Cornell University, 2025. The slide places this claim under a Congestion Relief Zone heading without specifying exact study dates, the concentration statistic, the percentage denominator, or detailed geographic coverage. The concentration claim does not establish a 22% reduction in emissions, all pollutants, or individual exposure, and cannot be generalized citywide. The presentation title does not establish a common full-year comparison for these metrics.\n\n## Evidence requested\n\nI treat the implementing agency's summary as a record of attributed claims, not independent causal proof of the policy's effects. For independent review, I request the traffic series and calculation methods, the missing periods and baselines, and the underlying air-quality study's geography, statistic, counterfactual method, and uncertainty. This is my request for evidence, not MTA's recommendation or a recommendation to repeal or expand congestion pricing.\n"
        },
        "output": {
          "path": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en/output.md",
          "sha256": "2efa5820352c7e314ae4c71f0434927c0949e77bbf337ac8ea3005dfd73a46d7",
          "text": "# Evidence request on New York congestion pricing\n\nTo the transport-policy reviewer\n\n## Reported results and missing definitions\n\nPage 13 of MTA's December 17, 2025 board presentation, *2025 in Data*, reports three results. The tables below set out each claim, what it does not establish, and what the slide leaves unspecified.\n\n| Reported result | What it does not establish | Unspecified on the slide |\n|---|---|---|\n| 11% fewer vehicle entries into the central business district (CBD), and 71,000 fewer per day | These are entry counts, not unique cars or vehicle-miles. The rounded figures do not establish an exact baseline count. | Observation and comparison periods; baseline construction |\n| Car speeds within the CBD up 4.3% | A 4.3% speed increase does not mean travel time fell 4.3%. | Absolute speeds; weighting; hours covered; measurement provider; baseline; observation and comparison periods |\n| PM2.5 down 22% in the first six months, crediting Cornell University, 2025 | The concentration claim does not establish a 22% reduction in emissions, all pollutants, or individual exposure. It cannot be generalized citywide. | Exact study dates; the concentration statistic; the percentage denominator; detailed geographic coverage |\n\nMTA places the PM2.5 claim under a Congestion Relief Zone heading. The presentation title, *2025 in Data*, does not establish a common full-year comparison for these metrics.\n\n## Evidence requested\n\nI treat the implementing agency's summary as a record of attributed claims, not independent causal proof of the policy's effects. For independent review, I request:\n\n- the traffic series and calculation methods;\n- the missing periods and baselines;\n- the underlying air-quality study's geography, statistic, counterfactual method, and uncertainty.\n\nThis is my request for evidence, not MTA's recommendation or a recommendation to repeal or expand congestion pricing."
        }
      },
      "selected": {
        "case_id": "policy",
        "language": "en",
        "attempt": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en/attempt.json",
        "review": "examples/professional/policy/review.json",
        "revision": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/en/output.md",
        "status": "pass",
        "output_sha256": "2efa5820352c7e314ae4c71f0434927c0949e77bbf337ac8ea3005dfd73a46d7",
        "kind": "first_attempt"
      }
    },
    "ko": {
      "original": {
        "path": "examples/professional/policy/before.ko.md",
        "sha256": "77626d558f9992456542137e455c6c15affcc46e729ad93c6aa2b39f19aa3572",
        "text": "# 뉴욕 혼잡통행료 평가를 위한 근거 요청\n\n교통정책 검토자에게\n\n## 보고된 결과와 누락된 정의\n\nMTA는 2025년 12월 17일 이사회 발표 자료인 *2025 in Data*의 13쪽에서 중심업무지구인 CBD의 차량 진입 건수가 11%, 하루 71,000건 줄었다고 보고한다. 이는 진입 건수이지 고유 차량 수나 차량 주행거리가 아니며, 반올림된 수치로 정확한 기준 진입 건수를 확정할 수 없다. 슬라이드에는 관측기간과 비교기간, 기준치 산정 방식이 명시되어 있지 않다.\n\nMTA는 CBD 내 승용차 통행속도도 4.3% 증가했다고 보고하지만, 통행시간이 4.3% 줄었다는 뜻은 아니다. 절대 속도, 가중 방식, 포함 시간대, 측정기관, 기준치, 관측기간과 비교기간은 명시되어 있지 않다.\n\nPM2.5에 대해서는 MTA가 Cornell University, 2025를 출처로 제시하며 첫 6개월간 22% 감소했다고 보고한다. 슬라이드는 혼잡통행료 적용 구역인 Congestion Relief Zone을 다루는 제목 아래 이 주장을 제시하지만, 정확한 연구 날짜, 농도 통계량, 백분율의 분모, 상세한 지리적 범위는 명시하지 않는다. 이 농도 관련 주장만으로 배출량, 모든 오염물질 또는 개인별 노출이 22% 감소했다고 볼 수 없으며, 뉴욕시 전체 결과로 일반화할 수도 없다. 발표 제목만으로 이 지표들이 동일한 연간 비교에 해당한다고 판단할 수는 없다.\n\n## 요청하는 근거\n\n나는 시행기관의 요약을 출처가 명시된 주장에 대한 기록으로 다루며, 정책 효과에 대한 독립적인 인과적 입증으로 보지 않는다. 독립적인 검토를 위해 교통 시계열과 계산 방식, 누락된 기간과 기준치, 대기질 원연구의 지역 범위·통계량·정책 미시행 시의 추정 방식·불확실성을 요청한다. 이는 내가 제안하는 근거 요청이며, MTA의 권고도 혼잡통행료 폐지나 확대 권고도 아니다.\n"
      },
      "initial": {
        "selection": {
          "case_id": "policy",
          "language": "ko",
          "attempt": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko/attempt.json",
          "review": "examples/professional/policy/review.json",
          "revision": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko/output.md",
          "status": "pass",
          "output_sha256": "909188e7c67127b505a8e94261d32cf678ad38556b8a7e00c228fa5da051e9a9"
        },
        "attempt": {
          "capture_status": "captured",
          "exit_code": 0,
          "observed_models": [
            "claude-sonnet-5-5"
          ],
          "manifest_read": true,
          "korean_reference_read": true,
          "tool_reads": [
            {
              "path": ".claude/skills/human-readable-writing/MANIFEST.md",
              "succeeded": true
            },
            {
              "path": ".claude/skills/human-readable-writing/references/korean.md",
              "succeeded": true
            }
          ],
          "provider_errors": [],
          "fidelity_status": "not_reviewed",
          "case_id": "policy",
          "language": "ko",
          "started_at": "2026-11-11T08:39:02.995834+00:00",
          "finished_at": "2026-11-11T08:39:10.969174+00:00",
          "runtime": "2.1.322 (Claude Code)",
          "requested_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
          "argv": [
            "claude",
            "-p",
            "--model",
            "claude-sonnet-5-5",
            "--setting-sources",
            "project,local",
            "--settings",
            "{\"disableAllHooks\":true}",
            "--strict-mcp-config",
            "--mcp-config",
            "{\"mcpServers\":{}}",
            "--tools",
            "Read,Skill",
            "--allowedTools",
            "Read,Skill",
            "--permission-mode",
            "dontAsk",
            "--output-format",
            "stream-json",
            "--verbose",
            "--no-session-persistence",
            "${REQUEST}"
          ],
          "request_file": "request.md",
          "output_file": "output.md",
          "input_sha256": "77626d558f9992456542137e455c6c15affcc46e729ad93c6aa2b39f19aa3572",
          "request_sha256": "720138a138eb3b98e40ee38638ca463e8909a07afe37b2c3da81a679d335e318",
          "output_sha256": "909188e7c67127b505a8e94261d32cf678ad38556b8a7e00c228fa5da051e9a9",
          "raw_event_stream_sha256": "1a374836ef231401e156c968ef081351b00ea9284d9b2f43cede0e3d79e21099",
          "package_sha256": {
            "SKILL.md": "8d37ce712ab2eee77f942bc62d2b38167a0d4b4ce62c5fa7a6a9f6f9c10b6699",
            "MANIFEST.md": "d9d0e6ecded683bc7bd491b22bf7b707500bf7c132d23049a30f9303b8281ae1",
            "LICENSE": "0b3028bbef0f1c2ff27877b3dfca784d9d2c8c476f447678eea29834046ae4ce",
            "NOTICE.md": "2c320bc687fe7961812e427ddd35aa3067dce245bf749734a466a3694eed73d2",
            "agents/openai.yaml": "4ec3dc6030df054e84787b9ba51729936087384522fb502b8344ffdbc2425cce",
            "references/korean.md": "e4db3c4cc65e7965b4eff7daf5cee36480a73d6fa1feb707279e2a12ac4ee149",
            "references/language-support.md": "7439f6abaa48ac5226a1f3d4dd8ba4c91609029225d70fc169c1c9b9fc6d3f51"
          },
          "privacy": "Only derived tool-read evidence is public; raw initialization events are not published."
        },
        "request": {
          "path": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko/request.md",
          "sha256": "720138a138eb3b98e40ee38638ca463e8909a07afe37b2c3da81a679d335e318",
          "text": "/human-readable-writing Edit this Transport-policy evaluation memo in Korean for A transport-policy reviewer deciding what further evidence to request. Return only the revised document. Preserve its genre, tables, specialized terms, facts, quantities, units, periods, denominators, conditions, exclusions, negation, uncertainty, attribution, and the strength of judgments. Add no evidence, assumptions, outcomes, approvals, guarantees, or recommendations absent from the source.\n\nSource text:\n\n# 뉴욕 혼잡통행료 평가를 위한 근거 요청\n\n교통정책 검토자에게\n\n## 보고된 결과와 누락된 정의\n\nMTA는 2025년 12월 17일 이사회 발표 자료인 *2025 in Data*의 13쪽에서 중심업무지구인 CBD의 차량 진입 건수가 11%, 하루 71,000건 줄었다고 보고한다. 이는 진입 건수이지 고유 차량 수나 차량 주행거리가 아니며, 반올림된 수치로 정확한 기준 진입 건수를 확정할 수 없다. 슬라이드에는 관측기간과 비교기간, 기준치 산정 방식이 명시되어 있지 않다.\n\nMTA는 CBD 내 승용차 통행속도도 4.3% 증가했다고 보고하지만, 통행시간이 4.3% 줄었다는 뜻은 아니다. 절대 속도, 가중 방식, 포함 시간대, 측정기관, 기준치, 관측기간과 비교기간은 명시되어 있지 않다.\n\nPM2.5에 대해서는 MTA가 Cornell University, 2025를 출처로 제시하며 첫 6개월간 22% 감소했다고 보고한다. 슬라이드는 혼잡통행료 적용 구역인 Congestion Relief Zone을 다루는 제목 아래 이 주장을 제시하지만, 정확한 연구 날짜, 농도 통계량, 백분율의 분모, 상세한 지리적 범위는 명시하지 않는다. 이 농도 관련 주장만으로 배출량, 모든 오염물질 또는 개인별 노출이 22% 감소했다고 볼 수 없으며, 뉴욕시 전체 결과로 일반화할 수도 없다. 발표 제목만으로 이 지표들이 동일한 연간 비교에 해당한다고 판단할 수는 없다.\n\n## 요청하는 근거\n\n나는 시행기관의 요약을 출처가 명시된 주장에 대한 기록으로 다루며, 정책 효과에 대한 독립적인 인과적 입증으로 보지 않는다. 독립적인 검토를 위해 교통 시계열과 계산 방식, 누락된 기간과 기준치, 대기질 원연구의 지역 범위·통계량·정책 미시행 시의 추정 방식·불확실성을 요청한다. 이는 내가 제안하는 근거 요청이며, MTA의 권고도 혼잡통행료 폐지나 확대 권고도 아니다.\n"
        },
        "output": {
          "path": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko/output.md",
          "sha256": "909188e7c67127b505a8e94261d32cf678ad38556b8a7e00c228fa5da051e9a9",
          "text": "# 뉴욕 혼잡통행료 평가를 위한 근거 요청\n\n교통정책 검토자에게\n\n## 보고된 결과와 누락된 정의\n\n**차량 진입 건수.** MTA는 2025년 12월 17일 이사회 발표 자료인 *2025 in Data*의 13쪽에서 중심업무지구(CBD)의 차량 진입 건수가 11%, 하루 71,000건 줄었다고 보고한다. 이 수치는 진입 건수이며 고유 차량 수나 차량 주행거리가 아니다. 또한 반올림된 값이어서 정확한 기준 진입 건수를 확정할 수 없다. 슬라이드에는 관측기간, 비교기간, 기준치 산정 방식이 명시되어 있지 않다.\n\n**승용차 통행속도.** MTA는 CBD 내 승용차 통행속도가 4.3% 증가했다고도 보고한다. 이것이 통행시간이 4.3% 줄었다는 뜻은 아니다. 절대 속도, 가중 방식, 포함 시간대, 측정기관, 기준치, 관측기간, 비교기간은 명시되어 있지 않다.\n\n**PM2.5.** MTA는 Cornell University, 2025를 출처로 들어 PM2.5가 첫 6개월간 22% 감소했다고 보고한다. 슬라이드는 혼잡통행료 적용 구역인 Congestion Relief Zone을 다루는 제목 아래 이 주장을 제시한다. 그러나 정확한 연구 날짜, 농도 통계량, 백분율의 분모, 상세한 지리적 범위는 명시하지 않는다. 이 농도 관련 주장만으로는 배출량, 모든 오염물질, 개인별 노출이 22% 감소했다고 볼 수 없고, 뉴욕시 전체 결과로 일반화할 수도 없다. 발표 제목만으로 이 지표들이 동일한 연간 비교에 해당한다고 판단할 수도 없다.\n\n## 요청하는 근거\n\n나는 시행기관의 요약을 출처가 명시된 주장의 기록으로 다루며, 정책 효과에 대한 독립적인 인과적 입증으로 보지 않는다. 독립적인 검토를 위해 다음을 요청한다.\n\n- 교통 시계열과 그 계산 방식\n- 누락된 관측기간, 비교기간, 기준치\n- 대기질 원연구의 지역 범위, 통계량, 정책 미시행 시의 추정 방식, 불확실성\n\n이는 내가 제안하는 근거 요청이다. MTA의 권고도, 혼잡통행료 폐지나 확대에 대한 권고도 아니다."
        }
      },
      "selected": {
        "case_id": "policy",
        "language": "ko",
        "attempt": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko/attempt.json",
        "review": "examples/professional/policy/review.json",
        "revision": "verification/professional-examples-20261111/remaining-run/policy/ko/output.md",
        "status": "pass",
        "output_sha256": "909188e7c67127b505a8e94261d32cf678ad38556b8a7e00c228fa5da051e9a9",
        "kind": "first_attempt"
      }
    }
  }
}