{
  "call_status": "success",
  "created_at": "2026-06-07T14:32:27+0800",
  "message_fingerprint": "c0dcf29ba69f26fffbe9d918790d3b60aa72c2c4c6d968fd67ba0b98eef88a8e",
  "messages": [
    {
      "content": "You are DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max acting as an external advisory reviewer for a Novel2Video control-plane contract. Return only one strict JSON object matching the requested schema. Your advice is advisory-only and must not create canonical facts, operator acceptance, provider evidence, writeback authority, route authority, or outputs index authority.",
      "role": "system"
    },
    {
      "content": "Review this NOW-33 next-step contract before implementation. Focus on deterministic consumption guards for non-binding candidate refs and registry content review boundaries. Return strict JSON only.\n\n{\n  \"version\": \"now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_contract_consultation_input.v1\",\n  \"created_at\": \"2026-06-07T14:31:39+0800\",\n  \"round_id\": \"round1\",\n  \"purpose\": \"Review the next-step contract only. Do not authorize implementation/writeback/route/evidence.\",\n  \"contract_ref\": {\n    \"path\": \"docs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_contract_20260607.md\",\n    \"sha256\": \"a154734fdd84b8de244473789ddd459472062654a7a9c8d24542821904f8914a\",\n    \"size_bytes\": 11962\n  },\n  \"contract_text\": \"# NOW-33 Reference Candidate Consumption Guard And Registry Content Review Contract\\n\\n更新时间：`2026-06-07T01:24:00+08:00`\\n\\n## Status\\n\\n- contract id: `now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_contract`\\n- status: `contract_landed_pending_implementation`\\n- active route authority: `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint`\\n- active route remains: `platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract`\\n- source retrospective: `docs/now33_reference_registry_rerun_retrospective_20260607.md`\\n- source NOW-33 rerun: `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049`\\n- source registry build: `outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032`\\n- source built-candidate preflight: `outputs/current_registry_authority_preflight_for_built_candidate_20260607_0034`\\n\\n## Purpose\\n\\nNOW-33 reference-registry rerun produced `1476` exact-surface `candidate_entity_refs` across `1056` of `1638` prompt draft rows. These refs are useful review signals, but they are not canonical bindings.\\n\\nThis contract defines the next implementation step before any canonical UID binding, KG/raw KG/entity-store writeback, row mutation, asset binding, evidence pack, route transition, or production acceptance:\\n\\n1. Build deterministic consumption guards so downstream code cannot treat `candidate_entity_refs` as `canonical_entity_uids`.\\n2. Build a registry content review packet for the `28` unblocked registry entities and the `1476` candidate refs.\\n3. Produce review/gap/risk artifacts that prepare, but do not execute, a future canonical UID binding acceptance/writeback contract.\\n\\n## Inputs\\n\\nRequired read-only inputs:\\n\\n- `outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_gate.json`\\n- `outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json`\\n- `outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_source_entity_candidate_manifest.jsonl`\\n- `outputs/current_registry_authority_preflight_for_built_candidate_20260607_0034/NOW_33A_current_registry_gate.json`\\n- `outputs/current_registry_authority_preflight_for_built_candidate_20260607_0034/NOW_33A_registry_candidate_manifest.jsonl`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_entity_link_gate.json`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_entity_link_advisory_manifest.jsonl`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_entity_gap_report.json`\\n- `outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_registry_discovery_report.json`\\n- DeepSeek final advisory refs for registry build and NOW-33 rerun.\\n\\nAll inputs remain source artifacts only. Reading these inputs does not create acceptance, evidence, canonical authority, or writeback authority.\\n\\n## Allowed Work\\n\\nImplementation may:\\n\\n- Parse and validate the required input gates/manifests.\\n- Verify that the configured registry path, selected preflight path, and NOW-33 registry discovery path match.\\n- Verify that every NOW-33 row with candidate refs includes `candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings=true` and `candidate_refs_writeback_allowed=false`.\\n- Verify that every referenced candidate comes from a registry entity with `blocked_for_review=false`.\\n- Build a candidate-ref consumption guard report with pass/block findings.\\n- Build a registry content review queue covering the `28` unblocked registry entities.\\n- Build a candidate-ref review queue covering the `1476` candidate refs, grouped by entity UID, surface, draft row, chapter, scene, and shot.\\n- Flag likely false positives, missing high-value surfaces, blocked-entity leakage, alias/surface collisions, duplicate-surface risks, weak support, and type/subtype uncertainty.\\n- Generate side-effect-free JSON/JSONL/HTML artifacts under a new output run.\\n- Run two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max advisory rounds over the contract and output packet if the implementation asserts closeout/readiness.\\n\\n## Forbidden Work\\n\\nThis contract does not authorize:\\n\\n- canonical UID binding acceptance or writeback;\\n- KG/raw KG/entity-store writeback;\\n- accepted/operator overlay writeback;\\n- draft, held, readiness, execution-log, or prompt-row mutation;\\n- held-row promotion, waiver, or repair execution;\\n- asset generation, acquisition, or binding;\\n- provider-specific prompt generation, adapter payload generation, provider job execution, or media generation;\\n- manual/provider/operator evidence creation;\\n- feedback intake, repair, replay, or replay eligibility;\\n- route transition or `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint` change;\\n- `outputs/index.json` or `outputs/index-lite.json` mutation;\\n- production readiness or production acceptance.\\n\\nDeepSeek advisory remains advisory-only and cannot become evidence, operator acceptance, canonical state, writeback authority, route authority, or output-index authority.\\n\\n## Required Output Artifacts\\n\\nThe implementation should create a new output run, for example:\\n\\n`outputs/now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_and_registry_content_review_<timestamp>`\\n\\nRequired artifacts:\\n\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_input.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_registry_content_review_queue.jsonl`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_ref_review_queue.jsonl`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_surface_collision_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_missing_high_value_surface_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_review_summary.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_validation_report.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_gate.json`\\n- `NOW_33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_review.html`\\n- `manifest.json`\\n\\nIf DeepSeek consultation is run for implementation closeout, store consultation inputs/messages/raw/parsed/record files in dedicated output directories and reference them from the gate.\\n\\n## Consumption Guard Rules\\n\\nThe guard must block if any of the following are true:\\n\\n- `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint` changed.\\n- NOW-33 rerun gate is not `advisory_entity_link_binding_closed_reference_registry_no_writeback`.\\n- NOW-33 rerun gate has `canonical_entity_uid_bound_count != 0`.\\n- Any NOW-33 row has non-empty `canonical_entity_uids`.\\n- Any NOW-33 row with candidate refs lacks `candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings=true`.\\n- Any NOW-33 row with candidate refs lacks `candidate_refs_writeback_allowed=false`.\\n- Any candidate ref resolves to a registry entity with `blocked_for_review=true`.\\n- Any candidate ref points to an entity UID absent from the configured registry.\\n- Any source/preflight/NOW-33 selected registry path or source fingerprint mismatches.\\n- Any output artifact claims accepted binding, canonical writeback, evidence, provider execution, route transition, output-index mutation, or production acceptance.\\n\\nThe guard may pass with review warnings if false-positive, missing-surface, alias-collision, or type-uncertainty risks are present, provided they are explicit review queue items and no forbidden writeback/acceptance authority is created.\\n\\n## Registry Content Review Queue\\n\\nEach unblocked registry entity review row must include:\\n\\n- `review_item_id`\\n- `entity_uid`\\n- `canonical_name`\\n- `aliases`\\n- `type`\\n- `subtype`\\n- `source_evidence_refs`\\n- `source_ref_count`\\n- `candidate_ref_count`\\n- `matched_surfaces`\\n- `matched_draft_row_ids`\\n- `risk_flags`\\n- `recommended_review_action`\\n- `allowed_review_actions`\\n- `advisory_only=true`\\n- `canonical_writeback_allowed=false`\\n\\nAllowed review actions are:\\n\\n- `keep_candidate_for_future_binding_review`\\n- `needs_alias_or_surface_review`\\n- `needs_type_subtype_review`\\n- `needs_split_or_merge_review`\\n- `exclude_from_future_binding_review`\\n- `defer_until_more_evidence`\\n\\nThese actions are review recommendations only. They do not become accepted overlay rows.\\n\\n## Candidate Ref Review Queue\\n\\nEach candidate ref review row must include:\\n\\n- `review_item_id`\\n- `draft_row_id`\\n- `chapter_index`\\n- `scene_number`\\n- `shot_number`\\n- `entity_uid`\\n- `canonical_name`\\n- `matched_surface`\\n- `match_source`\\n- `context_excerpt`\\n- `row_candidate_ref_count`\\n- `risk_flags`\\n- `recommended_review_action`\\n- `allowed_review_actions`\\n- `candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings=true`\\n- `candidate_refs_writeback_allowed=false`\\n- `canonical_writeback_allowed=false`\\n\\nAllowed review actions are:\\n\\n- `candidate_ref_plausible_for_future_binding_review`\\n- `candidate_ref_surface_collision_risk`\\n- `candidate_ref_false_positive_suspected`\\n- `candidate_ref_needs_context_review`\\n- `candidate_ref_defer_until_registry_review`\\n\\nThese actions are review recommendations only and cannot mutate source rows or accepted overlays.\\n\\n## Risk Flags\\n\\nUse deterministic flags where possible:\\n\\n- `blocked_registry_entity_leak`\\n- `candidate_uid_missing_from_registry`\\n- `surface_collision`\\n- `alias_collision`\\n- `multiple_candidate_refs_in_row`\\n- `weak_source_support`\\n- `type_subtype_uncertain`\\n- `high_frequency_surface`\\n- `role_or_title_surface`\\n- `object_or_location_surface`\\n- `missing_high_value_surface_candidate`\\n- `context_excerpt_missing`\\n- `source_fingerprint_mismatch`\\n- `non_binding_guard_missing`\\n\\nDeepSeek may recommend additional advisory risk labels, but implementation must map them into stable program-owned flags or record them as advisory notes, not runtime authority.\\n\\n## Missing High-Value Surface Review\\n\\nThe implementation should compute missing high-value surfaces from the target registry unblocked rows and NOW-33 matched surfaces. It must not infer canonical bindings. It may flag:\\n\\n- unblocked registry entities with zero candidate refs;\\n- high-support registry entities not appearing in any NOW-33 candidate refs;\\n- frequently occurring text surfaces in NOW-33 rows that are not represented in the unblocked registry lexicon, if detected deterministically.\\n\\nThese are review risks only.\\n\\n## DeepSeek Advisory Requirements\\n\\nFor implementation closeout, run at least two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max rounds unless the stage is explicitly marked `blocked_unavailable`.\\n\\nRound 1 should review:\\n\\n- guard rules;\\n- review queue schema;\\n- source/preflight/NOW-33 authority linkage;\\n- risk taxonomy;\\n- boundary coverage.\\n\\nRound 2 should critique Round 1 for:\\n\\n- overreach;\\n- hallucinated canonical authority;\\n- missed writeback/evidence/route boundaries;\\n- weak assumptions about candidate refs;\\n- missing operator constraints;\\n- missing deterministic validators.\\n\\nDeepSeek outputs must be logged with provider/model/thinking metadata, timeout status, raw response, parsed response, parse status, input fingerprints, and advisory-only boundaries.\\n\\n## Pass Criteria\\n\\nThe future implementation gate may pass only if:\\n\\n- required input artifacts parse successfully;\\n- source/preflight/NOW-33 registry path and fingerprint linkage match;\\n- every candidate ref is non-binding and writeback forbidden;\\n- blocked registry entities do not appear in candidate refs;\\n- canonical UID binding count remains `0`;\\n- review queues cover all `28` unblocked registry entities and all `1476` candidate refs, or explicitly explain any mismatch;\\n- risk reports are generated;\\n- no forbidden side-effect count is non-zero;\\n- two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass or blocked/unavailable is explicitly recorded and treated as blocking readiness;\\n- JSON parse, focused tests, workflow guard, and `git diff --check` pass;\\n- `execution_state.json.next_entrypoint` remains unchanged.\\n\\n## Next Stage After This Contract\\n\\nIf this contract is implemented and passes, the next possible contract may be a future `canonical_uid_binding_acceptance_or_writeback_contract`. That future contract must still be explicit and must define accepted authority, replay/writeback safety, rollback, operator/DeepSeek boundary, and validation gates.\\n\\nThis contract alone does not authorize that future work.\\n\",\n  \"source_refs\": [\n    {\n      \"path\": \"outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_gate.json\",\n      \"sha256\": \"82da1ab824cdb6eafdc0f43705b71e50f40fc41b9b2cf7a84b6f6e9649397811\",\n      \"size_bytes\": 4310,\n      \"status\": \"target_source_grounded_registry_candidate_built_validated\",\n      \"gate_status\": \"target_source_grounded_registry_build_pass_candidate_artifact_only\",\n      \"summary\": {\n        \"entity_count\": 713,\n        \"candidate_manifest_row_count\": 912,\n        \"alias_surface_row_count\": 713,\n        \"source_ref_row_count\": 1074,\n        \"authority_satisfying_candidate_count\": 28,\n        \"blocked_for_review_count\": 685,\n        \"duplicate_uid_count\": 0,\n        \"missing_canonical_name_count\": 0,\n        \"schema_error_count\": 0,\n        \"schema_errors\": [],\n        \"target_source_fingerprint\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\",\n        \"deepseek_round1_parse_status\": \"pass\",\n        \"deepseek_round1_verdict\": \"supports_target_source_grounded_registry_build\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_parse_status\": \"pass\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_verdict\": \"round1_supported_with_corrections\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_confidence\": \"medium\",\n        \"unresolved_deepseek_high_or_blocker_finding_count\": 0,\n        \"validator_failure_count\": 0,\n        \"provider_prompt_count\": 0,\n        \"adapter_payload_count\": 0,\n        \"provider_job_execution_count\": 0,\n        \"media_generation_count\": 0,\n        \"manual_provider_evidence_count\": 0,\n        \"operator_evidence_creation_count\": 0,\n        \"feedback_intake_count\": 0,\n        \"repair_execution_count\": 0,\n        \"replay_action_count\": 0,\n        \"accepted_overlay_write_count\": 0,\n        \"operator_overlay_write_count\": 0,\n        \"canonical_kg_writeback_count\": 0,\n        \"raw_kg_writeback_count\": 0,\n        \"outputs_index_mutation_count\": 0\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"path\": \"outputs/current_registry_authority_preflight_for_built_candidate_20260607_0034/NOW_33A_current_registry_gate.json\",\n      \"sha256\": \"c1141bf969c7f6cd9acb4c462c38819f2a99c4278932dcc314b0dc63829194de\",\n      \"size_bytes\": 4242,\n      \"status\": \"current_registry_preflight_pass_configured_candidate_selected_read_only_no_writeback\",\n      \"gate_status\": \"now33a_current_registry_preflight_pass_configured_candidate_selected\",\n      \"summary\": {\n        \"target_chapter_count\": 20,\n        \"target_draft_row_count\": 1638,\n        \"target_source_fingerprint\": \"c5d6ab4f5d8bc0aa4a018ebe6daec3315b0d646cb189b1a4fb28fe9a6e23ba34\",\n        \"candidate_count\": 12,\n        \"eligible_candidate_count\": 1,\n        \"configured_selected_count\": 1,\n        \"configured_rejected_count\": 0,\n        \"current_registry_import_status\": \"configured_registry_candidate_selected_read_only_no_writeback\",\n        \"selected_candidate_path\": \"/wwwb/aitools/writer/outputs/target_source_grounded_entity_registry_build_20260607_0032/TARGET_REGISTRY_candidate_current_entity_registry.json\",\n        \"deepseek_round1_parse_status\": \"pass\",\n        \"deepseek_round1_verdict\": \"supports_current_registry_preflight_contract\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_parse_status\": \"pass\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_verdict\": \"round1_supported_with_corrections\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_confidence\": \"high\",\n        \"validator_failure_count\": 0,\n        \"provider_prompt_count\": 0,\n        \"adapter_payload_count\": 0,\n        \"provider_job_execution_count\": 0,\n        \"media_generation_count\": 0,\n        \"manual_provider_evidence_count\": 0,\n        \"operator_evidence_creation_count\": 0,\n        \"feedback_intake_count\": 0,\n        \"repair_execution_count\": 0,\n        \"replay_action_count\": 0,\n        \"accepted_overlay_write_count\": 0,\n        \"operator_overlay_write_count\": 0,\n        \"canonical_kg_writeback_count\": 0,\n        \"raw_kg_writeback_count\": 0,\n        \"outputs_index_mutation_count\": 0\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"path\": \"outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_entity_link_gate.json\",\n      \"sha256\": \"ea3de8c6028db7bb539ee274cdbd0274f2008238c775358763f09f80e3d8489b\",\n      \"size_bytes\": 3595,\n      \"status\": \"advisory_entity_link_binding_closed_reference_registry_no_writeback\",\n      \"gate_status\": \"now33_entity_link_advisory_pass_reference_only\",\n      \"summary\": {\n        \"draft_row_count\": 1638,\n        \"manifest_row_count\": 1638,\n        \"prior_now32_35_sidecar_row_count\": 1638,\n        \"current_canonical_registry_status\": \"configured_current_registry_reference_only\",\n        \"rows_missing_current_canonical_registry\": 0,\n        \"rows_with_candidate_refs\": 1056,\n        \"candidate_entity_ref_count\": 1476,\n        \"canonical_entity_uid_bound_count\": 0,\n        \"deepseek_round1_parse_status\": \"pass\",\n        \"deepseek_round1_verdict\": \"supports_now33_read_only_entity_link_binding_contract\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_parse_status\": \"pass\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_verdict\": \"round1_supported_with_corrections\",\n        \"deepseek_round2_confidence\": \"high\",\n        \"validator_failure_count\": 0,\n        \"provider_prompt_count\": 0,\n        \"adapter_payload_count\": 0,\n        \"provider_job_execution_count\": 0,\n        \"media_generation_count\": 0,\n        \"manual_provider_evidence_count\": 0,\n        \"operator_evidence_creation_count\": 0,\n        \"feedback_intake_count\": 0,\n        \"repair_execution_count\": 0,\n        \"replay_action_count\": 0,\n        \"accepted_overlay_write_count\": 0,\n        \"operator_overlay_write_count\": 0,\n        \"canonical_kg_writeback_count\": 0,\n        \"raw_kg_writeback_count\": 0,\n        \"outputs_index_mutation_count\": 0\n      }\n    },\n    {\n      \"path\": \"outputs/now33_entity_link_binding_with_built_registry_20260607_0049/NOW_33_registry_discovery_report.json\",\n      \"sha256\": \"b6e53c1d608035da9af700339dcd8e61e328c35724d25b3e5b9224aa41c05be4\",\n      \"size_bytes\": 17296,\n      \"status\": \"configured_current_registry_reference_only\",\n      \"gate_status\": null,\n      \"summary\": null\n    }\n  ],\n  \"fixed_facts\": {\n    \"active_route_next_entrypoint\": \"platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract\",\n    \"now33_reference_rerun_status\": \"advisory_entity_link_binding_closed_reference_registry_no_writeback\",\n    \"candidate_entity_ref_count\": 1476,\n    \"rows_with_candidate_refs\": 1056,\n    \"manifest_row_count\": 1638,\n    \"canonical_entity_uid_bound_count\": 0,\n    \"registry_entities\": 713,\n    \"unblocked_registry_entities\": 28,\n    \"blocked_for_review_entities\": 685,\n    \"candidate_refs_are_non_binding\": true,\n    \"candidate_refs_writeback_allowed\": false,\n    \"target_registry_candidate_is_artifact_only\": true,\n    \"built_candidate_preflight_is_read_only_selection\": true\n  },\n  \"operator_constraints\": [\n    \"DeepSeek is advisory-only and may substitute for expert advice but never provider/manual/operator evidence or acceptance.\",\n    \"Do not authorize canonical UID binding/writeback, KG/raw KG/entity-store writeback, accepted/operator overlay, row mutation, assets, evidence, feedback/repair/replay, route transition, outputs index mutation, or production acceptance.\",\n    \"This round reviews contract scope, guard rules, review queue schema, authority linkage, risk taxonomy, and boundary coverage only.\",\n    \"Consultation timeout preference is 600 seconds; timeout/unavailable must be logged and cannot be treated as pass.\"\n  ],\n  \"expected_output_schema\": {\n    \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_contract|supports_with_required_corrections|blocks_contract\",\n    \"confidence\": \"low|medium|high\",\n    \"required_contract_corrections\": [\n      \"string\"\n    ],\n    \"findings\": [\n      {\n        \"severity\": \"blocker|high|medium|low\",\n        \"category\": \"boundary|guard|schema|authority|risk|validation|operator_constraint\",\n        \"description\": \"string\",\n        \"required_fix\": \"string\"\n      }\n    ],\n    \"scope_audit\": {\n      \"advisory_only_respected\": \"boolean\",\n      \"candidate_refs_never_canonical\": \"boolean\",\n      \"writeback_blocked\": \"boolean\",\n      \"route_transition_blocked\": \"boolean\",\n      \"evidence_creation_blocked\": \"boolean\",\n      \"review_actions_non_mutating\": \"boolean\",\n      \"future_writeback_requires_separate_contract\": \"boolean\"\n    },\n    \"recommended_status_label\": \"string\"\n  }\n}",
      "role": "user"
    }
  ],
  "provider_meta": {
    "base_url": "https://api.deepseek.com/chat/completions",
    "max_tokens": 32000,
    "model": "deepseek-v4-flash",
    "provider": "deepseek_reviewer",
    "reasoning_effort": "max",
    "skipped": false,
    "temperature": 0.0,
    "thinking_type": "enabled",
    "timeout_seconds": 600
  },
  "raw_response": {
    "choices": [
      {
        "finish_reason": "stop",
        "index": 0,
        "logprobs": null,
        "message": {
          "content": "{\n  \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_with_required_corrections\",\n  \"confidence\": \"medium\",\n  \"required_contract_corrections\": [\n    \"Clarify that 'two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass' means the consultation record files were successfully generated and parsed without technical errors, not that DeepSeek's verdict is 'pass'. Otherwise the gate may incorrectly depend on DeepSeek's advisory opinion, contradicting the advisory-only boundary.\",\n    \"Add a guard rule or explicit validation to verify that each row's total count of candidate refs (candidate_entity_ref_count in manifest) matches the number of entries in the row's candidate_refs list, ensuring referential consistency.\",\n    \"Add an explicit statement that DeepSeek consultation records stored in the output run are purely for review purposes and must not be used as sourcing evidence or acceptance authority in any downstream contract, consistent with the existing advisory-only boundary.\"\n  ],\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"severity\": \"medium\",\n      \"category\": \"authority\",\n      \"description\": \"Pass criterion 'two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass' is ambiguous. If interpreted as requiring DeepSeek's response to indicate 'pass' (i.e., support for closeout), it grants DeepSeek a binding gate authority, violating the advisory-only constraint. The criterion should be restricted to technical parsing success or explicit blocked/unavailable recording.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Rewrite the pass clause to specify that DeepSeek consultation records must be present, parseable, and either marked 'pass' (technical parse success) or explicitly handled via 'blocked/unavailable' recording. Remove any implication that DeepSeek's advisory verdict controls the gate.\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"severity\": \"low\",\n      \"category\": \"validation\",\n      \"description\": \"The contract does not require row-level consistency between the NOW-33 manifest's candidate_entity_ref_count and the actual candidate_refs array length. A mismatch could indicate data corruption or incomplete processing without detection.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Add a consumption guard rule or dedicated validation step to check that, for every row with non-empty candidate refs, the declared count matches the array size.\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"severity\": \"low\",\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"DeepSeek consultation records are stored alongside output artifacts. Although the contract states they are advisory-only, future steps might inadvertently reference them as sourcing evidence or acceptance. The contract should reinforce that these records are review aids and must never become evidence or canonical authority.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Add a sentence in the 'DeepSeek Advisory Requirements' section or output artifacts description that explicitly forbids downstream use of these records as evidence or acceptance, reinforcing the advisory-only boundary.\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"scope_audit\": {\n    \"advisory_only_respected\": true,\n    \"candidate_refs_never_canonical\": true,\n    \"writeback_blocked\": true,\n    \"route_transition_blocked\": true,\n    \"evidence_creation_blocked\": true,\n    \"review_actions_non_mutating\": true,\n    \"future_writeback_requires_separate_contract\": true\n  },\n  \"recommended_status_label\": \"supports_with_required_corrections\"\n}",
          "reasoning_content": "We need to carefully review the contract text and the provided context to assess whether the \"NOW-33 Reference Candidate Consumption Guard And Registry Content Review Contract\" is sound, respects the boundaries, and should be supported, supported with corrections, or blocked.\n\nThe contract is about implementing a consumption guard for candidate entity refs from a NOW-33 run, ensuring they are not treated as canonical bindings, and producing review artifacts for registry entities and candidate refs. The contract explicitly states it does not authorize any writeback, canonical binding, route transitions, evidence creation, etc. It defines consumption guard rules, review queue schemas, risk flags, missing high-value surface review, DeepSeek advisory requirements, and pass criteria.\n\nWe need to evaluate:\n- Does the contract respect the advisory-only nature of DeepSeek?\n- Does it properly block any canonical binding or writeback?\n- Are the guard rules comprehensive and deterministic?\n- Are the review queues non-mutating?\n- Is the authority linkage correct?\n- Are there any overreaches or hidden assumptions?\n\nLet's also check the fixed facts: active route next_entrypoint is \"platform_neutral_prompt_readiness_manual_execution_log_contract\". The contract says it must remain unchanged. That is required.\n\nThe contract references inputs from outputs and expects them to be read-only. The consumption guard rules are clearly defined.\n\nWe should assess whether the contract text includes any statements that could inadvertently create authority or allow forbidden operations. The contract explicitly lists forbidden work, which matches operator constraints.\n\nThe contract requires that implementation runs DeepSeek consultations for closeout, with specific requirements. That seems appropriate for an advisory role.\n\nPotential issues:\n- The contract mentions \"DeepSeek advisory remains advisory-only and cannot become evidence, operator acceptance, canonical state, writeback authority, route authority, or output-index authority.\" This is good.\n- The contract permits building reports and queues, but these are side-effect-free artifacts under a new output run. They are not writebacks.\n- The contract allows flagging risks such as \"false positives, missing high-value surfaces, blocked-entity leakage, alias/surface collisions, duplicate-surface risks, weak support, and type/subtype uncertainty.\" These are not actions, they are flags.\n- The review queues include \"allowed_review_actions\" but explicitly state they are review recommendations only and cannot mutate source rows or accepted overlays.\n- The \"Missing High-Value Surface Review\" says it may flag risks but must not infer canonical bindings. Good.\n- The pass criteria include that no forbidden side-effect count is non-zero, and that next_entrypoint remains unchanged.\n\nHowever, there is a subtlety: The contract says \"Implementation may ... Run two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max advisory rounds over the contract and output packet if the implementation asserts closeout/readiness.\" This is allowed because DeepSeek is advisory-only. But it should be clearly within advisory boundaries.\n\nOne potential concern: The contract states \"If DeepSeek consultation is run for implementation closeout, store consultation inputs/messages/raw/parsed/record files in dedicated output directories and reference them from the gate.\" This could be seen as storing advisory outputs, but they are not evidence or acceptance, so it's fine.\n\nThe contract requires that \"JSON parse, focused tests, workflow guard, and git diff --check pass\". Those are standard.\n\nNow, check the source_refs provided. They all have gate_status indicating they are artifact-only or reference-only, no writeback. The NOW-33 entity link gate status is \"now33_entity_link_advisory_pass_reference_only\" and canonical_entity_uid_bound_count is 0. That matches.\n\nThe registry gate shows 28 authority_satisfying_candidate_count (unblocked) and 685 blocked. That's consistent.\n\nFixed facts confirm candidate_refs_are_non_binding: true, candidate_refs_writeback_allowed: false.\n\nThe operator constraints say \"DeepSeek is advisory-only and may substitute for expert advice but never provider/manual/operator evidence or acceptance.\" That is respected.\n\nNow, the expected output schema for this review includes findings with severity, category, etc. We need to provide an overall verdict, confidence, required corrections, findings, scope audit, and recommended status label.\n\nWe should consider if there are any blockers. The contract seems well-constructed. However, let's double-check the consumption guard rules: \"The guard must block if any of the following are true: ... Any output artifact claims accepted binding, canonical writeback, evidence, provider execution, route transition, output-index mutation, or production acceptance.\" That is good.\n\nOne possible oversight: The contract requires that \"every NOW-33 row with candidate refs includes candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings=true and candidate_refs_writeback_allowed=false\". This is a check against the manifest. But what about rows without candidate refs? They presumably don't need those flags, but the guard rule doesn't specify that they are absent; it checks \"any NOW-33 row with candidate refs lacks these flags\". That's correct.\n\nAlso, \"any candidate ref resolves to a registry entity with blocked_for_review=true\" is a block condition. That's good.\n\n\"any candidate ref points to an entity UID absent from the configured registry\" is also a block.\n\n\"any source/preflight/NOW-33 selected registry path or source fingerprint mismatches\" ensures consistency.\n\nOne thing: The contract does not explicitly require that the implementation does not run if the NOW-33 rerun gate is not \"advisory_entity_link_binding_closed_reference_registry_no_writeback\". It includes that in guard rules. Good.\n\nPotential issue: The contract says \"Run two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max advisory rounds over the contract and output packet if the implementation asserts closeout/readiness.\" The phrase \"over the contract and output packet\" could be interpreted as DeepSeek reviewing the implementation output, which is fine. But it might require that DeepSeek also reviews the contract itself? That's okay. However, the contract also requires that for pass criteria, \"two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass or blocked/unavailable is explicitly recorded and treated as blocking readiness\". That could be a strong dependency on DeepSeek. But since DeepSeek is advisory-only, its verdict is not binding. However, the contract says it must parse as pass or block readiness. This might be problematic because it delegates a gate decision to DeepSeek, which contradicts \"advisory-only\" if it becomes a requirement for the gate to pass. Actually, the contract says: \"The future implementation gate may pass only if: ... two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass or blocked/unavailable is explicitly recorded and treated as blocking readiness\". This means that if DeepSeek does not parse as pass (e.g., a parsing error) and it's not explicitly marked as blocked/unavailable, the gate won't pass. But the contract still says those DeepSeek outputs \"must be logged with ... advisory-only boundaries.\" Since the contract itself defines this as a pass criterion, it's part of the deterministic rules, not DeepSeek giving a binding verdict. It's just checking that DeepSeek was consulted and its response was recorded/parsed. The pass condition is \"parse as pass\" meaning the DeepSeek response indicates it supports the closeout. If DeepSeek says \"block\" or indicates issues, then it's not \"pass\". But does that give DeepSeek binding authority? The contract says \"These outputs are advisory-only\" but uses them as a condition. This could be seen as overreach if DeepSeek's advice is required to pass. However, it's the contract's own rule that requires this check; it's not DeepSeek having authority. It's a deterministic check: if DeepSeek's response (which is advisory) is a \"pass\", then the gate can pass. But if DeepSeek says \"block\", then the implementation cannot pass. This essentially gives DeepSeek a veto. But the contract itself is exercising that as part of its design. The operator constraints require DeepSeek to be advisory-only and not create authority. Having a deterministic rule that the gate cannot pass unless DeepSeek's response is \"pass\" might be seen as creating authority? But the contract itself defines that rule; it's not DeepSeek directly authorizing the gate. However, if we are reviewing this contract, we might flag that this could be a problem because it relies on DeepSeek's classification beyond its advisory role. But the contract says \"If DeepSeek consultation is run for implementation closeout, store ...\" and \"two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass or blocked/unavailable is explicitly recorded and treated as blocking readiness\". The phrase \"parse as pass\" might refer to the parsing of the DeepSeek response, not the verdict itself. Actually, it says \"DeepSeek rounds parse as pass\". It could mean that the JSON parsing of the DeepSeek response succeeds and the parsed response indicates a pass? Or it could mean the implementation parses the DeepSeek output as supporting closeout. The wording is ambiguous. But given the context of \"blocked/unavailable is explicitly recorded and treated as blocking readiness\", it seems that if DeepSeek cannot be consulted, the gate is blocked. This might be necessary to ensure the contract is reviewed. But it could also be overreach if the DeepSeek response is required to be \"pass\". However, the contract is an internally defined process, and as long as the pass criterion is explicitly defined and doesn't violate the advisory boundary (i.e., DeepSeek's response is not treated as authoritative evidence or acceptance), it might be acceptable. But we need to consider if this gives DeepSeek veto power over the implementation. Since the contract itself is being reviewed, we could recommend clarifying that the pass condition is checking that DeepSeek was consulted and its response recorded, not that its verdict is deterministically blocking. If the DeepSeek response indicates issues, that should be handled as recommendations, not blockers. The contract says \"If DeepSeek consultation is run ...\" and \"two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass or blocked/unavailable is explicitly recorded and treated as blocking readiness\". This could be interpreted as: if DeepSeek consultation was not run and is not explicitly blocked, the gate fails. If it was run and the response indicates a pass, it's okay. If it indicates a problem, maybe that's not \"parse as pass\"? It says \"parse as pass\" not \"verdict as support\". Possibly \"parse as pass\" means the JSON parsing of the consultation succeeded without errors. But the text says \"two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass or blocked/unavailable is explicitly recorded\". The \"parse as pass\" could mean the parsing of the DeepSeek output into the advisory record files was successful. That's a technical validation, not an endorsement. I think that's the intended meaning: the output files were created and parsed correctly. That seems fine. Also \"blocked/unavailable is explicitly recorded and treated as blocking readiness\" means if DeepSeek couldn't run, that's recorded and it blocks the gate. That's a deterministic validation, not giving authority to DeepSeek. So it's probably okay.\n\nAnother point: The contract says \"If DeepSeek consultation is run for implementation closeout, store consultation inputs/messages/raw/parsed/record files in dedicated output directories and reference them from the gate.\" This seems reasonable. But the contract also says \"DeepSeek advisory remains advisory-only and cannot become evidence\". Storing them is not becoming evidence, it's storing records of consultation.\n\nThe contract defines \"Allowed Work\" and \"Forbidden Work\". It is explicit.\n\nNow, the scope audit should check:\n- advisory_only_respected: Yes, contract explicitly says deepseek advisory-only, and forbidden work list excludes acceptance, evidence, etc.\n- candidate_refs_never_canonical: Yes, guard rules, rows must have non-binding flag, writeback forbidden, etc.\n- writeback_blocked: Yes, forbidden work includes writeback.\n- route_transition_blocked: Yes, forbidden and guard rule checks next_entrypoint unchanged.\n- evidence_creation_blocked: Yes, forbidden.\n- review_actions_non_mutating: Yes, explicitly said review actions are recommendations only, cannot mutate.\n- future_writeback_requires_separate_contract: Yes, contract says next stage after this contract would be a separate canonical UID binding acceptance/writeback contract.\n\nAll good.\n\nPotential required corrections: \n- The contract might need to clarify that the consumption guard must also check that the candidate_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings and candidate_refs_writeback_allowed fields exist on every row with candidate refs, but also that they are exactly the values true/false. It says \"includes ... =true\" and \"includes ... =false\". That's fine.\n- The contract says \"The guard may pass with review warnings if false-positive, missing-surface, alias-collision, or type-uncertainty risks are present, provided they are explicit review queue items and no forbidden writeback/acceptance authority is created.\" This is good.\n- The contract requires verification that every candidate ref resolves to a registry entity not blocked. But it doesn't specify what if a candidate ref resolves to a UID that is not in the registry at all. That is listed as a block condition: \"Any candidate ref points to an entity UID absent from the configured registry.\" Good.\n- The contract refers to \"configured registry path\" which is determined from preflight. The guard rule checks \"Any source/preflight/NOW-33 selected registry path or source fingerprint mismatches.\" Good.\n- The contract requires that \"every referenced candidate comes from a registry entity with blocked_for_review=false\". That ensures no blocked entity leakage. Good.\n\nOne nuance: The contract says \"Build a registry content review queue covering the 28 unblocked registry entities.\" That's consistent. But the contract also lists a risk flag \"blocked_registry_entity_leak\". That's for if a blocked entity candidate ref appears. But the guard would block that, so it would only appear in the report if it's a finding that caused block. That's fine.\n\nThe contract says \"Flag likely false positives, missing high-value surfaces, blocked-entity leakage, alias/surface collisions, duplicate-surface risks, weak support, and type/subtype uncertainty.\" These are part of the review queues and reports. No issues.\n\nThe contract requires \"Build a candidate-ref consumption guard report with pass/block findings.\" That's fine.\n\nNow, are there any missing guard rules? For example, should the guard also check that the number of candidate refs in the manifest matches the count in the NOW-33 entity link gate? The contract says \"Verify that every NOW-33 row with candidate refs includes ...\" and \"Verify that every referenced candidate comes from a registry entity with blocked_for_review=false.\" It doesn't require a count check, but the consumption guard report might include a cross-validation. Not strictly necessary for guard.\n\nThe contract says \"Verify that the configured registry path, selected preflight path, and NOW-33 registry discovery path match.\" That covers consistency.\n\nOverall, the contract appears thorough and respects boundaries.\n\nWe should also consider the contract's requirement to \"not create canonical facts, operator acceptance, provider evidence, writeback authority, route authority, or outputs index authority.\" That is explicit in the consultation request, but the contract itself also includes similar statements.\n\nGiven all this, the overall verdict should be \"supports_contract\" with possible minor corrections.\n\nBut we need to identify any findings. Possibly there is an overreach: the contract says \"Run two DeepSeek v4 pro thinking/max advisory rounds over the contract and output packet if the implementation asserts closeout/readiness.\" It says \"over the contract and output packet\". Does this mean DeepSeek reviews the contract itself? That could be overreach because the contract is already reviewed here. But it's not a big issue. The main issue could be the reliance on DeepSeek parsing for gate pass. But I think it's okay.\n\nMaybe we should suggest correction that the pass criterion regarding DeepSeek should be explicitly about technical parsing success, not about DeepSeek's verdict. The current wording is ambiguous. Also, ensure that \"parse as pass\" is defined as successful JSON parse of consultation record. We could recommend clarification.\n\nAnother correction: The contract mentions \"If DeepSeek consultation is run for implementation closeout, store consultation inputs/messages/raw/parsed/record files in dedicated output directories and reference them from the gate.\" As this is a review contract, we might note that this could be seen as creating a record that might later be used as evidence, but it's explicitly advisory. However, if the records are stored as part of the output run, they could be misused as evidence in the future. But the contract says \"DeepSeek advisory remains advisory-only and cannot become evidence\". So the contract itself prohibits that. We might recommend adding a statement that these records must not be downstream used as evidence or acceptance except for review purposes. But the contract already places the advisory-only boundary.\n\nMaybe we can suggest a correction: Ensure that the risk flag \"non_binding_guard_missing\" is defined and used. It is listed in risk flags. Good.\n\nAnother point: The contract says \"The guard must block if ... execution_state.json.next_entrypoint changed.\" This is listed as a block condition, but note that the contract cannot implement any route transition, but checking that it hasn't changed is a deterministic validation. Good.\n\nNow, considering the expected_output_schema, we need to produce a JSON response.\n\nI'll produce \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_with_required_corrections\", with a low/medium confidence? Let's say medium because there are minor refinements.\n\nI'll include findings:\n- Ensure the \"DeepSeek rounds parse as pass\" criterion is explicitly defined as successful JSON parsing of DeepSeek consultation records, not as endorsement of advice. Risk of creating binding authority if misinterpreted. (Medium severity, category: authority)\n- Recommend clarifying that the consumption guard must also verify that the number of candidate refs per row matches the manifest counts (low).\n- Recommend adding a requirement that the consumption guard report includes a verification that no forbidden side-effect counts are non-zero (already in pass criteria but not in guard report). Not necessary.\n\nAlso, consider that the contract might need to enforce that the reviewer (DeepSeek) doesn't inadvertently create binding recommendations. But the contract prohibits that. So no correction needed.\n\nAnother possible correction: The contract lists \"candidate_entity_refs_are_not_canonical_bindings=true\" but the guard rule uses the value \"true\" and \"false\". It should be case-sensitive? Should specify boolean values. Possibly minor.\n\nThe scope audit should all be true. I'll set them all true.\n\nRecommended status label: \"supports_with_corrections\" or \"contract_ready_pending_clarifications\". The expected output schema asks for \"recommended_status_label\": string. I'll use \"supports_with_minor_corrections\".\n\nNow, construct the JSON.\n\nBut note: The consultation input says \"Return strict JSON only.\" So we output the JSON exactly as per expected_output_schema.\n\nI need to ensure the JSON is valid and matches the schema.\n\nSchema:\n- overall_verdict: one of supports_contract, supports_with_required_corrections, blocks_contract\n- confidence: low|medium|high\n- required_contract_corrections: array of strings\n- findings: array of objects with severity, category, description, required_fix\n- scope_audit: object with booleans\n- recommended_status_label: string\n\nLet's compose.\n\nFindings:\n\n1. Category: authority, severity: medium, description: \"The pass criterion 'two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass' is ambiguous. If 'parse as pass' is interpreted as DeepSeek's response indicating support for closeout, it may grant DeepSeek binding authority over the gate, contradicting advisory-only constraints.\" required_fix: \"Clarify that 'parse as pass' means the consultation record files were successfully generated and parsed without technical errors, not that DeepSeek's verdict is 'pass'. Alternatively, replace with validation that DeepSeek consultation record exists and is parseable.\"\n\n2. Category: validation, severity: low, description: \"The contract does not explicitly require verification that each row's total count of candidate refs matches the number of entries in the manifest row's candidate_refs list.\" required_fix: \"Add a guard rule or validation step to ensure row-level candidate ref counts are consistent.\"\n\n3. Category: boundary, severity: low, description: \"The contract allows storing DeepSeek consultation records in output run. While currently advisory-only, these records could be misconstrued as evidence in future steps. Recommend adding explicit statement that these records are purely for review and must not be used as sourcing evidence or acceptance in future contracts.\" required_fix: \"Add a note that DeepSeek consultation records are not sourcing evidence and are not authoritative, consistent with advisory-only boundary.\"\n\nMaybe also note that the contract uses \"blocked_for_review\" but there could be entities that are unblocked but with limited evidence. That's covered by risk flags.\n\nI'll keep findings to 3.\n\nAlternatively, we might note that the contract does not explicitly require that the consumption guard report includes a statement that no route transition occurred. But the guard rules block if next_entrypoint changed, so it's implicit.\n\nAlso, check that the contract says \"Verify that the configured registry path, selected preflight path, and NOW-33 registry discovery path match.\" That's good.\n\nI think the main correction is about the DeepSeek pass criterion.\n\nNow, the scope_audit: all booleans true.\n\nrecommended_status_label: \"supports_with_required_corrections\"\n\nrequired_contract_corrections: array of strings, include a summary.\n\nI'll provide explicit corrections as strings.\n\nLet's craft final JSON.",
          "role": "assistant"
        }
      }
    ],
    "created": 1780813899,
    "id": "81d1962b-b9fa-4b14-bf82-97eaeb76ff43",
    "model": "deepseek-v4-flash",
    "object": "chat.completion",
    "system_fingerprint": "fp_8b330d02d0_prod0820_fp8_kvcache_20260402",
    "usage": {
      "completion_tokens": 5290,
      "completion_tokens_details": {
        "reasoning_tokens": 4596
      },
      "prompt_cache_hit_tokens": 0,
      "prompt_cache_miss_tokens": 5973,
      "prompt_tokens": 5973,
      "prompt_tokens_details": {
        "cached_tokens": 0
      },
      "total_tokens": 11263
    }
  },
  "raw_response_meta": {
    "type": "dict"
  },
  "response_text": "{\n  \"overall_verdict\": \"supports_with_required_corrections\",\n  \"confidence\": \"medium\",\n  \"required_contract_corrections\": [\n    \"Clarify that 'two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass' means the consultation record files were successfully generated and parsed without technical errors, not that DeepSeek's verdict is 'pass'. Otherwise the gate may incorrectly depend on DeepSeek's advisory opinion, contradicting the advisory-only boundary.\",\n    \"Add a guard rule or explicit validation to verify that each row's total count of candidate refs (candidate_entity_ref_count in manifest) matches the number of entries in the row's candidate_refs list, ensuring referential consistency.\",\n    \"Add an explicit statement that DeepSeek consultation records stored in the output run are purely for review purposes and must not be used as sourcing evidence or acceptance authority in any downstream contract, consistent with the existing advisory-only boundary.\"\n  ],\n  \"findings\": [\n    {\n      \"severity\": \"medium\",\n      \"category\": \"authority\",\n      \"description\": \"Pass criterion 'two DeepSeek rounds parse as pass' is ambiguous. If interpreted as requiring DeepSeek's response to indicate 'pass' (i.e., support for closeout), it grants DeepSeek a binding gate authority, violating the advisory-only constraint. The criterion should be restricted to technical parsing success or explicit blocked/unavailable recording.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Rewrite the pass clause to specify that DeepSeek consultation records must be present, parseable, and either marked 'pass' (technical parse success) or explicitly handled via 'blocked/unavailable' recording. Remove any implication that DeepSeek's advisory verdict controls the gate.\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"severity\": \"low\",\n      \"category\": \"validation\",\n      \"description\": \"The contract does not require row-level consistency between the NOW-33 manifest's candidate_entity_ref_count and the actual candidate_refs array length. A mismatch could indicate data corruption or incomplete processing without detection.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Add a consumption guard rule or dedicated validation step to check that, for every row with non-empty candidate refs, the declared count matches the array size.\"\n    },\n    {\n      \"severity\": \"low\",\n      \"category\": \"boundary\",\n      \"description\": \"DeepSeek consultation records are stored alongside output artifacts. Although the contract states they are advisory-only, future steps might inadvertently reference them as sourcing evidence or acceptance. The contract should reinforce that these records are review aids and must never become evidence or canonical authority.\",\n      \"required_fix\": \"Add a sentence in the 'DeepSeek Advisory Requirements' section or output artifacts description that explicitly forbids downstream use of these records as evidence or acceptance, reinforcing the advisory-only boundary.\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"scope_audit\": {\n    \"advisory_only_respected\": true,\n    \"candidate_refs_never_canonical\": true,\n    \"writeback_blocked\": true,\n    \"route_transition_blocked\": true,\n    \"evidence_creation_blocked\": true,\n    \"review_actions_non_mutating\": true,\n    \"future_writeback_requires_separate_contract\": true\n  },\n  \"recommended_status_label\": \"supports_with_required_corrections\"\n}",
  "version": "now33_reference_candidate_consumption_guard_contract_deepseek.v1"
}