{
  "version": "now36_real_asset_evidence_activation_decision_contract_deepseek.v1",
  "created_at": "2026-06-08T19:50:11.238505Z",
  "round_id": "round2",
  "call_status": "success",
  "parse_status": "pass",
  "parse_error": "",
  "overall_verdict": "",
  "round2_verdict": "round1_supported_with_corrections",
  "confidence": "high",
  "finding_counts": {
    "low": 3
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "category": "scope",
      "description": "Comprehensive audit of the contract and Round 1 findings reveals no overreach, hidden production/provider/manual execution authority, fake evidence semantics, asset binding leakage, writeback leakage, route transition leakage, replay leakage, outputs-index mutation risk, or operator delegation boundary violations. The contract correctly scopes NOW-36 as a deterministic decision gate that must block production activation under current evidence gaps.",
      "required_fix": "none",
      "severity": "low"
    },
    {
      "category": "evidence",
      "description": "The Required Blockers section lists specific counts that reflect the current evidence basis. While the validation rule (required blocker counts must match current evidence) dynamically enforces consistency, the descriptive counts in the contract could be misinterpreted as hardcoded constants. To prevent future implementation confusion, the contract should explicitly state that the gate must derive blocker counts from the provided input artifacts rather than using the contract text as fixed values.",
      "required_fix": "Add a note in the Required Blockers section: 'The counts listed below are derived from the current evidence basis referenced in this contract. The implementation must compute the actual blocker counts by reading the designated input artifacts; the gate must output blockers that reflect the current state of the evidence, not the illustrative numbers in this section.'",
      "severity": "low"
    },
    {
      "category": "operator_constraints",
      "description": "The contract properly enforces that DeepSeek advisory (including Round 1 and this Round 2) remains advisory-only and does not constitute evidence, production acceptance, route authority, writeback authority, replay authority, or outputs-index authority. This aligns with the existing operator delegation boundaries recorded in execution_state.",
      "required_fix": "none",
      "severity": "low"
    }
  ],
  "required_corrections": [
    "Add a note in the Required Blockers section clarifying that counts are illustrative and must be dynamically computed from evidence inputs."
  ],
  "raw_payload": {
    "confidence": "high",
    "fake_evidence_or_asset_binding_overreach_detected": false,
    "final_recommendation": "land_as_written",
    "findings": [
      {
        "category": "scope",
        "description": "Comprehensive audit of the contract and Round 1 findings reveals no overreach, hidden production/provider/manual execution authority, fake evidence semantics, asset binding leakage, writeback leakage, route transition leakage, replay leakage, outputs-index mutation risk, or operator delegation boundary violations. The contract correctly scopes NOW-36 as a deterministic decision gate that must block production activation under current evidence gaps.",
        "required_fix": "none",
        "severity": "low"
      },
      {
        "category": "evidence",
        "description": "The Required Blockers section lists specific counts that reflect the current evidence basis. While the validation rule (required blocker counts must match current evidence) dynamically enforces consistency, the descriptive counts in the contract could be misinterpreted as hardcoded constants. To prevent future implementation confusion, the contract should explicitly state that the gate must derive blocker counts from the provided input artifacts rather than using the contract text as fixed values.",
        "required_fix": "Add a note in the Required Blockers section: 'The counts listed below are derived from the current evidence basis referenced in this contract. The implementation must compute the actual blocker counts by reading the designated input artifacts; the gate must output blockers that reflect the current state of the evidence, not the illustrative numbers in this section.'",
        "severity": "low"
      },
      {
        "category": "operator_constraints",
        "description": "The contract properly enforces that DeepSeek advisory (including Round 1 and this Round 2) remains advisory-only and does not constitute evidence, production acceptance, route authority, writeback authority, replay authority, or outputs-index authority. This aligns with the existing operator delegation boundaries recorded in execution_state.",
        "required_fix": "none",
        "severity": "low"
      }
    ],
    "hidden_provider_or_production_authority_detected": false,
    "parse_status": "pass",
    "required_corrections": [
      "Add a note in the Required Blockers section clarifying that counts are illustrative and must be dynamically computed from evidence inputs."
    ],
    "round2_verdict": "round1_supported_with_corrections",
    "writeback_route_replay_or_outputs_index_leakage_detected": false
  },
  "advisory_only": true,
  "not_evidence_or_acceptance_or_route_authority": true
}