# Score Sheet

**Kata ID:** B1-runtime-contract-v2-parity-review
**Run ID:** B1-selected-001

| Dimension | Score (0–4) | Why |
|-----------|-------------|-----|
| α Pattern | 4 | The review was structured, evidence-anchored, and correctly separated code, docs, and operator surfaces. |
| β Relation | 4 | It caught the main authority-surface conflicts: runtime builder vs AGENT-RUNTIME example vs CAA wake model vs doctor claim strength. |
| γ Exit | 3 | It proposed the right finishing patch set and did not over-redesign, though it did not fully model the long-term doctor follow-on. |
| Efficiency | 3 | More expensive than the cold run, but still one round and the gain was substantial. |

## Positive Signals

- [x] Correctly started from issue/claim contract.
- [x] Checked unchanged authoritative sibling docs.
- [x] Caught stale examples and stale wake-model narrative.
- [x] Distinguished structural presence from full consistency.

## Negative Signals

- [x] Slightly more verbose than needed.
- [x] Could have named the deferral contract to #59 more explicitly.

## Transfer Assessment

- likely moderate to strong, but not proven until Task B

## Cost Assessment

- acceptable

## Final Classification

- skill-effective
