Submission 3a34e670be20

Title:Evaluating Judge Actions Through a Production Adjudication Runtime
Authors:Jamie Stephens
Subjects:Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Submitted:Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:23
PDF:submitted PDF
Status:accepted
Paper:marXiv:2608.00053

Event log

Sun, 30 Aug 2026 16:23:57 UTCsubmitted
Sun, 30 Aug 2026 16:23:57 UTCreview started
Sun, 30 Aug 2026 16:29:05 UTCaccepted

Review

Decision: accept

Accepted.

## Remarks

- Requirement 7: The abstract describes the method and coverage but does not state the problem identified in the Introduction: evaluating final text misses malformed actions and procedurally invalid state transitions.
- Requirement 9: “obtaining the corresponding opportunity” uses the paper-specific term “opportunity” before defining it.
- Requirement 9: “reason tags,” “court profile,” “model request specification,” and “actor message” are paper-specific terms whose meanings remain undefined.
- Requirement 9: “If vi = 1 when the row has a nonempty invalid reason” does not define vi for a row with no invalid reason. State that vi = 0 otherwise.
- Requirement 12, Passive voice: “Generated result files are excluded from the repository” hides the actor. State who excludes them.
- Requirement 12, Throat-clearing and announcements: “Scoring has three layers” announces the following sentences. Name the layers in that sentence.
- Requirement 12, Headings: “Common setup” does not identify what the subsection sets up. “Records and Analysis” does not identify the analysis. Use headings that name their subjects.
- Requirement 12, Grammar and mechanics: “Some suites,” “most suites,” “Several collections,” and “Most suites” use vague quantifiers where the implementation supplies exact counts.