Anti-Performative-Agreement Vocabulary Ban

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

A reviewer proposes replacing a database with a mock, but the teaching integration test checks old-record reads after a real migration. Respond courteously without letting automatic praise replace coverage analysis.

Mechanism

Restate the suggestion and inspect affected behavior/test purpose. Implement with evidence if required coverage remains. If a mock bypasses migration, cite paths and explain an alternative preserving that behavior. Respond with judgment/evidence rather than agreement implying acceptance. Identify missing facts when needed.

Bad example

Great point! Replace the database immediately without inspecting migration coverage or explaining what is lost.

Good example

Inspect the suggestion and test purpose. This fixture checks old records after real migration, which a pure mock bypasses. Cite the path/call relationship and retain coverage or propose appropriate layering. A separate format-only test may justify a mock under its own purpose. State accepted/retained/unverified decisions and actual checks instead of automatic agreement.

Why the change matters

Praise can turn an unchecked suggestion into a commitment. Concrete engagement connects discussion to behavior and makes disagreement/change verification inspectable.

Observable expectation

An illustrative response distinguishes migration coverage from format testing with references. Check actual test claims and agreement between disposition/implementation. Removing praise while still blindly replacing the dependency also fails.

No real review response is posted.

Limits

Courtesy and verification are compatible; word bans do not forbid every thanks. Test purposes differ and need evidence. Source wording rules assist but do not establish correctness or grant remote-post permission.