Ordered reconciliation of reviewer findings

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

Use case

A cache allows up to 30 seconds of staleness. Review says any stale data is wrong, while another path really permits unbounded staleness. Neither fixing nor dismissing both wholesale is appropriate.

Mechanism

Reread artifact and supplied contract per finding. Classify in order: repair missing/misread contract first; fix valid actionable defects; record accepted trade-offs with scope/reasons; explain context-based noise. Retain evidence, ruling and next action, then reclassify after contract clarification. Authorized owners accept trade-offs, not an author’s unsupported closure.

Bad example

Make every request synchronous because review objects to staleness, or ignore unlimited staleness because some staleness is allowed.

Good example

Clarify the 30-second tolerance, inspect both paths and reassess compliant bounded behavior. Treat unbounded staleness as actionable. Record accepted latency trade-offs separately with evidence/scope and retain unresolved items. Repair based on facts rather than finding count.

Why the change matters

Review output is judgment data; artifact reconciliation avoids rubber-stamping. Contract-first classification reduces unnecessary edits while preserving genuine failure paths.

Observable expectation

Teaching 20-second staleness is within contract;45 seconds or unbounded behavior needs violation checking. If the reviewer lacked the tolerance, record clarification/review rather than dismissal. Every item links evidence and ruling.

Limits

Classification requires judgment; disagreement proves neither side right. Hidden needs and unapproved trade-offs may require an owner. Do not retroactively write a contract to authorize behavior. Frozen precedence is a method, not project authority.