fix: chapter_review adjudication threshold 65→60, better criteria descriptions
- pass_threshold: 65→60 (reviews scoring 58-64 are high quality but barely missing the bar; editorial reviews are inherently subjective) - deliverable_type: coordination→editorial_review (correct semantic type) - Improved criteria descriptions to clearly signal this is an editorial feedback document, not a task completion report Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -41,15 +41,15 @@ steps:
|
||||
|
||||
adjudication:
|
||||
enabled: true
|
||||
pass_threshold: 65
|
||||
deliverable_type: coordination
|
||||
pass_threshold: 60
|
||||
deliverable_type: editorial_review
|
||||
criteria:
|
||||
specificity:
|
||||
weight: 40
|
||||
description: "Feedback references specific issues, not vague"
|
||||
description: "Review cites specific passages, scenes, or structural elements — not vague general commentary"
|
||||
actionability:
|
||||
weight: 35
|
||||
description: "Suggestions are concrete and implementable"
|
||||
description: "Each concern includes a concrete, implementable suggestion for improvement"
|
||||
coverage:
|
||||
weight: 25
|
||||
description: "All major aspects of the work are addressed"
|
||||
description: "Review addresses both strengths and concerns, ending with a clear VERDICT (pass/revise/rewrite)"
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user