Problem
The same agent currently proposes the visual and performs the “independent” render review. The documentation acknowledges the residual rubber-stamp risk, but the review still depends on the reasoning that authored the spec.
This is especially risky for semantic defects: a misleading title, inappropriate chart type, omitted takeaway clause, or invented source can look correct to the agent that created it.
@rmdms
Suggested solution
Add a separate, hidden critique pass with a fresh context and structured inputs. It may use a separate review model/agent or another isolation mechanism, but internal identifiers and orchestration plumbing must never appear in journalist-facing output.
The reviewer should receive only the evidence needed to review:
- Confirmed takeaway and accepted proposal.
- Article/data or bounded evidence extracts with provenance.
- Actual render(s) and target viewport metadata.
- Interaction-test results.
- Shared review rubric and source policy.
It should return validated structured findings with criterion, severity, evidence, and confidence—not free-form internal reasoning. The host orchestration records the findings and presents only newsroom-facing summaries.
Independence must be observable in the run manifest: reviewer mode/version, input hashes, output hash, and whether a fallback self-review was used. If the independent reviewer is unavailable, do not silently claim independence; record self-review and apply the configured policy.
Define privacy/data-retention requirements before sending unpublished reporting to any additional model or service. Support a local/same-provider isolation mode for sensitive newsrooms.
Acceptance criteria
- The critique pass runs in a fresh context that did not author the proposal.
- Inputs and outputs are structured, hashed, and recorded without exposing private chain-of-thought.
- Journalist-facing messages contain findings only, never agent IDs or internal task plumbing.
- Unavailable independent review is explicitly recorded and handled by policy.
- Re-production triggers a fresh critique of the new artifact.
- Tests include seeded semantic defects that the critique must catch, privacy/redaction cases, and no-internal-ID output checks.
Problem
The same agent currently proposes the visual and performs the “independent” render review. The documentation acknowledges the residual rubber-stamp risk, but the review still depends on the reasoning that authored the spec.
This is especially risky for semantic defects: a misleading title, inappropriate chart type, omitted takeaway clause, or invented source can look correct to the agent that created it.
@rmdms
Suggested solution
Add a separate, hidden critique pass with a fresh context and structured inputs. It may use a separate review model/agent or another isolation mechanism, but internal identifiers and orchestration plumbing must never appear in journalist-facing output.
The reviewer should receive only the evidence needed to review:
It should return validated structured findings with criterion, severity, evidence, and confidence—not free-form internal reasoning. The host orchestration records the findings and presents only newsroom-facing summaries.
Independence must be observable in the run manifest: reviewer mode/version, input hashes, output hash, and whether a fallback self-review was used. If the independent reviewer is unavailable, do not silently claim independence; record
self-reviewand apply the configured policy.Define privacy/data-retention requirements before sending unpublished reporting to any additional model or service. Support a local/same-provider isolation mode for sensitive newsrooms.
Acceptance criteria