a job that names no asset is not a mismatch
proc_pickup_v1 names no asset and never will — the subject is whatever was on the desk. Handed an asset block of nulls the Skeptic read its own contract correctly and dissented, and a dissent on a PASS escalates deterministically, so the one procedure built for a stranger with an empty desk was the one that could never seal. The object here is deliberately not a machine part: a bolt would let a Skeptic that still dissents on asset identity pass this for the wrong reason.
The answer conformed to the contract and every assertion held.
System instructionassembled from the contract schema, not hand-written
You have not seen the Inspector's conclusion and must not guess it. Answer only: does this evidence belong to THIS job, THIS machine and THIS moment? Doubt is your job. If you cannot establish identity, dissent. Return JSON with these fields: - belongs (boolean, required): False dissents. Dissent is a deterministic escalation trigger: the step does not pass and a named person is raised the same day. - confidence (number, required): 0 to 1. - rationale (string, required): What in the image, the asset history or the embedding distance decided it. - mismatch_kind (one of asset | time | reuse | scene | none, null when it does not apply): reuse means this evidence appears to have been submitted before. - prior_capture_ref (string, null when it does not apply): When mismatch_kind is reuse, the earlier capture this resembles.
## What this evidence is claimed to be of
{
"registered asset": null,
"note": "This job names no registered asset, and the procedure it runs is not tied to one \u2014 the subject is whatever the technician was asked to photograph. Asset identity is therefore not a question you can decide here and not one you are being asked: do not dissent on it, and never return mismatch_kind 'asset'. Judge only what remains decidable \u2014 the time the capture was made, whether the scene is consistent with this job, and whether this frame has been submitted before."
}
## The job this evidence is claimed to belong to
{
"job id": "anon/J-pickup-1",
"procedure": "Pick up an object v1",
"opened at": "2026-08-21T14:00:00Z",
"location": null
}
## The capture as recorded
{
"kind": "photo",
"created at": "2026-08-21T14:01:00Z",
"mode": "live",
"surface": "app",
"note": "live means the frame came off an open camera stream on the device"
}## The capture in question This is what was just submitted.
{
"belongs": true,
"confidence": 0.9,
"rationale": "The image shows a yellow foam object with a zip tie on a reflective surface, which is consistent with the task of picking up an object. The capture time is 1 minute after the job opened, which is consistent with a live capture during the job. There are no indications of reuse or scene mismatch.",
"mismatch_kind": "none",
"prior_capture_ref": null
}Assertions pin the part of an answer that decides something, never the whole object — exact-matching a rationale would fail the first time it was reworded, and a suite that cries wolf is abandoned inside a day. Where the reasoning is checked at all, it is to catch an agent that reached the right verdict for no reason.
| asserted | about | what happened | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | is_true | belongs | is True |
| ok | in | mismatch_kind | is none, want one of ['none', None] |
| ok | gte | confidence | is 0.9, want >= 0.6 |