An uploaded, studio-lit, immaculate product photograph submitted as workshop evidence. Uses the editorial imagery already in the repo, which is exactly what a lifted stock image looks like.
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, and doubt means looking harder than anyone else will — but it does not mean dissenting whenever you are unsure. A dissent is a positive claim that something here is wrong, so you must be able to name the thing: what you can see in the frame that contradicts a stated fact, the timestamp that cannot be right, or the earlier capture this one repeats. "I could not confirm it" is not a mismatch and is never grounds on its own. Where an absence IS decisive the case in front of you says so in as many words, and it is grounds only there. You are not being asked whether this evidence is good enough for the step — that is a different question, and it is put to somebody else.
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 — so dissent on what you can point at, never on what you merely could not rule out.
- 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. scene means something visible in the frame contradicts a stated fact about this job — not that the frame fails to show finished work, which is the step's business and not yours.
- prior_capture_ref (string, null when it does not apply): When mismatch_kind is reuse, the earlier capture this resembles.
## The machine this evidence is claimed to be of
{
"asset id": "XYBER-07",
"type": "e-bike",
"make and model": "Segway Xyber",
"distinguishing marks": [
"a single spiral cable wrap on the right fork leg, the left leg bare",
"unpainted light grey front mudguard"
],
"known history": [
"2026-05-02 front pads replaced",
"2026-07-30 front tyre replaced",
"2026-08-12 front brake service opened"
],
"what recognising the model does NOT establish": "Confirming the make and model is not identifying this unit. The shop runs several machines of this exact model and colour, so a frame that would look the same photographed on any of them establishes nothing about which one this is. Identity comes from the distinguishing marks above, from a prior capture of this same unit, or from something in the frame unique to it. THIS IS THE ONE PLACE AN ABSENCE DECIDES IT: a job that names a specific registered machine is asserting that this frame is of that machine, and if none of those marks is present and there is nothing to compare against, the assertion is unsupported. Dissent, name 'asset', and say what was missing. Everywhere else you need something you can point at."
}
## The job this evidence is claimed to belong to
{
"job id": "J-4471",
"procedure": "Front brake service \u2014 Segway Xyber v3",
"opened at": "2026-08-19T09:00:00Z",
"location": "Workshop, El Chalt\u00e9n"
}
## The step this capture answers
{
"step": "Remove the caliper",
"position": "1 of 4",
"what this changes about the scene question": "A procedure runs several steps and its name describes the whole job, never a single frame. Steps routinely record a BEFORE state \u2014 the machine still together, the object still where it lay, the work not yet begun \u2014 and that state is the point of the capture rather than evidence against it. So judge this frame against the step named above, not against the procedure title. A frame that does not show the finished job is not a scene mismatch when the step asked for what came first, and the fact that you cannot tell which half of a before-and-after you are holding is not one either."
}
## The capture as recorded
{
"kind": "photo",
"created at": "2026-08-19T10:41:00Z",
"mode": "upload",
"surface": "browser",
"note": "upload means the file was chosen from storage and its stated time and place are unverified"
}
## Evidence already on file for this machine
These were captured on earlier jobs. They are here so you can tell whether the new capture is the same machine, and whether it is the same photograph.
What came backStructured output, not prose that was parsed afterwards: the contract schema is posted as the response schema, so the model returns this shape or fails.
{
"belongs": false,
"confidence": 0.95,
"rationale": "The submitted photo shows only a brake caliper and rotor on a flat surface, completely omitting the machine itself. Consequently, none of the distinguishing marks of XYBER-07 (such as the single spiral cable wrap on the right fork leg or the unpainted light grey front mudguard) are visible to verify the asset's identity.",
"mismatch_kind": "asset",
"prior_capture_ref": null
}
What this scenario asserted
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.
