{ "schema_version": "1.1", "experiment_id": "AIEL-2026-0011", "source_type": "current_project_activity", "title": { "en": "Structuring AI review around human technical-review expectations: design and initial validation of a two-cycle four-pass process", "ja": "人間が期待する技術記事レビューにAIを近づけるための4-Pass × 2-Cycleレビュー設計と初期検証" }, "status": "PARTIAL", "timestamps": { "created_at": "2026-09-27T18:22:00+09:00", "started_at": "2026-09-07", "observed_at": "2026-09-09", "completed_at": null, "published_at": "2026-09-27T09:50:37+00:00", "last_verified": "2026-09-09", "updated_at": "2026-09-27T09:50:37+00:00" }, "objective": { "summary_en": "Test whether review failures exposed by human cold reading can be converted into an explicit AI-executable review process, and determine whether separating Critical/Evidence, Lateral/Reframing, Logical/Reconstruction, and Integrated Cold Read passes across two clean cycles can expose material defects that an earlier accepted review missed without turning every possible improvement into a public edit.", "summary_ja": "Humanのcold readで露呈したレビュー漏れを、AIが実行可能な明示的レビュー手順へ変換できるかを試す。Critical/Evidence、Lateral/Reframing、Logical/Reconstruction、Integrated Cold Readを4つのPassに分け、完成状態を2 Cycleで再確認することで、従来のaccepted reviewが見逃したmaterial defectを発見できるか、かつ改善可能性をすべて公開変更へ変換しない運用にできるかを検証する。", "success_criteria": [ { "id": "SC-001", "description_en": "Retain at least one case where an earlier AI/publication PASS was reopened by a Human material finding, and classify what kind of review reasoning was missing.", "description_ja": "以前のAI/publication PASSがHumanのmaterial findingでreopenされた事例を少なくとも1件保持し、欠けていたレビュー思考の種類を分類する。" }, { "id": "SC-002", "description_en": "Encode the missing reasoning as an explicit ordered review process with restart behavior and a distinct post-publication change-necessity decision.", "description_ja": "不足していた思考を、順序付きレビュー、material correction時のrestart、公開後の変更必要性判定を含む明示的手順として定義する。" }, { "id": "SC-003", "description_en": "Apply the process to a real AIEL article and retain evidence that it identified at least one material issue not resolved by the previously accepted publication state, followed by two clean cycles on the corrected final artifact.", "description_ja": "実際のAIEL記事へ適用し、以前のaccepted publication stateで解消されていなかったmaterial issueを少なくとも1件発見し、修正後の同一final artifactで2回連続clean cycleを完了したEvidenceを保持する。" }, { "id": "SC-004", "description_en": "Across multiple future articles, evaluate whether Human material reopenings decrease and whether the post-publication gate avoids unnecessary public churn without preserving material defects.", "description_ja": "今後の複数記事で、Humanによるmaterial reopenが減るか、また公開後Gateがmaterial defectを残さず不要なpublic churnを避けられるかを評価する。" } ] }, "scope": { "included": [ "Human feedback that a prior AI-reviewed AIEL article still contained material reader-context or necessity defects", "AIEL-specific operational meanings of Critical/Evidence, Lateral/Reframing, Logical/Reconstruction, and Integrated Cold Read", "Two-cycle review with restart to Cycle 1 Pass 1 after a material correction", "Fresh-review posture for Cycle 2", "Published-Article Change Necessity Review and the distinction between improvement possibility and change necessity", "Initial operational application to AIEL-2026-0007", "Qualitative and case-count evaluation suitable for future repeated use" ], "excluded": [ "Claiming that the AIEL meanings exhaust general definitions of critical, logical, or lateral thinking", "Claiming statistically validated review accuracy from a single operational case", "Treating same-agent cold read as independent third-party review", "Using arbitrary percentage scores for inherently qualitative Human review adequacy", "Retroactively re-reviewing the existing public corpus solely because this process exists" ], "limitations": [ "The initial operational validation is based on one principal published-article case, AIEL-2026-0007.", "The same AI system participated in process design, article review, and this documentation; that is not independent validation.", "Human review adequacy is partly qualitative and cannot currently be reduced to a defensible accuracy percentage.", "The Published-Article Change Necessity Review was formally specified after the first two-cycle application and has not yet accumulated enough operational cases to establish effectiveness." ] }, "environment": { "hardware": [], "software": [ { "name": "AI Experiment Log publication workflow", "version": "Publishing Standard v1.9 with v1.8 two-cycle and v1.7 four-pass rules", "role": "review-process implementation and evidence-retention environment" }, { "name": "ChatGPT", "version": "GPT-5.6 Sol", "role": "AI reviewer and process-documentation system" }, { "name": "GitHub", "version": null, "role": "retention of standards, review artifacts, article revisions, and machine-readable experiment records" } ], "firmware": [], "network": null, "environmental_conditions": [] }, "hypotheses": [ { "id": "H-001", "statement_en": "Separating evidence challenge, reframing, logical reconstruction, and final cold reading into ordered passes, then repeating the complete sequence on the corrected final artifact, can reveal material publication defects that an undifferentiated or single-cycle review may leave behind.", "statement_ja": "Evidence検証、reframing、論理再構築、最終cold readを順序付きPassへ分離し、修正後final artifactでもう一度全Passを実行することで、未分離または1 Cycleのレビューが残すmaterial defectを発見できる。", "status": "PARTIALLY_SUPPORTED", "created_at": "2026-09-08", "evidence_refs": [ "O-001", "O-002", "O-003", "O-004", "O-005" ] }, { "id": "H-002", "statement_en": "A separate post-publication necessity gate can preserve publication stability by declining optional improvements while still requiring material corrections.", "statement_ja": "公開後に変更必要性を別Gateで判定すれば、material correctionは維持しながらoptional improvementを変更しないことでpublication stabilityを保てる。", "status": "UNTESTED", "created_at": "2026-09-09", "evidence_refs": [ "O-006" ] } ], "procedures": [ { "id": "P-001", "sequence": 1, "description_en": "Use Human cold-read findings against an earlier accepted article to identify review dimensions that the prior AI process failed to exercise adequately.", "description_ja": "以前にacceptedとなった記事に対するHuman cold-read findingから、旧AIレビューで十分に働かなかったレビュー観点を抽出する。", "status": "EXECUTED" }, { "id": "P-002", "sequence": 2, "description_en": "Separate the review into Critical/Evidence, Lateral/Reframing, Logical/Reconstruction, and Integrated Cold Read passes, preserving the existing AIEL semantic gates inside those passes.", "description_ja": "既存AIEL semantic gateを保持したまま、レビューをCritical/Evidence、Lateral/Reframing、Logical/Reconstruction、Integrated Cold Readの4 Passへ分離する。", "status": "EXECUTED" }, { "id": "P-003", "sequence": 3, "description_en": "Require two consecutive clean four-pass cycles on the same final artifact state; any material correction restarts the process at Cycle 1 Pass 1, and Cycle 2 uses a fresh-review posture.", "description_ja": "同一final artifact stateで4 Passを2 Cycle連続cleanに完了することを要求し、material correctionがあればCycle 1 Pass 1へ戻る。Cycle 2はfresh-review postureで行う。", "status": "EXECUTED" }, { "id": "P-004", "sequence": 4, "description_en": "Apply the two-cycle process to AIEL-2026-0007 and record material findings, corrections, restart, and final clean cycles.", "description_ja": "2 Cycle方式をAIEL-2026-0007へ適用し、material finding、修正、restart、最終clean cycleを記録する。", "status": "EXECUTED" }, { "id": "P-005", "sequence": 5, "description_en": "Add a downstream Published-Article Change Necessity Review so a valid finding does not automatically require mutation of an already published article.", "description_ja": "有効なfindingが自動的に公開済み記事の変更を意味しないよう、後段にPublished-Article Change Necessity Reviewを追加する。", "status": "EXECUTED" }, { "id": "P-006", "sequence": 6, "description_en": "Continue using the process on future substantive publications and retain case counts for Human material reopenings, Cycle 2 additional findings, and unnecessary-change proposals.", "description_ja": "今後の実質的な公開で継続運用し、Human material reopen、Cycle 2追加finding、不要変更提案のcase countを保持する。", "status": "PLANNED" } ], "observations": [ { "id": "O-001", "timestamp": "2026-09-07", "description_en": "An AIEL-2026-0007 publication state that had passed the then-current review was later reopened after Human cold reading identified material reader-context and paragraph-necessity problems.", "description_ja": "当時のレビューをPASSしていたAIEL-2026-0007が、Human cold readでreader contextとparagraph necessityに関するmaterial問題を指摘されreopenされた。", "observation_type": "review_history", "source_type": "retained_publication_review_history", "artifact_refs": [ "A-001" ], "quality": "VALID" }, { "id": "O-002", "timestamp": "2026-09-08", "description_en": "Publishing Standard v1.7 formalized four ordered review passes: Critical/Evidence, Lateral/Reframing, Logical/Reconstruction, and Integrated Cold Read.", "description_ja": "Publishing Standard v1.7で、Critical/Evidence、Lateral/Reframing、Logical/Reconstruction、Integrated Cold Readの4 Passが順序付きで正式化された。", "observation_type": "process_specification", "source_type": "retained_standard", "artifact_refs": [ "A-002" ], "quality": "VALID" }, { "id": "O-003", "timestamp": "2026-09-08", "description_en": "Publishing Standard v1.8 required two consecutive clean four-pass cycles on the final artifact, with any material correction restarting at Cycle 1 Pass 1 and Cycle 2 using a fresh-review posture.", "description_ja": "Publishing Standard v1.8で、final artifactに対する4 Passの2 Cycle連続clean完了、material correction時のCycle 1 Pass 1 restart、Cycle 2のfresh-review postureが要求された。", "observation_type": "process_specification", "source_type": "retained_standard", "artifact_refs": [ "A-003" ], "quality": "VALID" }, { "id": "O-004", "timestamp": "2026-09-09", "description_en": "The first v1.8 two-cycle review of AIEL-2026-0007 found two material publication-quality issues that remained after the previously accepted state: Japanese title wording stronger than the retained INFERRED causal claim, and insufficient first-use context for ScriptLock.", "description_ja": "AIEL-2026-0007への最初のv1.8 2 Cycleレビューで、以前のaccepted state後にも残っていたmaterial issueを2件検出した。1件はINFERRED因果Claimより強く読める日本語タイトル、もう1件はScriptLock初出説明の不足だった。", "observation_type": "operational_review_result", "source_type": "retained_publication_review", "artifact_refs": [ "A-004" ], "quality": "VALID" }, { "id": "O-005", "timestamp": "2026-09-09", "description_en": "After those material corrections, the initial Cycle 1 attempt was discarded, review restarted at Cycle 1 Pass 1, and the corrected final AIEL-2026-0007 artifact completed Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 cleanly.", "description_ja": "material correction後、最初のCycle 1を無効化してCycle 1 Pass 1からrestartし、修正後のAIEL-2026-0007 final artifactはCycle 1とCycle 2をともにcleanで完了した。", "observation_type": "operational_review_result", "source_type": "retained_publication_review", "artifact_refs": [ "A-004" ], "quality": "VALID" }, { "id": "O-006", "timestamp": "2026-09-09", "description_en": "Publishing Standard v1.9 added a separate Published-Article Change Necessity Review with MUST_FIX, SHOULD_FIX, OPTIONAL_IMPROVEMENT, and NO_CHANGE classifications, explicitly making publication stability part of post-publication quality.", "description_ja": "Publishing Standard v1.9で、MUST_FIX、SHOULD_FIX、OPTIONAL_IMPROVEMENT、NO_CHANGEを用いるPublished-Article Change Necessity Reviewが追加され、公開後品質にpublication stabilityが明示的に含まれた。", "observation_type": "process_specification", "source_type": "retained_standard", "artifact_refs": [ "A-005" ], "quality": "VALID" }, { "id": "O-007", "timestamp": "2026-09-27", "description_en": "No multi-article controlled comparison or defensible numerical review-accuracy estimate has yet been retained for this process.", "description_ja": "このプロセスについて、複数記事を用いたcontrolled comparisonや、防御可能な数値review accuracyはまだ保持されていない。", "observation_type": "evidence_boundary", "source_type": "current_experiment_assessment", "artifact_refs": [], "quality": "VALID" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "C-001", "statement_en": "The review problem that motivated this Experiment was not limited to factual correctness; Human feedback exposed missing context, unnecessary material, framing strength, and whole-article reasoning as material review concerns.", "statement_ja": "本Experimentを動機づけたレビュー問題は事実誤認だけではなく、Human feedbackにより、context不足、不要な記述、framing強度、whole-article reasoningもmaterial review concernであることが明らかになった。", "evidence_state": "OBSERVED", "confidence": "HIGH", "evidence_refs": [ "O-001", "O-004" ], "source_refs": [] }, { "id": "C-002", "statement_en": "The resulting AIEL process explicitly operationalizes four distinct review passes, two clean cycles, material-correction restart, and a separate post-publication change-necessity decision.", "statement_ja": "構築されたAIEL processは、4つの異なるreview pass、2回連続clean cycle、material correction時のrestart、公開後の独立した変更必要性判定を明示的に運用化している。", "evidence_state": "VERIFIED", "confidence": "HIGH", "evidence_refs": [ "O-002", "O-003", "O-006" ], "source_refs": [] }, { "id": "C-003", "statement_en": "In the first retained two-cycle application, the process identified two material publication issues that had survived an earlier accepted AIEL-2026-0007 publication state.", "statement_ja": "最初に保持された2 Cycle適用では、以前acceptedだったAIEL-2026-0007 publication stateを通過して残っていたmaterial issueを2件検出した。", "evidence_state": "VERIFIED", "confidence": "HIGH", "evidence_refs": [ "O-004", "O-005" ], "source_refs": [] }, { "id": "C-004", "statement_en": "That initial case provides evidence that explicit pass separation and a fresh second cycle can add review value beyond the earlier process, but it does not establish general effectiveness or a numerical accuracy improvement.", "statement_ja": "この初期事例は、明示的なPass分離とfreshな第2 Cycleが旧プロセスを超えるreview valueを持ち得るEvidenceを提供するが、一般的有効性や数値的accuracy改善を確立するものではない。", "evidence_state": "INFERRED", "confidence": "MEDIUM", "evidence_refs": [ "O-001", "O-004", "O-005", "O-007" ], "source_refs": [] }, { "id": "C-005", "statement_en": "Repeated future use will reduce Human material reopenings while the change-necessity gate avoids unnecessary post-publication churn without preserving material defects.", "statement_ja": "今後の反復運用によりHuman material reopenが減少し、変更必要性Gateはmaterial defectを残さず不要なpost-publication churnを抑制する。", "evidence_state": "HYPOTHESIS", "confidence": "LOW", "evidence_refs": [ "O-006", "O-007" ], "source_refs": [] } ], "open_questions": [ { "id": "Q-001", "question_en": "Across future substantive AIEL publications, how often does a Human still reopen an AI PASS for a material issue?", "question_ja": "今後のAIEL実質公開で、AI PASS後にHumanがmaterial issueでreopenする頻度はどの程度か。", "basis_refs": [ "C-004", "C-005" ], "verification_needed_en": "Retain a case count over multiple future publications, including zero-finding cases.", "verification_needed_ja": "finding 0件のケースも含め、複数の今後の公開でcase countを保持する。" }, { "id": "Q-002", "question_en": "How often does Cycle 2 find a material issue that Cycle 1 did not find?", "question_ja": "Cycle 2がCycle 1では見つからなかったmaterial issueを発見する頻度はどの程度か。", "basis_refs": [ "C-004" ], "verification_needed_en": "Record per-review Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 findings without converting the count into an unsupported accuracy percentage.", "verification_needed_ja": "各reviewでCycle 1とCycle 2のfindingを記録し、根拠のないaccuracy percentageへ変換しない。" }, { "id": "Q-003", "question_en": "Does the Published-Article Change Necessity Review materially reduce unnecessary edits while preserving required corrections?", "question_ja": "Published-Article Change Necessity Reviewは、必要な修正を維持しながら不要な変更を実質的に減らせるか。", "basis_refs": [ "C-005" ], "verification_needed_en": "Retain future MUST_FIX/SHOULD_FIX/OPTIONAL_IMPROVEMENT/NO_CHANGE decisions and subsequent Human acceptance or reopening.", "verification_needed_ja": "今後のMUST_FIX/SHOULD_FIX/OPTIONAL_IMPROVEMENT/NO_CHANGE判定と、その後のHuman acceptance/reopenを保持する。" } ], "analysis": [ { "id": "AN-001", "description_en": "The intervention is a process-design change rather than a content-domain intervention. Its Evidence therefore consists of retained review failures, formalized review rules, and operational review outcomes rather than physical measurements.", "description_ja": "本介入はcontent domainではなくprocess-designの変更である。そのためEvidenceは物理計測ではなく、保持されたreview failure、formalized review rule、実運用review outcomeから構成される。", "evidence_refs": [ "O-001", "O-002", "O-003", "O-004", "O-005", "O-006" ] }, { "id": "AN-002", "description_en": "A single successful operational case cannot support a general claim that the process reproduces Human reasoning. The strongest current conclusion is that the explicit process exposed material defects missed by an earlier accepted state and can now be evaluated prospectively.", "description_ja": "単一の成功運用事例から、このprocessがHuman reasoningを再現すると一般化することはできない。現時点で最も強く言えるのは、明示化したprocessが以前のaccepted stateで見逃されたmaterial defectを露呈させ、今後prospectiveに評価可能な形になったことである。", "evidence_refs": [ "O-004", "O-005", "O-007" ] } ], "results": { "status": "PARTIAL", "summary_en": "The review redesign has been implemented and has one retained operational validation case. A prior accepted AIEL-2026-0007 article was later reopened by Human review; the explicit two-cycle four-pass process subsequently found two additional material publication issues, restarted from Cycle 1 Pass 1 after correction, and completed two clean cycles on the corrected final artifact. A post-publication change-necessity gate was also formalized. General effectiveness, Human-reopen reduction, and churn reduction remain unverified across multiple future articles.", "summary_ja": "review redesignは実装済みで、保持された初期運用検証が1件ある。以前acceptedだったAIEL-2026-0007はHuman reviewでreopenされ、その後に明示化した4-Pass × 2-Cycleを適用すると追加のmaterial publication issueを2件検出した。修正後はCycle 1 Pass 1からrestartし、同一final artifactで2 Cycleをclean完了した。公開後のChange Necessity Gateも正式化した。一方、複数記事での一般的有効性、Human reopen減少、public churn減少は未検証である。", "metrics": [ { "name": "retained_human_reopen_cases_before_current_process", "value": 1, "unit": "cases", "quality": "VALID" }, { "name": "material_findings_in_first_retained_v1_8_application", "value": 2, "unit": "findings", "quality": "VALID" }, { "name": "clean_four_pass_cycles_after_restart", "value": 2, "unit": "cycles", "quality": "VALID" }, { "name": "multi_article_effectiveness_evaluations_completed", "value": 0, "unit": "evaluations", "quality": "VALID" } ], "established_claim_refs": [ "C-001", "C-002", "C-003", "C-004" ], "unresolved_claim_refs": [ "C-005" ], "disproven_claim_refs": [] }, "conclusion": { "en": "AIEL converted a concrete review failure into an explicit review-process experiment. Human cold reading had shown that an earlier AI-reviewed publication could still contain material context and necessity defects. The project therefore separated review into Critical/Evidence, Lateral/Reframing, Logical/Reconstruction, and Integrated Cold Read passes, required two consecutive clean cycles with restart after material correction, and later separated post-publication improvement from actual change necessity. In the first retained two-cycle application to AIEL-2026-0007, the process found two material publication issues that had survived an earlier accepted state and then completed two clean cycles after correction. This is useful initial evidence that the structured process can expose previously missed defects, but it is not evidence of general Human-level review equivalence or a numerical accuracy gain. The Experiment remains PARTIAL until repeated future publications provide enough cases to evaluate Human reopenings, Cycle 2 incremental findings, and post-publication change decisions.", "ja": "AIELは具体的なreview failureを、明示的なreview-process experimentへ変換した。Human cold readにより、以前AI reviewを通過した公開記事にもmaterialなcontext/necessity defectが残り得ることが分かった。そこで、Critical/Evidence、Lateral/Reframing、Logical/Reconstruction、Integrated Cold Readへレビューを分離し、material correction後はrestartしたうえで4 Passを2 Cycle連続cleanに完了する方式を導入した。さらに公開後は、改善可能性と実際の変更必要性を別に判定するようにした。最初の保持された2 Cycle適用では、以前acceptedだったAIEL-2026-0007に残っていたmaterial issueを2件検出し、修正後に2 Cycleをclean完了した。これはstructured processが従来見逃したdefectを露呈できるという有用な初期Evidenceだが、Human-level review equivalenceや数値accuracy向上を一般化するEvidenceではない。今後の複数公開でHuman reopen、Cycle 2追加finding、公開後変更判定を蓄積するまで、本ExperimentはPARTIALとする。", "evidence_basis_refs": [ "C-001", "C-002", "C-003", "C-004" ], "remaining_uncertainties": [ "Only one principal operational validation case has been retained.", "The same AI system participated in designing and applying the process, so independent reviewer performance has not been established.", "The effect of the post-publication Change Necessity gate on actual article churn has not yet been evaluated over repeated cases." ], "recommended_next_actions": [ "Apply the process prospectively to new substantive AIEL publications rather than reopening the existing corpus solely for retrospective scoring.", "Record per-publication Human material reopenings, Cycle 2 additional material findings, and post-publication change-necessity dispositions.", "Revise the review process in a related follow-up Experiment if recurring blind spots or unnecessary process cost are observed." ] }, "data_artifacts": [ { "id": "A-001", "type": "review_record", "path": "operations/publication-reviews/AIEL-2026-0007.md", "description": "Retained review history and the v1.8 two-cycle application used as the initial operational case." }, { "id": "A-002", "type": "standard", "path": "docs/standards/publishing-standard-v1.7.md", "description": "Formal four-pass review model." }, { "id": "A-003", "type": "standard", "path": "docs/standards/publishing-standard-v1.8.md", "description": "Two-cycle review and material-correction restart rule." }, { "id": "A-004", "type": "review_record", "path": "operations/publication-reviews/AIEL-2026-0007.md", "description": "Initial retained evidence that the two-cycle process found two material issues and then completed cleanly after restart." }, { "id": "A-005", "type": "standard", "path": "docs/standards/publishing-standard-v1.9.md", "description": "Published-Article Change Necessity Review." } ], "artifact_availability": { "retained_review_and_standard_history": { "retention": "RETAINED", "public": false, "notes": "The private repository retains the standards, review records, and version history that support the process-design observations." }, "public_machine_readable_record": { "retention": "RETAINED", "public": true, "notes": "The sanitized canonical Experiment record is staged for public publication." }, "independent_external_review_dataset": { "retention": "NOT_RETAINED", "public": false, "notes": "No independent multi-reviewer benchmark dataset exists for this initial process experiment." } }, "sources": [], "provenance": { "generated_by": "AI-assisted review-process design, evidence classification, and documentation under Human governance", "ai_systems": [ { "system": "ChatGPT", "model": "GPT-5.6 Sol", "roles": [ "review_process_design", "standards_drafting", "publication_review", "evidence_classification", "canonical_record_authoring" ] } ], "human_roles": [ { "role": "project governor and cold reader", "activities": [ "identified that prior AI review did not match the expected Human review depth", "required a two-cycle four-pass process", "required a separate post-publication change-necessity decision", "authorized formalization of this process as an AIEL Experiment article" ] } ], "automation_systems": [ { "system": "GitHub Actions", "role": "mechanical schema, publication, bilingual, and security checks; not semantic review adequacy" } ], "human_editing": "Human governance supplied the material review challenges and process requirements; AI formalized the process, applied it, and prepared the retained records." }, "publication": { "public": true, "public_candidate": true, "draft_only": false, "languages": { "en": { "published": true, "url": "https://ai-experiment-log.pages.dev/en/experiments/ai-review-human-expectations-two-cycle-four-pass/", "canonical": false }, "ja": { "published": true, "url": "https://ai-experiment-log.pages.dev/ja/experiments/ai-review-human-expectations-two-cycle-four-pass/", "canonical": false } }, "machine_readable_url": "https://ai-experiment-log.pages.dev/data/experiments/AIEL-2026-0011/experiment.json", "primary_language": "en", "secondary_language": "ja", "publication_blockers": [], "content_review_protocol": "pre-publication-content-review-v1.6", "content_review_decision": "PASS", "reader_value_decision": "PASS", "publication_authorized": true, "publication_authorized_at": "2026-09-27T18:22:00+09:00" }, "relationships": [ { "type": "RELATED_TO", "experiment_id": "AIEL-2026-0007", "notes_en": "AIEL-2026-0007 supplied the retained publication-review failure and the first operational application of the two-cycle process; its scientific collector result is separate from this meta-level review-process Experiment.", "notes_ja": "AIEL-2026-0007は、保持されたpublication-review failureと2 Cycle方式の最初の運用適用事例を提供した。0007のcollectorに関する科学的結果自体は、本メタレベルreview-process Experimentとは別である。" } ], "revisions": [ { "revision": 1, "timestamp": "2026-09-27T18:22:00+09:00", "type": "INITIAL", "summary": "Created AIEL-2026-0011 as a PARTIAL process Experiment from retained Human review challenges, Publishing Standard v1.7-v1.9 process changes, and the first v1.8 two-cycle application to AIEL-2026-0007." }, { "revision": 2, "timestamp": "2026-09-27", "type": "PUBLICATION_REVIEW", "summary": "Completed the initial publication review under Publishing Standard v1.9, including the v1.8 two-cycle four-pass requirement. Drafting findings narrowed the title and conclusions so the article reports initial operational evidence rather than claiming general reproduction of Human review reasoning." }, { "revision": 3, "timestamp": "2026-09-27T09:50:37+00:00", "type": "METADATA_UPDATE", "summary": "Gitleaks 8.24.3 full-history scan completed without detected leaks in GitHub Actions workflow run 36310483062 immediately before publication finalization; secret_scan_performed set to true." }, { "revision": 4, "timestamp": "2026-09-27T09:50:37+00:00", "type": "PUBLICATION_UPDATE", "summary": "After human-approved merge to main, GitHub Actions workflow run 36310483062 directly observed the English page, Japanese page, and machine-readable JSON on Cloudflare Pages production. The JSON returned HTTP 200, matched experiment_id=AIEL-2026-0011, and matched the repository public copy byte-for-byte. Publication metadata was finalized from that observed state." } ], "security": { "contains_sensitive_data": false, "redactions_applied": false, "redaction_categories": [], "secret_scan_performed": true, "publication_reviewed": true }, "record_metadata": { "notes": { "en": [ "The AIEL-specific meanings of Critical, Lateral, and Logical review are operational review roles, not universal definitions of those thinking traditions.", "The same-agent two-cycle process must not be described as independent third-party review.", "No numerical review-accuracy percentage is claimed from the current evidence.", "The process remains intentionally revisable; recurring blind spots should generate a related follow-up Experiment rather than being silently folded into this record." ], "ja": [ "AIELでいうCritical、Lateral、Logical reviewは運用上のreview roleであり、それぞれのthinking traditionの普遍的定義を主張するものではない。", "same-agentによる2 Cycle processを独立第三者レビューと表現しない。", "現Evidenceから数値review accuracyを主張しない。", "processは意図的に改訂可能とし、反復するblind spotが見つかった場合は本記録へ無言で吸収せず関連follow-up Experimentとして扱う。" ] } } }