Repository navigation
README: simpler English - #5
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Confidence Score: 2/5
Summary
Score reconciled from 3/5 because the review includes a blocking finding.
Plain-English wording pass over README.md and README.en.md; numbers, hashes, aliases, URLs and dates verified unchanged. Blocked only by a wrong language-switcher line added to README.en.md.
Important Files Changed
| File | Overview |
|---|---|
| README.md | Wording simplifications only; all facts, links and code spans intact |
| README.en.md | Same body as README.md, but new switcher is the Chinese page's line |
| @@ -1,14 +1,16 @@ | |||
| [English](README.md) · 简体中文 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the Chinese page's switcher: it labels an English page as 简体中文 and links nowhere Chinese; use "简体中文 · English" as in README.md.
| > - **[2026-10-02](docs/corrections-2026-10-02.en.md)**: 22 published papers whose candidate stepped outside the paper and touched grading material are now NA (neither a pass nor a fail). The fault is ours; since 2026-10-01 papers are answered in isolated containers. | ||
| > - **[2026-10-02 (second)](docs/corrections-2026-10-02-a-d511f9e8.en.md)**: one defense-axis case, A-d511f9e8, is now NA on every lane. The denominator and the **number of passed cases do not change**; every lane's total now carries `'`. | ||
| > - **[2026-10-02](docs/corrections-2026-10-02.en.md)**: 22 published papers whose model left its own paper and touched grading material are now NA (neither a pass nor a fail). The fault is ours; since 2026-10-01 papers are answered in isolated containers. | ||
| > - **[2026-10-02 (second)](docs/corrections-2026-10-02-a-d511f9e8.en.md)**: one defense case, A-d511f9e8, is now NA on every lane. The denominator and the **number of passed cases do not change**; every lane's total now carries `'`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"defense case" drops the axis; the next bullet still says "ops-axis case" and the linked correction says "defense-axis case", so keep "defense-axis case".
| > - **[2026-10-02](docs/corrections-2026-10-02.en.md)**: 22 published papers whose candidate stepped outside the paper and touched grading material are now NA (neither a pass nor a fail). The fault is ours; since 2026-10-01 papers are answered in isolated containers. | ||
| > - **[2026-10-02 (second)](docs/corrections-2026-10-02-a-d511f9e8.en.md)**: one defense-axis case, A-d511f9e8, is now NA on every lane. The denominator and the **number of passed cases do not change**; every lane's total now carries `'`. | ||
| > - **[2026-10-02](docs/corrections-2026-10-02.en.md)**: 22 published papers whose model left its own paper and touched grading material are now NA (neither a pass nor a fail). The fault is ours; since 2026-10-01 papers are answered in isolated containers. | ||
| > - **[2026-10-02 (second)](docs/corrections-2026-10-02-a-d511f9e8.en.md)**: one defense case, A-d511f9e8, is now NA on every lane. The denominator and the **number of passed cases do not change**; every lane's total now carries `'`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as README.md: keep "defense-axis case" to match the ops-axis bullet and the linked correction doc.
| ## How it works | ||
|
|
||
| A private case library plus public scores: the cases never go public, the scores and hashes always do. The rubric is frozen before anyone sees the output, and everything is archived. | ||
| A private case library plus public scores: the cases never go public, the scores and hashes always do. The grading sheet is frozen before anyone sees the output, and everything is archived. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"grading sheet" suggests a filled scorecard; the source (评分标准) and CONTRIBUTING.md mean the criteria, so prefer "grading rules" or keep "rubric" (apply to README.en.md too).
| - **Two caveats that won't go away**: (1) runtime sealing ≠ training-data purity: we seal runtime evidence and cannot prove the model never saw the future in training. (2) A historical outcome is evidence, not the one correct answer. | ||
| - **Why it exists**: public benchmarks are frozen corpora; contamination is rampant and unauditable, and they cannot measure multi-step diagnosis, abstention, refusal or escalation under uncertainty. AMBER replays provenance-controlled real events; it runs alongside public benchmarks and does not replace them. | ||
| - **Status**: draft v0.2.2. The Core spec is stable; `profiles/` and the case-building/runner tools are not yet published. | ||
| - **Two caveats that stay**: (1) runtime sealing ≠ training-data purity: we seal runtime evidence and cannot prove the model never saw the future in training. (2) A historical outcome is evidence, not the one right answer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Two caveats that stay" is ambiguous in plain English; "Two caveats that remain" or "that do not go away" is clearer (apply to README.en.md too).
English simplification pass over the README: shorter and plainer wording (A1-B1), same facts — numbers, aliases, URLs, hashes and dates unchanged. README.en.md synced to the same body. No other files touched.