Instructorpass

seized fastener

A rounded bolt is physical damage, not an access problem, and the difference decides whether the next visit needs an extractor or just more time.

The answer conformed to the contract and every assertion held.

modelgemini-3.5-flash

temperature0

scenarioscenarios/instructor/seized-fastener.json

cassette5e5e1cdded192760…

latency0.0s

tokens2,084

What the model was given

System instructionassembled from the contract schema, not hand-written

A technician has said they cannot complete this step. Turn what they said into a structured reason and recommend the next action for the person standing there right now, knowing the procedure, the machine and its history.

Return JSON with these fields:
- reason_summary (string, required): Their reason in one clause, in their terms. Do not sanitise it.
- blocker_kind (one of part_missing | tool_missing | access | seized_or_damaged | unsafe | machine_absent | procedure_wrong | other, required)
- recommended_action (string, required): What to do next. Concrete and doable now, or explicitly 'stop and hand off'.
- proposed_status (one of deferred | waived | impossible, required): A proposal only. The Foreman disposes and a waiver needs a named person with standing. There is no skip.
- blocking_part (string, null when it does not apply): Part number or description when blocker_kind is part_missing.
- safety_flag (boolean, required): True if continuing would put someone at risk. Overrides everything else.

## The procedure
{
  "title": "Front brake service \u2014 Segway Xyber",
  "version": 3,
  "strictness": 2
}

## The step they are stuck on
{
  "title": "Fit the new pads and torque the caliper bolts",
  "why it exists": "An under-torqued caliper bolt backs out under braking heat and the caliper moves. This is the step that kills someone if it is skipped.",
  "what it asks for": [
    "Torque both caliper bolts to spec and record the reading"
  ],
  "position": "step 4 of 9"
}

## The machine
{
  "asset id": "XYBER-07",
  "model": "Segway Xyber",
  "hours or km": "31,402 km",
  "history": [
    "2026-05-02 front pads replaced at 24,880 km",
    "2026-06-19 fork seal weep noted, not actioned",
    "2026-07-30 tyre replaced front"
  ]
}

## What is on the shelf right now
{
  "EBC FA388HH front pads": 0,
  "caliper bolts M8x30": 6,
  "brake fluid DOT4": "2 x 500ml"
}

## Steps after this one
[
  "Bleed the front circuit",
  "Road test",
  "Sign off"
]

## What the technician said
{
  "spoken or typed": "voice",
  "verbatim": "Bottom caliper bolt's rounded off. I've had a go with the socket and it's just spinning on it now. Made it worse if anything."
}

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.

{
  "reason_summary": "Bottom caliper bolt's rounded off. I've had a go with the socket and it's just spinning on it now. Made it worse if anything.",
  "blocker_kind": "seized_or_damaged",
  "recommended_action": "Stop and use a bolt extractor to remove the rounded caliper bolt, then replace it with one of the new M8x30 caliper bolts available on the shelf.",
  "proposed_status": "deferred",
  "blocking_part": null,
  "safety_flag": false
}

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.

	asserted	about	what happened
ok	equals	blocker_kind	is seized_or_damaged, want seized_or_damaged
ok	mentions_any	recommended_action	found ['extract']
ok	not_in	proposed_status	is deferred, must not be one of ['waived']