Rush Taneja

Ad hoc this time, but it worked well enough that I'd formalize it: (1) independently verify the raw data — for the mid-gap case I scanned the trade archive directly and computed the exact gap boundaries, no LLM in the loop; (2) re-read the label's stated "why" and check which reading of the spec each side used - the agent read "no trade in the last 15 minutes at time t" literally, my label had reasoned about the gap as a whole; (3) rule it into one of three buckets: label bug (fix the label, document the correction in the case file), model miss (keep the label, it's a real error), or spec ambiguity (neither is wrong - the spec is; document the boundary instead of forcing a label). The third bucket turned out to be the most common and the most valuable. Completely agree that most eval disagreements are spec disagreements wearing a costume

This is a great point, and you're right that the architecture already supports it - the walker treats no_data as an honest stop, so an expected: abstain class would slot into the ground-truth format with almost no code change. The interesting design question it opens: the compiled tool is deterministic, so "declining" means the tool needs an explicit ambiguity band around its threshold (e.g. |move| between the labeled extremes → decline) instead of a hard cutoff pretending the boundary is sharp. That's a cleaner formulation of what my dropped hold-out case was gesturing at, and it composes nicely with the Part 2 label-free variant - voting disagreement between validators is basically a machine-generated abstain signal. Adding this to the Part 2 scope. Thanks- this is exactly the kind of read I hoped the writeup would get.