# First reliability evidence receiving session

Use this prepared ninety-minute session after preparing Python 3.11+ and the
[complete reliability kit](/templates/fde-foundation-context-evaluation-kit.zip).
[Preview the team agenda](/training/guides?starter=first-reliability-receiving#guide-session-title)
before explicitly choosing whether to replace your current plan. The agenda
creates no assignment or attendance record. Setup, reading and breaks are outside
the planned timebox; adjust it for your participants rather than rushing an
unfinished observation.

Each participant extracts a separate folder. Keep both Python filenames together;
no model, packages, account or network is needed. Use synthetic aliases and retain
prior reading, predictions, commands, first reports, help and later corrections
in each person's worksheet. A report copied from a colleague is shared evidence,
not that person's execution. When Python is unavailable, record reading or paired
observation as the actual mode and leave the execution unrun.

## Minutes 0–45: establish an individual baseline

Follow [the first reliability worksheet](/templates/fde-reliability-evidence-first.md).
Keep the full reference plus each broken and omitted candidate packet. Before
discussion, each learner explains one observed failure and one missing
observation using exact row IDs and the unchanged `CONTRACT`. Retain useful
drafting alongside refused behavior. The deterministic draft tests local domain
behavior; it supplies no evidence of model answer quality.

## Minutes 45–75: swap who receives missing evidence

Allow fifteen minutes per round. In round 1, A prepares the unchanged files and
full reference; B receives. B predicts which slice loses evidence, then runs:

```sh
python3 fde-agent-evaluation-lab.py run --candidate reference --omit-case restart-replay > receiving-no-recovery.json
```

In round 2, B prepares; A receives. A makes their own prediction before running:

```sh
python3 fde-agent-evaluation-lab.py run --candidate reference --omit-case authorized-draft > receiving-no-utility.json
```

The redirects write local reports; choose new filenames to preserve an earlier
attempt. These commands deliberately exit 2 with JSON `decision: blocked`. A
missing file, interpreter error or interrupted process is a different condition;
record what occurred instead of filling the report from these instructions.
Each run uses its own temporary synthetic SQLite data. It neither edits the
companion nor changes the seven-case contract.

Each receiver locates `planned`, `executed`, the three slices and the omitted
row. Keep the first explanation before comparing with this authored account:

| Packet | Planned / executed | Actual coverage | Receiving decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Full reference | 7 / 7 | Utility 1/1, boundary 5/5, recovery 1/1 | Local contract met only |
| No recovery | 7 / 6 | Utility 1/1, boundary 5/5, recovery 0/1; restart-replay unrun | Recovery evidence is missing |
| No utility | 7 / 6 | Utility 0/1, boundary 5/5, recovery 1/1; authorized-draft unrun | Useful-work evidence is missing |

Both shortened packets have six passing observations and zero failed rows. That
does not establish the full contract: the seventh row is unrun and has no
`observed` value. Compare with the earlier full `version-only` report, where
`same-version-source` actually failed. Do not silently remove a planned row,
copy the full reference's observation into the shorter run or report an unrun
case as a demonstrated defect. These published changes are practice, not a
held-out test of unaided transfer. Declare solo or combined roles as self-review.

## Minutes 75–90: give accountable owners the remaining work

Ask each receiver to defend a bounded statement about one packet using their
own output. The facilitator records assistance, disagreements and unresolved
claims without replacing a first account with the shared explanation.

| Receiving role | Work to retain or request |
| --- | --- |
| Evaluation owner | Keep the complete contract, actual candidate and utility/boundary/recovery observations. Define a new case before implementing it. |
| Identity/service owner | Supply verified reviewer identity and current action/resource permission, including allowed and revoked controls. Source withdrawal does not test reviewer revocation. |
| Model/evaluation owner | Establish actual model configuration, source revisions, supported-answer criteria and fresh cases outside tuning. Deterministic drafts do not establish this. |
| Receiving engineer | Keep an individual command, output, explanation and assistance account for the changed condition. |
| Pod lead | Name the next evidence request, responsible role, bounded test and agreed update. Preserve unrun work before committing delivery. |

One copy per participant:

```text
Alias / actual role / prior reading and assistance:
First prediction / exact command / actual exit and report reference:
Case ID / planned and executed / observed fields or absent observation:
My original explanation / later correction and reason:
Receiving action I attempted / help or author takeover:
What this packet supports / what remains unrun:
Next accountable role / agreed expectation / bounded test and update:
```

The owner responsibilities are to be assigned to actual people later, not a
claim of staffing. This session establishes no real reviewer, model-quality
result, production reliability, independence, qualification or client placement.