{
  "project_id": "gacmai_20260717_184527",
  "audit_type": "independent_blocking_full_read",
  "verdict": "fail",
  "source": {
    "outline_path": "gacmai_20260717_184527_locked_outline_candidate_b.json",
    "concept_contract_path": "gacmai_20260717_184527_concept_contract.json",
    "expected_outline_sha256": "7cf0ae5167d8bf2fc1ca2ac8afdd800bb013dba5c5c6d374184c7cd8cf9d32fa",
    "outline_sha256_before": "7cf0ae5167d8bf2fc1ca2ac8afdd800bb013dba5c5c6d374184c7cd8cf9d32fa",
    "outline_sha256_after": "7cf0ae5167d8bf2fc1ca2ac8afdd800bb013dba5c5c6d374184c7cd8cf9d32fa",
    "concept_sha256_observed": "e939b3867f10572ff43fa108dcd6a731380b017d17bcdfd8433af5b3ee7090c0",
    "hash_match": true,
    "read_fully": true,
    "parts_read": 12,
    "paragraph_beats_read": 144,
    "source_modified": false
  },
  "blocking_findings": [
    {
      "id": "B01",
      "severity": "blocker",
      "category": "prose_readiness_and_causal_specificity",
      "locations": [
        "P1D1-P12D12"
      ],
      "finding": "All 144 beats are generated from the same twelve abstract action templates plus a repeated generic suffix. They name an actor, evidence ID, and authority ID but usually do not specify the scene action, document movement, observable reaction, decision, or concrete state change required to draft coherent prose.",
      "impact": "The validator's uniqueness count is lexical rather than substantive. The outline is not prose-ready and cannot reliably preserve the concept's causal turns during drafting.",
      "smallest_safe_action": "Rewrite every paragraph beat as a scene-specific causal unit tied to the part purpose; replace generic continuity strings with the actual incoming and outgoing story state."
    },
    {
      "id": "B02",
      "severity": "blocker",
      "category": "authority_and_evidence_scope",
      "locations": [
        "101 of 144 paragraph beats"
      ],
      "finding": "One hundred one beats pair an evidence item with an authority other than that evidence item's locked lawful_authority. Examples include P1D4 E01/A03 instead of A01, P1D5 E04/A01 instead of A03, P3D3 E09/A03 instead of A06, and P12D12 E08/A02 instead of A04.",
      "impact": "The candidate repeatedly collapses or transfers lawful powers despite the hard requirement that A01-A06 remain separate. The current structural validator does not cross-check evidence-to-authority bindings.",
      "smallest_safe_action": "Rebuild the paragraph evidence/authority map from the contract and independently justify any multi-authority handoff without assigning an authority powers it does not possess."
    },
    {
      "id": "B03",
      "severity": "blocker",
      "category": "closed_ending",
      "locations": [
        "P12D12"
      ],
      "finding": "The final beat explicitly pushes a next part with an unresolved E08 question, and continuity_out creates the central conflict of the next part.",
      "impact": "This directly violates the locked P12 closed-ending requirement and contradicts the P12 purpose, which promises completed aftercare and a non-individualized community circulation mechanism.",
      "smallest_safe_action": "Replace P12D12 with an observable final aftercare state that closes E08 within its cannot-support limit and contains no next-part hook, teaser, or unresolved central conflict."
    },
    {
      "id": "B04",
      "severity": "blocker",
      "category": "arc_execution",
      "locations": [
        "P8D1-P8D12",
        "P9D1-P9D12",
        "P10D1-P10D12",
        "P11D1-P11D12",
        "P12D1-P12D12"
      ],
      "finding": "The required late-story progression exists only in part-level purpose text. The paragraph beats do not concretely stage P8's access loss and lawful surrender, P9's private consent-controlled preparation, P10-P11's layered attributed rulings and proportional consequences, or P12's process repair and aftercare. Generic operations such as 'receive a concrete loss' and 'close a power change' do not identify what happens.",
      "impact": "A writer can satisfy every beat literally while omitting the concept's decisive bottom, procedural counterattack, authority-separated outcomes, and aftercare.",
      "smallest_safe_action": "Allocate each required arc event to explicit beats with observable actions, decision-makers, limits, irreversible changes, and handoffs."
    },
    {
      "id": "B05",
      "severity": "blocker",
      "category": "continuity",
      "locations": [
        "P2D1",
        "P3D1",
        "P4D1",
        "P5D1",
        "P6D1",
        "P7D1",
        "P8D1",
        "P9D1",
        "P10D1",
        "P11D1",
        "P12D1"
      ],
      "finding": "Every part restarts from the same generic state, 'hồ sơ vừa được tiếp nhận,' rather than inheriting the prior part's concrete ending. Within parts, continuity_out merely says the beat enables the next paragraph and does not preserve actual access, custody, consent, career status, filing status, or evidence maturity.",
      "impact": "Cross-part state is not locked; evidence and consequences can reset, appear early, or change custody without detection.",
      "smallest_safe_action": "Create a concrete cross-part state ledger and make each continuity_in/out encode the exact changed state inherited by the next beat."
    },
    {
      "id": "B06",
      "severity": "blocker",
      "category": "evidence_lifecycle",
      "locations": [
        "E01-E09 across P1-P12"
      ],
      "finding": "Although top-level evidence objects add preservation text, paragraph beats do not distinguish setup, lawful acquisition, preservation, intermediate use, decisive payoff, and cannot-support enforcement. Evidence IDs are rotated mechanically, including late-stage items appearing in early parts without a defined acquisition or custody event.",
      "impact": "The outline does not lock a verifiable evidence lifecycle and permits premature payoff, miracle access, or unsupported inference.",
      "smallest_safe_action": "Add an evidence placement ledger and rewrite beats so every E01-E09 thread has explicit first access, lawful custodian, preservation, bounded use, decisive payoff, and prohibited inference."
    }
  ],
  "coverage": {
    "identity_and_structure": {
      "status": "pass",
      "basis": "Project, title, concept digest, exact six-person cast, Nguyễn Lam Chi POV label, 12 sequential parts, 12 beats per part, and 14580 target words are structurally present."
    },
    "full_read": {
      "status": "pass",
      "basis": "All 12 part purposes and all 144 paragraph beat objects were read, including the complete P11-P12 suffix omitted by the first preview."
    },
    "cast_and_named_entities": {
      "status": "pass",
      "basis": "No extra named person was found; all beat POV fields name Nguyễn Lam Chi."
    },
    "limited_pov_viability": {
      "status": "fail",
      "basis": "POV labels pass syntactically, but abstract beats do not state whether non-POV reactions, conclusions, and decisions are observed by Lam Chi or attributed in her presence."
    },
    "evidence": {
      "status": "fail",
      "basis": "Top-level E01-E09 fields are complete, but the beat plan lacks lifecycle staging and has pervasive authority mismatches."
    },
    "authority_separation": {
      "status": "fail",
      "basis": "101 paragraph-level evidence/authority pairings conflict with the contract's lawful_authority mapping."
    },
    "p8_bottom": {
      "status": "fail",
      "basis": "Present in purpose only; paragraph beats do not concretely encode the announced launch, loss of access, surrender of copies, or emotional/professional irreversible state."
    },
    "p9_private_preparation": {
      "status": "fail",
      "basis": "Present in purpose only; beats do not lock privacy, household-data protection, consent boundaries, speaking rights, or stop rights."
    },
    "p10_p11_layered_counterattack": {
      "status": "fail",
      "basis": "Part purposes promise layered response, but beats do not identify questions, attributed findings, lawful decision-makers, or proportional consequences and frequently assign the wrong authority."
    },
    "p12_aftercare_and_closure": {
      "status": "fail",
      "basis": "Aftercare is not concretely staged, and P12D12 explicitly creates a next-part conflict."
    },
    "safety": {
      "status": "pass",
      "basis": "No replicable theft, tampering, bypass, or evasion instructions appear."
    },
    "originality_and_forbidden_drift": {
      "status": "pass",
      "basis": "No petroleum-metrology, reel-tape, supernatural, medical, or audio-evidence drift appears."
    },
    "word_budget": {
      "status": "pass_structural_only",
      "basis": "The 12 targets sum to 14580, within the 14000-15000 contract range; this does not cure the non-prose-ready beat plan."
    },
    "provided_validator_receipt": {
      "status": "insufficient",
      "basis": "The receipt binds SHA-256 7cf0ae5167d8bf2fc1ca2ac8afdd800bb013dba5c5c6d374184c7cd8cf9d32fa and reports structural pass, but the validator checks IDs and lexical beat uniqueness only; it does not test evidence-authority alignment, substantive beat specificity, arc execution, or closed-ending semantics."
    }
  },
  "release_gate": {
    "canonical_promotion": "blocked",
    "writer_dispatch": "blocked",
    "reason": "Candidate B fails authority separation, evidence lifecycle, causal continuity, late-arc execution, prose readiness, and the closed-ending gate."
  }
}