GYVWFD

There is no quiz code to judge. The tree at 13ba9bc is empty (list_files returns []). The diff from the start commit d2a3261 to HEAD only deletes the old Scorched Core files (src/game.js, src/main.js, index.html, test/game.test.js, AGENTS.md, package.json). No quiz, bank, cost-practice module, server edge, or test was added. The work-window diff ca570ca..13ba9bc is empty. The 'probe #13-#15' commits carry no file changes. The done-note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md is absent at HEAD. With no core, no boundary, and no imports, the dependency rule, inversion, and screaming-architecture points cannot be met. This is the same missing-deliverable failure I faulted in task #0, and the player has not fixed it here: the tree is still empty.

There are no tests for the cost practice feature. The task's work-window diff (ca570caa..13ba9bcb) is empty, so nothing was added in this session. The list_files tree at HEAD is empty, so no test files exist at any level. The diff from the task start (d2a3261) to HEAD only deletes the earlier Scorched Core files and the Build-the-quiz artifacts. None of the required verification exists: no unit tests for the price formulas (4 worked examples), no answer-checking tests ($0.084 vs $0.085, '$' prefix), no server API tests for the held answer, no end-to-end test of the Cost practice flow, and no report-score test. The required screencast and report screenshot were not produced, and the probe requesting a test run was declined by the player, so no verification output exists. The earlier Build-the-quiz verdict (1) already charged the missing quiz tests, and this submission shows the same absence, so I am not charging that flaw twice. Score is 0.

Nothing beyond the brief can be credited. At the task commit 13ba9bc the tree holds only the artillery game (Scorched Core) from the earlier task: src/game.js, src/main.js, index.html and test/game.test.js. There is no quiz, no 'Cost practice' topic, no server-side question generation, no cost questions and no report. The task's work-window diff (ca570ca..13ba9bc) is empty, and the commit log shows only empty '#N Add cost practice' probe commits. The required .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md is also absent. No hint button, calculator, or other extra exists in the code, so there is no extra mile to assess. The core does not work, so this is a 0 rather than a baseline score.

No cost-practice surface exists to review: the tree at HEAD is empty (list_files returned []), the task diff is empty, and no screencast or report screenshot was delivered. Visual judging was not possible.

No markup or rendered page exists at the task commit to judge for semantics, contrast or alt text. No capture was delivered.

No narrow-viewport capture was delivered and no CSS or responsive markup exists at HEAD to assess.

Nothing to assess. The tree at the task commit (13ba9bc) is empty: list_files returned no entries. Neither the first-round quiz nor a cost-practice flow exists, and the work-window diff against ca570ca is empty. The diff from 2324e9d shows the earlier Scorched files being deleted rather than any quiz code being added. No naming, dead code or duplication can be credited.

A newcomer has no code to change safely. There is no price-card logic, no server-side question generation or answer checking, no error handling at the boundaries, and no named constants. The required .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md is also absent from the committed work.

The repo at the task commit (13ba9bcb) has an empty file tree. list_files on the root returns no entries. The work-window diff is empty, and the start-to-HEAD diff only deletes the Scorched Core artillery files. No quiz, no price card, no cost-question generator, no server-side key and no answer checking exist. There is no dataset to judge for source of truth, shadow data, layer separation or honest sourcing. The done note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md is also absent. I did not register a probe: a data-flow note cannot be requested for code that is not there, and the player has already declined a probe on this task. Same outcome as my earlier verdict on Task #0, where the repo held the wrong project.

The task commit 6fe6e87 changes nothing that matters: its only diff is an AGENTS.md file-mode change (100644 to 100755). The diff from the work-window base 1acbf59 to 6fe6e87 is empty. The tree has no live-room, lobby, or realtime module, and no live-game code under quiz/ or quiz/static/. The layout is the earlier quiz (bank.py, cost.py, server.py, wiki.py), so there is no live-game boundary to judge. Nothing new crosses a boundary, and no new core was built for live play. The score is low because the required structure does not exist, not because a boundary was drawn badly. The existing modules keep their prior shape, which earlier verdicts already covered, so I do not re-score them. The 2.0 is a floor for a delivered-nothing submission, not a judgment on the quality of the existing code.

No test was written for the live game. The diff from the start commit 1326e64c to the task commit 6fe6e874 is empty, and the file tree has no live-game module, static file or test. tests/ holds only the pre-existing files (test_bank.py, test_cost.py, test_server.py, test_wiki.py), which predate this task and cover earlier rounds. Nothing exercises the 20-second countdown, the 500 + 25 x seconds scoring, the server-side answer hiding, duplicate-name refusal, rejoin, or the leaderboard and podium. The brief's required screencast (video/webm) and podium screenshot (image/png) were never delivered, so the only verification is absent. The score is 0.5 rather than 0 only because the earlier suite still runs, and that is not credit for this task.

The task commit (6fe6e87) changes nothing but the mode of AGENTS.md, and the diff from the pre-task base 1326e64 to 6fe6e87 is empty. No live-game data flow exists: there is no room, player, answer, or score state, and no server-side scoring of 500 + 25 x whole seconds left. The pinned bank and wiki data are untouched, so nothing is fabricated or duplicated. The low score reflects that the data-flow requirements of the brief (server-owned answer key, server-computed points, reveal only at question close) are unimplemented, not that existing data is badly handled.

The task's work-window diff is empty: get_diff from 1326e64 to 6fe6e87 returns nothing, and the last commit (6fe6e87) only changes AGENTS.md's file mode from 644 to 755. No live-game code, tests, or cleanup were written, so there is no naming, dead-code, or duplication work to credit. The existing quiz code predates this task and is not credited here. Scored near the floor because the submission delivers nothing to review.

No code changed in this task, so nothing exists that a newcomer could change safely. There are no live-room, countdown, scoring, or join-code modules, and no error handling or named constants for the rules table (20 s, 500 + 25 x s, 30 players). The .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-live-done.md file is missing, and get_task_stats shows 0 tool calls and one assistant message. The score reflects an absent deliverable, not the quality of earlier rounds.

Cannot assess. This task's work-window diff is empty (1acbf59..6fe6e87 reports nothing changed), and the file tree at the task commit has no live-game module, static view, or live-room screen. The live surfaces (host big screen, phone join, timed question, leaderboard, podium) do not exist in the repo to review. The delivered images (quiz-question.png, quiz-right.png, quiz-wrong.png, report-desktop.png, report-mobile.png) are from earlier rounds and show only the solo quiz and report, so none of this round's screens was seen.

Cannot assess. No live-game markup exists at the task commit, and no capture of a live screen was delivered, so contrast and semantics for the host screen, join form, countdown, and podium cannot be checked. The missing .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-live-done.md also means the player did not describe any live surface.

Cannot assess. No phone-side live view exists in the repo, and no narrow-width capture of a live screen was delivered. The only mobile image (report-mobile.png) is from an earlier round. The prior concern remains that the CSS has no media queries, but that applies to the older views and is not a live-game finding.

No live-game feature exists in the submitted code. The task commit 6fe6e874 changes only the mode of AGENTS.md (100644 to 100755), and the work-window diff from 1acbf597 to 6fe6e874 is otherwise empty. The file tree has no live-room, join, host-screen, question-broadcast, server-side scoring, leaderboard, or podium code: quiz/server.py and quiz/static/ contain only the earlier solo-quiz, cost, wiki and report modules. The completion note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-live-done.md is absent at the task commit, so there is no claim of what shipped. None of the six scenarios (opening a room, joining by code, a live question with countdown, speed scoring, leaderboard, rejoin, podium) can be walked through the code. The earlier solo flows are still present in the tree, but the brief's core deliverable is missing. No screencast or podium screenshot was delivered for this task, and the prior results all show not-done.

The work window for this task is empty. The diff from 1acbf59 to 6fe6e87 is empty, and the file tree at the task commit has no live-game module, no host or player view, no join-code flow, no countdown, no leaderboard and no podium. The completion note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-live-done.md is also missing. There is no live feature to credit, creative or otherwise. The score is above zero only because the judge rubric reserves scores below 5 for extra that hurts, and nothing was added here, so no extra exists to hurt. Since the core live flow is absent, any extra mile is capped at 4.0 by the rubric.

No capture of this task's surfaces was delivered. The card index, card page, review run and progress panel are unseen. The two screencast/report requests (probes 4e84f7c8-58d8-43a6-a94d-b50c49cae45a and af2488b7-f610-4bd4-bdfc-cf10178a06df) are still open. The delivered images are older: the quiz screenshots show the round-one bank quiz, and the report screenshot shows 'Token economy / Knowledge base / Cost practice' scores with no 'Study:' card links, so it predates this change. Per the rules, the criterion is null.

Contrast and the rendered semantics of the new wiki and review screens cannot be seen, since no capture of them was delivered. The markup has some good signals (a labelled search input at wiki-view.js, real h2/h3 headings, real links for cards), but the screenshot criterion depends on seeing the new surfaces. The old screenshots do not show the new screens, so the criterion is null.

The only narrow capture (report-mobile.png) is from the earlier report and shows no new card links or wiki/review layouts. The narrow view of the new screens was never captured. The CSS adds wrapping rules (.row flex-wrap, .see-also flex-wrap) but no media queries, so responsiveness is unverified. The null is the honest verdict.

The code covers every scenario in the brief. The card index groups all ten cards by topic with summaries and search (quiz/static/wiki-view.js renderWikiIndex; quiz/wiki.py CARDS). The pinned table matches exactly: test_wiki.py checks names, questions and see-also links, and every see-also target exists. Answers link to the card (quiz/server.py answer returns card; choice-body.js feedback link). The card's see-also links navigate to #/wiki/. 'Ask me a question on this' opens #/ask/ for exactly one question. Review mode (#/review) runs only ids from progress.review, and recordRun removes a question once answered right (progress-store.js). Progress lives in localStorage with best scores, the last five runs, the review list and a clear-all control (home-view.js runsCard). The server keeps the bank and key: the wiki index omits card text and the answer route returns the key only after answering. Deductions: no screencast or report screenshot for this task was delivered. The attached report screenshots predate the study work (no wiki links, no review or runs UI), so the living flows and the 'each wrong answer linked to its card' report requirement are verified from code only. Also, a card's text is served on demand with no gate, so a player who opens card T2 before answering T2 sees the answer ('Output tokens are priced several times higher'). That is a design judgement that undercuts the no-leak intent, though the brief asked for card text built from the explanation. The completion note is accurate about what the code does.

The pinned card table (names, question ids, see-also links) lives in one place, quiz/wiki.py:9-50, and is served through /api/wiki and /api/wiki/. The index carries only summaries, so no card text or answer key reaches the page before a card is opened (wiki.py index(), server.py wiki_index). Review and practice fetch questions by id through /api/questions?id=, which goes through the store and does not ship keys. Deductions: (1) each card's text is a second, hand-written copy of the facts in the bank explanations (wiki.py:_CARDS text vs bank.py SEED explanation). Nothing ties them together, so an author editing a bank explanation leaves the card stale. (2) The card topic is read from the static SEED (wiki.py:4 _TOPIC_OF), not the live store, so an author who changes a question's topic gets an index that disagrees with the bank. (3) Progress is split across two localStorage keys, quiz:progress and the report store, with overlapping run and entry data (progress-store.js recordRun vs report-store.js). This was already faulted in the core round. Nothing was fabricated: the card facts match the explanations, and the pinned names and see-also links match the brief.

Names are mostly clear (wiki.py _CARDS/CARDS, recordRun, loadProgress, MODE_LABELS), and the wiki table is pinned once in data and once in tests/test_wiki.py. Deductions: the same see-also/card-link markup is written twice with different markup and targets (choice-body.js feedback card-link with target=_blank vs report-view.js card-link without it). recordRun filters on the implicit marker entry.id && !entry.lines and compares report.mode === "quiz" as bare string literals, which obscures intent. renderWikiIndex references draw before its declaration inside the search closure. Dead-looking .filter(Boolean) in quiz-view.js is a patch around false values rather than a clean feedback contract. No measured duplication was supplied, so this is from reading only.

The modules are small and split by responsibility (wiki.py for data, progress-store.js for persistence, home-view.js, wiki-view.js, review routed through quiz(...)). The server validates the wiki routes and returns 404 for unknown cards. Weak points: wiki-view.js draw packs filtering, grouping, and a ternary fallback into one dense replaceChildren expression, which a newcomer must decode. renderCard catches every error from api.card and reports it as 'Card not found', hiding real network failures. recordRun mixes run logging, best-score logic and review-list updates in one function with an implicit lines check. A review run whose stored ids no longer exist is not guarded. The card-count/see-also table is a magic structure duplicated in tests rather than derived. Nothing deeply nested, and the code is readable with effort.

The new backend tests are concrete and honest. tests/test_wiki.py:6-34 restates the brief's pinned table (names, question ids, see-also links) and checks that every see-also resolves to a real card, and the index test checks the summary-only shape. tests/test_server.py:120-133 covers /api/wiki, the 404 on an unknown card, askable turning false after K2 is deleted, the card link on an answer, and id-based question lookup with an unknown id dropped. The gaps are large, though. Every front-end scenario is untested: the card index and search, the explanation-to-card jump, the see-also navigation, the practice button, the review list, the report link, and the progress panel. The progress-store rules (recordRun in progress-store.js:19-35, which removes a review id once it is answered right, and the best-score logic) have no unit test. The review-run contract (exactly T2 and K4, leaving the list when answered right) and the clear-all control are also unverified. No test runs the browser flows that the brief calls living flows. The same DOM/browser gap I flagged in tasks #0 and #1 remains, and the new wiki and review UI adds more untested surface on top of it. No test-run output or screencast was delivered for this round.

Several small, working end-user touches go beyond the brief. The card index has a live search box (wiki-view.js:4-22) and groups cards by topic. Each card has an 'Ask me a question on this' button that starts a one-question practice run (wiki-view.js:31, app.js route /ask/). Home shows a per-topic 'Best' badge (home-view.js:17), a 'Review mistakes (N)' button with the live count (home-view.js:27-28), and a last-five-runs list with a confirmed 'Clear all progress' (home-view.js:33-44). Wrong answers in the quiz feedback and report link to their card (choice-body.js:23-24, report-view.js:33). Progress logic is cleanly separated in progress-store.js. These are real and plausible, but they are standard study-app conveniences rather than a memorable idea. No learned badge or streak was built, and the card text is plain. Nothing in the delivered artifacts shows these features: the attached screenshots predate the wiki (the report has no Study links), and no screencast for this task was delivered. The score therefore rests on source reading alone.

No screenshot or screencast of Cost practice arrived. Both registered probes (cost-practice.webm and the report PNGs) are still open, and the attached images show only the first-round Knowledge base quiz. The cost question layout, sum table and report cannot be judged visually.

I cannot check contrast or on-screen rendering of the cost flow or report. The markup has some good signals: the amount input has aria-label 'Answer in dollars' (cost-body.js), table headers use scope='row', and the bank options are real buttons. These are not enough to score a visual criterion.

No narrow-width capture was delivered for any surface, so the mobile criterion cannot be assessed. The CSS for the new cost elements (tables, answer form, amount field) adds no media queries, and the attached desktop captures still show a horizontal scrollbar along the bottom edge, the flaw I faulted in the first round. That flaw is unchanged here, not newly charged.

The Cost practice flow is implemented end to end and the math is right. Walking the code: the request example (4,000 input, 40,000 cache read, 4,000 output) gives 0.012 + 0.012 + 0.060 = 0.0840, and the cache-write example gives 0.024 + 0.150 + 0.060 = 0.2340. The savings example gives 0.120 − 0.012 = 0.1080. These are pinned in tests/test_cost.py and computed with Decimal in quiz/cost.py solve(). Questions are generated server-side in quiz/server.py questions(), and the id carries the counts, so the page never receives an amount before answering. Answers are checked by cost.check() via /api/answer, which accepts '0.084' and '$0.0840' and rejects '0.085'. Each answer shows a line-by-line sum table (quiz/static/money.js sumTable). The all-topics round appends five cost questions after the bank (server.py:questions). The report shows per-topic scores (report-view.js topicScores) and per-question numbers, typed answer, right amount and sum lines (report-view.js costDetails). The bank stays intact at 10 questions, and authoring rejects the reserved topic name. Weaknesses: no interactive screencast or report screenshot of cost questions was delivered. The only attached images show Knowledge base bank questions, so the cost flow, the typed right/wrong answers and the cost report are unverified visually. The note's claim of a hint and calculator feel is confirmed in cost-body.js, but the visual result is unproven. The client can also derive the amount from the visible token counts and public prices, which is inherent to showing the numbers but worth noting.

The diff is mostly tidy: the cost logic is isolated in quiz/cost.py, the bank and cost bodies are split into choice-body.js and cost-body.js, and money.js holds the shared sum table, which removes the copy-paste that quiz-view.js had before. Deductions: the price card is duplicated as literal text in the browser, in the hint at cost-body.js:14 ("$3.00 − $0.30") and in the savings formula, so the price card is no longer the single source. generate_question (cost.py, generate_question) uses two parallel conditionals on variant to build counts and tokens, which reads awkwardly. style.css has overlapping rules: th, td padding and border (style.css:57) repeats .tokens td, .prices td, .sum td padding, and .sum th is set twice. None of these is large, but together they show some untidiness.

The server owns the pricing and the answer key. The id carries the counts, so answer checking is stateless and easy to follow in cost.check and parse_id. Boundaries are handled: non-numeric input returns 400 via ValueError, unknown ids return 404, and parse_amount guards length and finiteness. Improvements over the prior round: quiz-view.js now delegates per-kind bodies to choiceBody and costBody, so the closure is smaller. Weaknesses: renderQuestion in quiz-view.js is still a single closure of about 50 lines that mixes timer, feedback, keys and entry recording; cost-body.js:5 fires api.prices() at module import with no rejection handling, so a failed fetch leaves the card silently empty; and the magic 0.75 non-zero probability and the price strings are not named constants on the client. Overall a newcomer could change this safely, with some friction around the closure and the duplicated price knowledge.

The new tests are concrete and mostly check behaviour. The pinned sums match the brief exactly (test_cost.py:pinned_sums: 0.0840, 0.2340, 0.1080). Boundaries and invalid inputs are covered: bad ids, non-multiples of 4,000, over-max counts, NaN and oversized amounts, and non-numeric typed answers raising 400. The HTTP suite checks that a cost round carries no amount, answer or sum before answering (test_server.py:test_cost_round_is_generated_without_amounts, which asserts the exact key set). It also checks the typed-answer grading ($0.0840 and 0.084 right, 0.085 wrong), the 404 path, and the reserved-topic 422. Scoring is held back by three gaps. First, there is no front-end or DOM test of the cost flow: the typed-answer lock, the line-by-line sum rendering, the hint, and the report's per-topic score and cost entries are untested. My earlier verdict on task #0 flagged the same missing front-end coverage, and this task adds a whole new interactive flow without any. Second, the savings path is only tested through solve(), not through the HTTP answer endpoint. Third, nothing checks the negative-sign formatting of the savings line or the dollars() display. The generated-round test (test_cost.py:generated_rounds_follow_the_rules) is a loose property check rather than a value check, and it has an awkward <= set(...), True assertion. The test level mix is unit plus HTTP only, with no browser-level check. No screencast or report artifact was produced by this task's tests (the artifacts in the tree predate it), so the interactive flow rests on the code reading alone.

The price card has one source of truth: PRICES, LABELS and the token-count rules live in quiz/cost.py (lines 13-23), and the client reads prices from /api/prices (server.py prices route, cost-body.js prices promise) rather than hard-coding them in the price table. Generation, the exact Decimal sums and answer checking all happen server-side in cost.py (generate_question, solve, check), and the page only receives token counts before answering, so no amount is held client-side. Sourcing is honest: solve reproduces the pinned worked examples (0.0840, 0.2340, 0.1080; tests/test_cost.py). Deductions: cost-body.js hint text hard-codes the price literals ("Saving = cache read tokens × ($3.00 − $0.30) ÷ 1,000,000."), which is shadow data that would drift if the card changed. Token-kind labels are also re-derived in the client (kind.replace("_", " ") in cost-body.js and report-view.js) instead of coming from the LABELS table the server already sends. The cost-round data flow is otherwise clean and the bank stays server-side, as in the prior round.

The core is clean. quiz/cost.py imports only random, re and decimal (cost.py:1-8), so the pricing, sums, parsing and grading run in a plain unit test with no server (tests/test_cost.py exercises solve, parse_id, check directly). Core functions return plain dicts and strings, not framework objects. The HTTP layer depends inward: server.py:9 imports cost and calls cost.generate_round, cost.check and cost.solve, and the handler only maps ValueError to ApiError (server.py, _answer_cost). Proportion is right for a two-hour competition build: one module, no interfaces or DTO rings, and no pattern was added that the task did not need. Against that, several seams are weaker than they should be. (1) Randomness is pulled straight from the global random inside the core (cost.py _tokens, _request_counts, generate_round, random.shuffle) with no injected source, so the generator cannot be tested deterministically and the core is not fully pure. (2) Presentation text lives in the domain module (cost.py generate_question question wording, LABELS). (3) The question id doubles as a serialization format that carries the spec across the wire, and the server routes answers by string prefix (server.py answer: startswith("cost:")), so the protocol is shaped by the id syntax rather than an explicit contract. (4) The price card is duplicated on the client: cost-body.js hint hardcodes "$3.00 − $0.30" and fetches /api/prices separately, so the client also holds pricing knowledge. (5) bank.py imports cost (bank.py:7, validate) just to reserve a topic name, so the bank module depends on the cost module. The screaming top level is adequate (bank, cost, server), though the flat static folder is generic. Overall: a real dependency rule that holds, with a few leaks at the randomness, presentation and client-price seams.

The build adds several end-user touches beyond the brief, all visible in source: a Hint toggle that states the formula (quiz/static/cost-body.js:20-22, 30); the price card shown beside the token counts so the player can work the sum without leaving the question (cost-body.js:14-17, 33-34); a $ adornment on the answer field and forgiving parsing of '$', commas and spaces (cost.py parse_amount, lines ~85-95); a savings sum shown as plain input minus cache read, with a negative cache line, so the saving reads as a difference (cost.py solve, ~line 100; money.js dollars()); and the report reuses the same line-by-line table with the token counts per entry (report-view.js costDetails). The author API also blocks the reserved topic name case-insensitively (bank.py validate). These are useful and functional, but they are standard quiz conveniences rather than a memorable idea. No probe or screencast was run, and the cost-related screenshots in the delivery are from the first round, so the cost flow's visual behaviour is unverified and the score rests on source reading.

The play screen has a clear hierarchy: the question is the largest text, the 'Question 1 of 5 · Knowledge base' counter and timer sit above a progress bar, and the four options are evenly spaced cards with letter badges. After answering, the right option turns green, the wrong one red, and a feedback block states 'Correct!' or 'Not quite.' with the explanation, followed by a 'Next question' button. The report was not captured, so the review covers the play flow only. Deductions: the wrong-answer state gives the player no explicit label on the chosen option beyond its colour, and the page shows a horizontal scrollbar at desktop width in every capture, which looks unpolished.

The answer state is not conveyed by colour alone: the feedback block opens with the text 'Correct!' or 'Not quite.' and the options carry letter badges A–D (quiz-wrong.png, quiz-right.png). Text contrast in the captures is good, with dark ink on white and muted grey for secondary text. The markup has lang="en", a labelled progress bar with role and aria values, and the main region is aria-live. Keyboard play is supported (1–4 and Enter). Weaknesses: there is no h1, the question is an h2, and the wrong option's red border is the only cue marking the player's choice.

No narrow-width capture was delivered. The mobile probe was registered but its budget was used up before it was sent, and the report desktop/mobile request is still open. The CSS shows some fluid layout (auto-fit topic grid, max-width main container), but there are no media queries, so I cannot judge the narrow view from evidence. The desktop captures also show a horizontal scrollbar, which hints at overflow that a mobile check would need to confirm.

The bank has one source of truth: the SEED list in quiz/bank.py (commit 07bdee0), with the pinned wording, options, answer indices and explanations matching the brief. The Store persists to a JSON file and serves all reads and writes. Player routes go through public_question(), which strips answer and explanation (quiz/server.py), and /api/answer is the only place correctness is decided. The client holds no question bank: app.js, quiz-view.js and api.js only fetch from the server. Restore goes through store.reset(), which reuses SEED, so there is no drifting copy. Deductions: the report saved in localStorage (report-store.js) duplicates per-question answers and explanations, which is a second copy of data, though it is written only after answering. Store._load trusts the JSON file without shape checks. Quiz-view also re-declares the option-count keys ("1"-"4") and LETTERS locally rather than deriving them from the data. None of this is a shadow bank, and the sourcing is honest: the seed text matches the brief exactly.

The server and store tests make concrete assertions and cover several error paths. Gaps: no test pins the ten seed questions to the brief's exact wording, answers and explanations; no test covers the browser flows (topic pick, one-shot answer lock, report, restart, author form) even though those are core scenarios; and the 'answer can no longer be changed' rule is enforced only in client code (quiz-view.js) with no test. No probe was run, so this verdict rests on reading the files.

Several working extras beyond the brief, all visible in code. Keyboard play: keys 1–4 answer and Enter advances (quiz-view.js, onKey handler). A per-question elapsed timer and a progress bar with ARIA progressbar attributes (quiz-view.js). The last report survives reloads via localStorage and is linked from the home page (report-store.js, app.js). Per-topic scores appear on all-topics reports (report-view.js, topicScores in report-store.js). Author form has a topic datalist, radio-marked right answer, per-field error boxes, and confirm dialogs before remove and restore. Dark mode follows prefers-color-scheme (style.css). These are real usability touches, but none is memorable or unusual. Nothing was probed, so behaviour is judged from code only.

Names are mostly descriptive (Store, public_question, validate, topicScores, renderReport, saveReport) and the diff has no obvious dead code or copy-paste blocks. The pinned seed is a flat list of _q(...) calls, which is structural rather than duplication. Deductions: the magic literal "All topics" is repeated across quiz-view.js (topic || "All topics") and report-view.js (report.topic === "All topics"), and key handling hardcodes ["1","2","3","4"] next to a separate LETTERS array in quiz-view.js. answer(self, query) in server.py takes an unused query argument. No analysis measurements were supplied, so this rests on reading the code.

The server is well layered: a route table, an ApiError with a uniform body, a thread-safe Store, and the key is kept out of public_question, so a newcomer can follow the flow. Weaker spots: renderQuestion in quiz-view.js is a ~60-line closure that mixes timer, keyboard listener, answer submission, DOM building and report entry, and choose does network, DOM and state work in one function. author-view.js form() is dense, with long one-line handlers and manual per-field error wiring. In app.js, the stopQuiz reassignment across route() is easy to get wrong. server.py _read_json does int(self.headers.get("Content-Length") or 0) with no guard, so a malformed header becomes an unhandled 500 at the boundary. Constants such as the 4-option limit and the 8-character id length are only partly named.

Every pinned scenario has a visible code path. The seed bank matches the brief's wording, answers and explanations (quiz/bank.py:SEED). Answers are checked on the server and the key is withheld until answering (server.py:public_question, server.py:answer). Answers lock after one choice (quiz-view.js:choose). Reports persist in localStorage and survive reload, the all-topics report shows per-topic scores, and author add/edit/remove/restore and field-level validation are implemented. Deductions: I did not run the app or obtain the screencast and screenshot, so the interactive flows and visuals are judged from code only. The feedback shows 'Correct!' or 'Not quite.' and highlights the right option, but does not name the right option in text, which is a minor clarity gap. The timer and keyboard play are extras that work as coded.

The dependency direction is mostly right, but the seams are thin. Core validation and the pinned seed live in quiz/bank.py, which imports only stdlib and never names HTTP, so validate() can be unit-tested alone (tests/test_bank.py). Three problems pull the score down. (1) The answer-checking rule, choice == question["answer"] with its explanation payload, sits in the HTTP handler at quiz/server.py (Handler.answer), so the central business rule lives at the framework edge and cannot be exercised without the HTTP server. (2) Persistence is not separated from the domain: Store (quiz/bank.py, file I/O, threading, uuid, JSON) is a concrete class in the same module as the seed and validation, with no interface the core declares and the edge implements. (3) public_question redaction is a server-side presentation rule placed in server.py rather than with the domain. On the browser side, quiz-view.js mixes fetching, timers, DOM rendering and scoring state in one closure, with no domain layer. Positives: the top-level tree (quiz/, tests/, static/) is small and proportionate to a two-hour task, and the report scoring helper topicScores is a pure function. Overall this is a reasonable but flat structure with the key rule at the edge.

The submission at the task commit contains no quiz. The tree has only a Scorched Core artillery game (index.html, src/game.js, src/main.js, test/game.test.js) and its AGENTS.md describes that game, not a quiz. The work-window diff adds only .ololo files: a settings.json and a done note that describes the artillery game. There is no question bank, answer endpoint, topic picker, report, or author form, so there is no quiz-specific extra to credit. The brief's core is absent, so no extra-mile touch can be credited and the score sits at the floor.

The build at the task commit is not a quiz. The tree has no quiz files: no question bank, no topic picker, no question or report views. The player-facing surface is the Scorched Core artillery duel (index.html title and canvas; src/main.js renders tanks, wind and a shop). Nothing on screen gives a topic choice, a question, an answer reveal, or a report, so the quiz's primary information never appears. The done note (.ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md) also describes the artillery game, not the quiz.

The page has a valid lang="en" and a viewport meta tag, and the HUD colours are legible on the dark background. The play surface is a single with no text alternative or ARIA role, so the game state (HP, wind, turn, shop) is only drawn pixels and not readable by assistive tech. The shop is built with buttons, which is the one semantic part. None of this is a quiz, so there are no answer options, radio semantics or feedback regions to assess.

No narrow-width capture was delivered. The CSS has some fluidity (#stage width min(96vw,1000px), canvas aspect-ratio 16/9), but there are no media queries. Every control is keyboard-only (arrow keys, digits, Space, R), with no touch controls or quiz buttons. The page's own help text, a plain sentence of key hints, would be the only thing a phone user sees, so the narrow experience gives no usable way to play.

The task commit 2324e9d contains no quiz. Its diff against the base adds only .ololo/ files (ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md, settings.json). The tree at the task commit holds a different project, Scorched Core: src/game.js, src/main.js, index.html and test/game.test.js, with AGENTS.md describing an artillery duel. There is no question bank, no quiz server, no answer-checking endpoint and no report, so there is no quiz architecture to judge against the dependency rule. The one structural observation is that src/game.js has no imports and keeps its rules pure, with main.js as the canvas edge. That is good structure, but it belongs to the wrong task. The done-note also claims a Scorched build, not a quiz build. The score is low because the required layers (bank on server, inversion at the edge, boundary between core and framework) do not exist.

No tests were written for the quiz in this task. The work-window diff (a24cbbf..2324e9d) adds only .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md and .ololo/settings.json. The only test file, test/game.test.js, covers an artillery game (createGame, fire, step, WEAPONS, buy), not a quiz. package.json and AGENTS.md also describe the Scorched Core artillery game, and no quiz source, bank, or server exists in the tree. None of the required quiz scenarios are exercised: topic selection, answer checking, the report, authoring validation, or the key staying on the server. The test file is well-asserted, but it verifies the wrong product, so it does not guard the quiz at all. The half point reflects that the existing suite runs and asserts concrete values, not that it covers this task.

The task commit contains no quiz code. The tree at 2324e9d has src/game.js and src/main.js, which implement a Scorched-style artillery duel, plus a test file for that game. Nothing in the repo implements topics, questions, answer checking, a report, or authoring. The work-window diff adds only .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md and .ololo/settings.json. The done note describes a 'Scorched Core build', not a quiz. There is no quiz duplication to measure, and the unrelated code cannot be credited as this task's deliverable.

No quiz server, question bank, answer-check endpoint, or quiz frontend exists in the repo, so none of the required boundaries (server-held key, validated answers, authoring form) can be assessed. AGENTS.md documents only the Scorched game (run/test/coverage for node --test). A newcomer could not change the quiz from this codebase. The unrelated game code is not the deliverable and is not credited here.

The task asked for a quiz web app: a server-held bank of ten pinned questions, one-at-a-time answering with server-side checking, a report screen, and an in-app authoring form. The file tree at the task commit 2324e9d contains none of this. It has only index.html, src/game.js, src/main.js and test/game.test.js, and these implement a canvas artillery duel (wind, weapons, shop, rounds). There is no question bank, no quiz endpoint, no answer checking, no report, and no authoring flow, so every scenario in the brief fails. The AGENTS.md (run: python3 -m http.server 8000, test: node --test) and the .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md note both describe the Scorched game, not a quiz. The done note claims 'Scorched Core build ready', which does not answer the quiz brief. The task-window diff also adds only the done note and .ololo/settings.json. No backend exists, so the server-side key requirement is unmet too. The only thing shipped is an unrelated game, so the score is zero.

There is no quiz data layer in the submitted repo. The task-commit file tree (list_files at 2324e9d) holds only the Scorched artillery game (src/game.js, src/main.js, test/game.test.js, index.html) plus .ololo files. No question bank, no server, no answer-check endpoint and no author flow exist, so none of the four data criteria can be met: there is no source of truth for the ten pinned questions, no server-side key, and no sourcing of the pinned facts. The task-commit diff (a24cbbf..2324e9d) touches only .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md and .ololo/settings.json, and the done note describes a Scorched Core artillery duel, not a quiz. AGENTS.md also documents the Scorched game (run/test/coverage for node --test), not a quiz.