docs: add reviewer-facing examples for ai-assisted-detection-demo#20
Conversation
stacknil
commented
Mar 31, 2026
stacknil
commented
- add a no-run examples page for accepted / rejected / degraded coverage paths
- link the examples page from the demo README
- no behavior, validation, or guardrail changes
stacknil
force-pushed
the
codex/ai-detection-examples-docs
branch
from
92994c5 to
0a96398
Compare
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0a96398e3a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
|
||
| Summary status: rejected | ||
| Rejection reason: case_id_mismatch | ||
| Analyst note: no accepted summary was produced for this case; rely on deterministic evidence. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The rejected-path markdown example uses Analyst note: no accepted summary was produced..., but the runtime emits a different analyst note for rejected summaries (use the deterministic rule hits and raw evidence for manual review) when validation_status is rejected (see src/telemetry_window_demo/ai_assisted_detection_demo/pipeline.py around lines 940-948). Because this page is presented as a reviewer pack that matches pipeline output, the current text can mislead reviewers into expecting the wrong case report content when validating rejection behavior.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
