Why it matters

A signoff claim is checked by someone who was not in the closure meetings. The package is everything that person needs: what was run, with what data, what the results were, what is still open. A package that is missing an item cannot be accepted, whatever the numbers say.

Contents

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

required = ["method and data versions", "margin ledger", "results per scenario", "near-critical histogram",
            "derate audit", "milestone comparison", "open items"]
submitted = {"method and data versions": True, "margin ledger": True, "results per scenario": True,
             "near-critical histogram": True, "derate audit": False, "milestone comparison": True, "open items": True}
missing = [r for r in required if not submitted.get(r)]
wns_union = 0.012
numbers_clean = wns_union >= 0
accepted = numbers_clean and not missing
assert missing == ["derate audit"]
assert accepted is False
print("PASS: package not accepted; missing", missing, "although union WNS is", wns_union)

The union WNS is positive (+0.012 ns), but the package lacks the derate audit, so nobody has confirmed that the derates that produced the number are the policy ones. Acceptance depends on completeness first and numbers second: a clean number from an unaudited setup proves nothing about the setup.

What the review looks for

• Every item above is present, dated and linked to the run that produced it.

• A reviewer who was not involved can reproduce the headline numbers from the package alone.

• Open items have owners; waivers expire.

Related topics

• Comparing Runs Honestly