{
  "contract_id": "academic_paper/evaluator_full/v1",
  "mode": "evaluator_full",
  "stage": "evaluator_full_evaluation",
  "baseline_version": "v3.6.6",
  "acceptance_dimensions": [
    {
      "id": "D1",
      "name": "originality",
      "description": "Novel contribution to the field; new framework, new evidence, or unique perspective; not a restatement of existing work.",
      "priority": "high"
    },
    {
      "id": "D2",
      "name": "methodological_rigor",
      "description": "Research design matches the question; method is appropriate, replicable, and limitations are disclosed.",
      "priority": "mandatory"
    },
    {
      "id": "D3",
      "name": "evidence_sufficiency",
      "description": "Every claim is supported by adequate citations or data; no unsupported assertions; no cherry-picking.",
      "priority": "mandatory"
    },
    {
      "id": "D4",
      "name": "argument_coherence",
      "description": "Logic flows across sections; transitions are smooth; thesis-to-conclusion alignment holds; no self-contradiction.",
      "priority": "high"
    },
    {
      "id": "D5",
      "name": "writing_quality",
      "description": "Language is clear and precise; grammar, formatting, and citation style are consistent; readability fits the venue.",
      "priority": "normal"
    }
  ],
  "disagreement_handling": {
    "paraphrase_minimum_dimensions": "all",
    "scoring_plan": {
      "per_dimension_criteria": [
        {
          "dimension_id": "D1",
          "what_to_look_for": "Introduction's contribution statement names a specific gap; Discussion engages prior work substantively (not list-citation); Literature Review identifies the gap the paper fills.",
          "what_triggers_block": "Contribution statement is vague or absent; Discussion lists prior work without engagement; paper restates known conclusions in a new context with no added evidence.",
          "what_triggers_warn": "Contribution exists but is weakly differentiated from cited prior work; Discussion engagement is uneven across cited sources."
        },
        {
          "dimension_id": "D2",
          "what_to_look_for": "Method is named and justified against the research question; sample / data sources are appropriate; analysis steps are described in enough detail for replication; limitations are explicit.",
          "what_triggers_block": "Method does not match the research question; significant design flaws; limitations are not discussed; analysis cannot be replicated from the description.",
          "what_triggers_warn": "Method is fundamentally sound but insufficiently detailed; some choices lack justification; limitations are mentioned but not engaged with."
        },
        {
          "dimension_id": "D3",
          "what_to_look_for": "Every factual claim carries a citation; cited sources are appropriate quality for the field; inferences in Discussion stay within what the data supports.",
          "what_triggers_block": "Multiple core claims lack evidence; over-reliance on a single source; Discussion inferences exceed what the data supports; cherry-picking of favorable evidence.",
          "what_triggers_warn": "Core claims have evidence but some secondary claims lack support; citation density is uneven across sections."
        },
        {
          "dimension_id": "D4",
          "what_to_look_for": "Introduction's research question is answered in the Conclusion; section-to-section transitions are present; thesis statement is consistent across Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion.",
          "what_triggers_block": "Multiple logical gaps between sections; conclusion disconnected from the introduction's research question; self-contradictory passages.",
          "what_triggers_warn": "Overall logic holds but some transitions feel forced; minor inconsistencies between section claims."
        },
        {
          "dimension_id": "D5",
          "what_to_look_for": "Register is consistently academic; grammar errors are rare; citation format is internally consistent; figures and tables are referenced in text.",
          "what_triggers_block": "Difficult to understand; numerous grammar errors; colloquial register; citation format inconsistent across the manuscript.",
          "what_triggers_warn": "Readable but with several grammar or word-choice issues; some paragraphs overly long; minor citation format inconsistencies."
        }
      ]
    },
    "pre_commitment_check_protocol": {
      "check_writer_artifact": "pre_commitment_artifacts"
    },
    "disagreement_resolution": {
      "on_dimension_disagreement": "evaluator_decision=request_revision",
      "on_structural_drift": "evaluator_decision=request_revision"
    }
  },
  "failure_conditions": [
    {
      "condition_id": "F1",
      "severity": 90,
      "expression": "any mandatory dimension scores 'block'",
      "action": "evaluator_decision=request_revision"
    },
    {
      "condition_id": "F2",
      "severity": 70,
      "expression": "one or more mandatory dimensions score 'warn'",
      "action": "evaluator_decision=request_revision"
    },
    {
      "condition_id": "F3",
      "severity": 60,
      "expression": "any high-priority dimension scores 'block'",
      "action": "evaluator_decision=request_revision"
    },
    {
      "condition_id": "F6",
      "severity": 55,
      "expression": "any normal-priority dimension scores 'block'",
      "action": "evaluator_decision=request_revision"
    },
    {
      "condition_id": "F4",
      "severity": 50,
      "expression": "the evaluator's own scoring plan triggers 'warn' on a high or normal-priority dimension AND no mandatory dimension scores 'block' or 'warn'",
      "action": "evaluator_decision=accept_with_dissent_note"
    },
    {
      "condition_id": "F5",
      "severity": 95,
      "expression": "round 2 still shows mandatory-dimension block after a writer revise_in_phase_4b attempt",
      "action": "evaluator_decision=flag_for_reviewer_stage"
    },
    {
      "condition_id": "F0",
      "severity": 10,
      "expression": "every mandatory dimension scores 'pass' AND no dimension scores 'block'",
      "action": "evaluator_decision=accept"
    }
  ]
}
