{ "provenance": { "kind": "public native AskUserQuestion and tool_result only", "cliVersion": "2.1.251", "sourceRevision": "78c8b25820d160afb3547ff6c81ad8b1931e9991", "toolUseId": "toolu_012HRHG7xme8rqkTMi3jdwCS", "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T07:47:35.498Z", "note": "Original affirmative answer is preserved. Free controls replay this request against the explicitly declared native-only actor policy; they do not rewrite that historical outcome." }, "question": { "question": "D3 — Want outside design voices before the detailed review?\nProject/branch/task: main, User Dashboard Page plan, Variant A approved as reference.\nELI10: Two independent second opinions before I run the 7 passes. Codex (OpenAI's CLI) grades the plan against a set of hard design rules and 7 litmus checks; a fresh Claude subagent that hasn't seen my notes does an independent completeness review. Where they agree with me, we move faster; where they disagree, you see both sides.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping means findings rest on one reviewer's taste; running costs a few minutes and Codex may be unavailable in this environment.\nRecommendation: A because independent voices catch blind spots and the cost is a few minutes.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a few minutes for cross-model confidence vs. a faster single-voice review.", "header": "Voices", "multiSelect": false, "options": [ { "label": "Yes, run outside design voices (recommended)", "description": "✅ Codex hard-rule + litmus scorecard plus an independent Claude completeness read. ✅ Disagreements surface with both perspectives in the relevant pass. ❌ Adds a few minutes; Codex may be missing here, in which case only the Claude voice runs and it's tagged single-model." }, { "label": "No, proceed without", "description": "✅ Straight into the 7 passes with the approved mockup as anchor. ✅ Fewest steps to a fixed plan. ❌ Findings rest on one reviewer; no cross-model check on slop risk or hierarchy." } ] }, "actualAnswer": "Yes, run outside design voices (recommended)", "sameLineExplanation77": { "source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c", "toolUseId": "toolu_01XjmV9JV3Rb4HWv6zH8eSjK", "question": { "question": "Want outside design voices before the detailed review? Codex evaluates against OpenAI's design hard rules + litmus checks; a Claude subagent does an independent completeness review.\n\nD5 — Outside design voices\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of the User Dashboard Page plan, Variant A approved.\nELI10: Before I walk the 7 design passes myself, I can bring in two independent reviewers: Codex (scores the plan against hard-rejection rules like generic card grids, plus 7 litmus checks) and a fresh Claude subagent that hasn't seen my notes. Where they disagree with me, both views get surfaced in the relevant pass.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping means my findings rest on one reviewer; running adds a few minutes and Codex may not be installed here.\nRecommendation: No, proceed without — this is a taste call, no strong preference either way; the wireframe already anchors slop risk and hierarchy for an app-UI page.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: cross-model second opinion vs. the shortest path to a fixed plan.", "header": "Voices", "multiSelect": false, "options": [ { "label": "No, proceed without (recommended)", "description": "✅ Straight into the 7 passes with the approved mockup as anchor. ✅ Fewest steps to a fixed plan. ❌ Findings rest on one reviewer; no cross-model check on slop risk or hierarchy." }, { "label": "Yes, run outside design voices", "description": "✅ Codex hard-rule + litmus scorecard plus an independent Claude completeness read. ✅ Disagreements surface with both perspectives in the relevant pass. ❌ Adds a few minutes; Codex may be missing here, in which case only the Claude voice runs and it's tagged single-model." } ] } } }