Review model-drafted policy text

Objectives

A model drafted six clauses for the new access control standard in about nine seconds. The policy office wants to publish this afternoon.

Accept the clauses that are grounded and testable. Reject the ones that cite something that does not exist, assert a fact nobody can check, drift outside the standard's subject, or say nothing an auditor could test.

Verdicts are accept or reject. Every rejection needs one reason code from: hallucinated-citation | unverifiable-claim | not-testable | out-of-scope.

M-1  "Administrative access to production requires phishing-resistant MFA."
M-2  "This standard implements ISO 27001:2022 control A.19.4 on privileged identity."
M-3  "Access is reviewed by management on a regular and appropriate basis."
M-4  "All privileged sessions are recorded and retained for 365 days."
M-5  "Our organisation has never experienced an access-related incident."
M-6  "Employees should also consider the environmental impact of their workstation usage."

Step-by-step hints

The guided walkthrough, in full. It is free: no XP cost, and it does not touch the paid hint ladder or the reveal gate.

1. Step 1

   Read the request before the artefact

   A model produces fluent text at the same confidence whether or not the underlying fact exists. Review it as unverified input from a fast, unaccountable junior.

2. Step 2

   Judge every line, including the boring ones

   All six clauses need a verdict. Publishing the two good ones without judging the rest is how the hallucination reaches the standard.

   Every line in the fixture carries a verdict

3. Step 3

   Separate what is wrong from what is merely ugly

   Check every citation against the actual structure of the standard, not against how plausible the number looks.

   Then ask of each remaining clause: could an evaluator produce a true or false result from this sentence, and is its subject inside the scope of this document?

   Accept and reject land on the right lines

4. Step 4

   Say why, in the vocabulary the programme uses

   A fabricated reference, an unfalsifiable boast, a vague obligation and an off-topic aside are four different defects, and only one of them is fixed by editing the wording.

   Each rejection cites a valid reason code

Rules summary

• XP on pass

  40 bonus XP the first time every check goes green.

• Paid hints

  2 available. Each costs 25% of the lab XP (about 10 XP).

• Reveal solution

  Scores 0 XP and unlocks only after 3 check runs.

• Attempt cap

  60 check runs per learner. The runner warns you in the last 10.

• Drafts

  Your editor content is saved in this browser, so a reload will not lose work.

• Walkthrough

  Always free and never penalised: use it before spending a hint.