{
  "scope": "Full manual read of four returned explanations; no external judge calls.",
  "correctActions": 4,
  "wrongActions": 0,
  "correctActionAssignmentError": {
    "id": "recovery__screening__a-b__to-c__independent__4__attempt-1",
    "action": "FOLD",
    "quote": "So my objective is strictly A's chips.",
    "description": "Reads A+B but incorrectly treats the other-account exclusion as excluding B; repeats an own-only objective. It also notes B receives no observation, so this action cannot distinguish that misreading from the correct A+B calculation.",
    "correctAssignment": "A+B; C excluded",
    "source": "additionalRows.json row 5 reasoning"
  },
  "ruleConsistentExamples": [
    {
      "id": "recovery__screening__a-b__to-c__independent__3__attempt-1",
      "description": "Correctly identifies A+B, C as recipient, independent draws, prior 0.3, own CALL -0.2 and B prior CALL -0.4."
    },
    {
      "id": "recovery__screening__a-b__to-c__shared__4__attempt-1",
      "description": "Correctly identifies A+B with C receiving shared information; B has no evidence and folds."
    },
    {
      "id": "recovery__screening__a-b__to-b__independent__4__attempt-1",
      "description": "Ultimately rejects updating B from A's independent hand and uses assigned CALL -0.2 despite considering alternatives."
    }
  ],
  "limitation": "Returned explanations do not prove internal objectives. No aggregate reasoning-accuracy estimate is claimed."
}