agent-judgment-review

name	agent-judgment-review
description	Challenge accepted investment artifacts before synthesis, portfolio, risk, order, approval, or execution gates. It makes conclusions reviewable, source-aware, and revisitable without granting research, portfolio, approval, execution, or model-training authority.

Agent Judgment Review

Use this procedure after upstream artifacts are accepted or when a decision-oriented artifact needs independent challenge.

Inputs:

• original user request and explicit constraints
• accepted artifact paths and compact summaries
• source/as-of metadata, source trust notes, and forecast fields
• stated missing evidence, blocked actions, and downstream recipient

Required output fields:

• strongest supporting evidence
• strongest contrary evidence
• weak, stale, missing, or discounted source posture
• overconfidence risk
• assumptions that would change the conclusion
• source trust notes
• update triggers
• invalidation conditions
• owning role for any required revision
• review outcome: accepted, revise, blocked, or waiting

Evidence weighting:

• Treat official primary sources as strongest for factual issuer, regulator, exchange, and policy claims.
• Treat management claims as source claims until independently supported.
• Treat market-derived evidence as useful but timestamp-sensitive.
• Treat secondary news as event or narrative evidence, not final proof.
• Discount stale evidence, unsupported assumptions, and sources with missing as-of or retrieved-at posture.

Outcome rules:

• Use accepted only when contrary evidence, source trust, update triggers, and invalidation conditions are explicit enough for downstream use.
• Use revise when an owning role can fix weak evidence, missing source posture, unsupported assumptions, or unclear forecast/update fields.
• Use blocked when the conclusion depends on unavailable evidence, policy conflicts, missing profile context, or unsupported downstream authority.
• Use waiting when required upstream artifacts or accepted handoff state are missing.

Quality floor:

• Challenge the artifact; do not produce replacement analyst work.
• Separate [factual], [inference], and [assumption] claims when the distinction affects downstream use.
• Name the best objection instead of averaging conflict into false consensus.
• Lower confidence when source trust, freshness, coverage, or contradiction is weak.
• Do not create order tickets, approvals, broker actions, execution requests, strategy changes, policy changes, or forecast ledger records from this review alone.