role: user

content:
You are the independent reviewing engineer for a road-corridor issue package covering a sag low point near roadside field equipment.

A source packet has been placed in `/workspace/sources/`. It contains a document register, road geometry, a drainage design package, a field equipment layout, a power and network schedule, a traffic operations case, and a criteria memo with review comments. The packet is a task-owned synthetic source pack; treat it as the only source of numeric truth for this review.

Your job is not to redesign the package. Your job is to decide whether it is ready to issue, and to produce an auditable review record.

## Review Workflow

1. Inventory the source packet before drawing any conclusion. Record every document ID, revision, and status.
2. Build a corridor identity ledger: road segment, chainage frame, datum, low point, cabinet, VMS, storm case, network case, and battery.
3. Check for source conflicts, stale revisions, contradictory datums, and missing evidence first.
4. Recompute the package's own calculations only where they answer review items, using the assessment bases stated in the criteria memo. Do not import methods or values from outside the packet.
5. Assign exactly one status to every review item: `pass`, `fail`, `not_applicable`, or `insufficient_data`.
6. Do not invent missing values. Mark missing evidence as `insufficient_data` and request the exact missing field and source. A value that a source explicitly marks as pending or awaiting confirmation is missing evidence of this kind: it does not make otherwise-reconciling identifiers inconsistent and does not make evidence that is present untraceable; the check that cannot be completed without it takes `insufficient_data`.
7. Convert every failure into a finding with a source pointer, affected object, consequence, and corrective action.
8. Issue a readiness decision that reconciles with your matrix, findings, and action register.

## Review Matrix

Assess each item and give it exactly one status:

| Item | Review question |
|---|---|
| RLR-01 | Packet completeness: are all required source documents present with IDs and revisions? |
| RLR-02 | Object identity: do chainage, datum, low point, cabinet, storm case, and scenario stay consistent across documents? |
| RLR-03 | Drainage basis: are the package's runoff, spread, and HGL results traceable to the stated storm case and current tailwater basis, and do they reconcile when recomputed? |
| RLR-04 | Equipment exposure: is the CAB-01 pad level adequate against the controlling water level and the required freeboard? |
| RLR-05 | Traffic operation consequence: does the VMS legibility case use this corridor's design speed and scenario? |
| RLR-06 | Power/comms resilience: do battery runtime and network headroom clear the criteria using source-backed values? |
| RLR-07 | Comment and action closure: is every review comment closed, or carried with an owner and agreed action, or blocked by named missing data? |
| RLR-08 | Readiness consistency: does your final decision match your own matrix, findings, and action register? |
| RLR-09 | Claim boundary: does your review avoid unsupported approval, compliance, or acceptance claims? |

## Output

Write your complete review to `/workspace/output.md`. Explain your reasoning briefly in prose, then end with exactly one fenced JSON block:

```json
{
  "source_inventory": [{"doc_id": "...", "revision": "...", "status": "..."}],
  "identity_ledger": {
    "road_segment": "...",
    "low_point": "...",
    "low_point_chainage": "...",
    "datum": "...",
    "cabinet": "...",
    "vms": "...",
    "storm_case": "...",
    "network_case": "...",
    "battery": "..."
  },
  "review_matrix": {
    "RLR-01": {"status": "pass|fail|not_applicable|insufficient_data", "evidence": "..."},
    "RLR-02": {"status": "...", "evidence": "..."},
    "RLR-03": {"status": "...", "evidence": "..."},
    "RLR-04": {"status": "...", "evidence": "..."},
    "RLR-05": {"status": "...", "evidence": "..."},
    "RLR-06": {"status": "...", "evidence": "..."},
    "RLR-07": {"status": "...", "evidence": "..."},
    "RLR-08": {"status": "...", "evidence": "..."},
    "RLR-09": {"status": "...", "evidence": "..."}
  },
  "computed_evidence": {
    "peak_runoff_m3_s": 0.0,
    "gutter_approach_flow_m3_s": 0.0,
    "spread_width_m": 0.0,
    "allowable_spread_m": 0.0,
    "controlling_water_level_m": 0.0,
    "cabinet_freeboard_m": 0.0,
    "vms_message_margin_chars": 0.0,
    "battery_runtime_h": 0.0,
    "network_headroom_mbps": 0.0
  },
  "findings": [
    {"item": "RLR-0X", "severity": "critical|minor", "source_id": "...", "object_id": "...", "consequence": "...", "action": "..."}
  ],
  "information_requests": [
    {"item": "RLR-0X", "missing_field": "...", "source_id": "..."}
  ],
  "action_register": [
    {"action": "...", "owner": "...", "linked_item": "RLR-0X"}
  ],
  "readiness_decision": "ready_to_issue|ready_with_carried_actions|not_ready_to_issue",
  "claim_boundary_statement": "..."
}
```

Rules for the structured block:

- `computed_evidence` values must come from your own recomputation from packet source values. Omit a key only when its inputs are missing from the packet (then raise the matching information request instead).
- Every `fail` needs at least one finding with a non-empty `source_id`, `object_id`, `consequence`, and `action`.
- Every `insufficient_data` needs an information request naming the exact missing field and its source document.
- Every `not_applicable` needs a scope reason in its matrix `evidence`.
- Carried actions must appear in `action_register` with an owner.
- `readiness_decision` must reconcile with your matrix: unresolved failures or missing critical evidence mean the package is not ready.
- `claim_boundary_statement` must state that this review covers a task-owned synthetic source packet and does not claim authority approval, accepted project evidence, full standards compliance, source-pack hardening, executable-verifier readiness, or benchmark readiness.


role: assistant

content: I'll start by inventorying the source packet, then work through each review item systematically.


tool_name: bash

command: ls -la /workspace/sources/


stdout:
criteria-comments.md
document-register.md
drainage-package.md
field-equipment.md
power-comms.md
road-geometry.md
traffic-operations.md

output_summary: Seven source documents found.


command: cat /workspace/sources/road-geometry.md


stdout:
# Document Register — DOC-REG-SSC01-01

Issue package: road low-point resilience, corridor RD-SSC01-001.

| Document ID | Title | Revision | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| RD-SSC01-001 | Road geometry and corridor profile | Rev B | Issued for review |
| DRN-SSC01-DES-01 | Low-point drainage design package | Rev C | Issued for review |
| ITS-SSC01-LAY-01 | Field equipment layout and levels | Rev A | Issued for review |
| PWR-SSC01-SCH-01 | Power, battery, and network schedule | Rev A | Issued for review |
| TOPS-SSC01-CASE-01 | Traffic operations case and VMS basis | Rev A | Issued for review |
| CRIT-SSC01-001 | Criteria memo and review comments | Rev A | Current |

All levels in this package are quoted in metres AHD unless a document states otherwise.

output_summary:
# Document Register — DOC-REG-SSC01-01

Issue package: road low-point resilience, corridor RD-SSC01-001.

| Document ID | Title | Revision | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| RD-SSC01-001 | Road geometry a…


stdout:
# Road Geometry — RD-SSC01-001 (Rev B)

Corridor: RD-SSC01-001, chainage CH 0+000 to CH 2+400, levels in metres AHD.

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Sag low point | LP-01 at CH 1+240 |
| LP-01 pavement level | 43.490 m AHD |
| Pavement crossfall at LP-01 | 2.7 % |
| Approach longitudinal slope | 1.0 % |
| Design speed | 70 km/h |

The approach gutter is a triangular kerb-and-channel section (DRN-GUT-01).

output_summary:
# Road Geometry — RD-SSC01-001 (Rev B)

Corridor: RD-SSC01-001, chainage CH 0+000 to CH 2+400, levels in metres AHD.

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Sag low point | LP-01 at CH 1+240 |
| LP-01 pavement …


stdout:
# Drainage Design Package — DRN-SSC01-DES-01 (Rev C)

Design storm: STORM-01 (10-year burst). Catchment DRN-CAT-01 drains to low-point inlet DRN-PIT-01 at LP-01.

## Source values

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Runoff coefficient C (DRN-CAT-01) | 0.81 |
| Rainfall intensity I (STORM-01) | 104.2 mm/h |
| Catchment area A (DRN-CAT-01) | 1.36 ha |
| Upstream bypass flow (DRN-BYP-01) | 0.030 m3/s |
| Gutter Manning n (DRN-GUT-01) | n = 0.015 |
| Inlet interception efficiency (DRN-PIT-01) | 0.82 |
| Inlet capture capacity (DRN-PIT-01) | 0.395 m3/s |
| Pipe diameter (DRN-PIPE-01) | 450 mm |
| Pipe length (DRN-PIPE-01) | 40.0 m |
| Pipe Manning n (DRN-PIPE-01) | n = 0.0115 |
| Pit loss coefficient K (HGL-01) | 0.9 |

Tailwater basis: downstream advice TW-2025-02 (tailwater 42.425 m AHD).

## Package results (as designed)

| Item | Claimed value |
|---|---|
| Peak runoff | 0.319 m3/s |
| Gutter approach flow | 0.349 m3/s |
| Gutter spread at LP-01 | 4.563 m |
| Upstream HGL at DRN-PIT-01 (HGL-01) | 42.889 m AHD |
| Controlling water level at LP-01 | 43.613 m AHD |

output_summary:
# Drainage Design Package — DRN-SSC01-DES-01 (Rev C)

Design storm: STORM-01 (10-year burst). Catchment DRN-CAT-01 drains to low-point inlet DRN-PIT-01 at LP-01.

## Source values

| Item | Value |
|-…


stdout:
# Field Equipment Layout — ITS-SSC01-LAY-01 (Rev A)

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Field cabinet | CAB-01 at CH 1+238 |
| CAB-01 pad level | 43.775 m AHD |
| CAB-01 assessed flood freeboard | 0.285 m — adequate |
| Variable message sign | VMS-01 at CH 1+180 (approach side) |
| VMS-01 character height | 18 in |
| Water-level sensor | WLS-01 at DRN-PIT-01 |

Levels in this layout are quoted in metres AHD.

output_summary:
# Field Equipment Layout — ITS-SSC01-LAY-01 (Rev A)

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Field cabinet | CAB-01 at CH 1+238 |
| CAB-01 pad level | 43.775 m AHD |
| CAB-01 assessed flood freeboard | 0.285 m —…


command: cat /workspace/sources/power-comms.md


stdout:
# Power And Network Schedule — PWR-SSC01-SCH-01 (Rev A)

## Battery (BATT-01)

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Battery capacity | 3.0 kWh |
| Usable-energy efficiency | 0.91 |
| CAB-01 critical load | 290 W |

## Network operating case (ITS-NET-01)

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CCTV cameras | 3 |
| Data rate per camera | 7.5 Mbps |
| VMS-01 data rate | 1.0 Mbps |
| Controller data rate | 0.25 Mbps |
| Water-level sensor data rate | 0.15 Mbps |
| Protocol overhead allowance | 17 % |
| Future capacity buffer | 28 % |
| Provisioned uplink | 45.0 Mbps |

output_summary:
# Power And Network Schedule — PWR-SSC01-SCH-01 (Rev A)

## Battery (BATT-01)

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Battery capacity | 3.0 kWh |
| Usable-energy efficiency | 0.91 |
| CAB-01 critical load | 29…


stdout:
# Traffic Operations Case — TOPS-SSC01-CASE-01 (Rev A)

Operating case: water over road at LP-01, single-lane closure with VMS-01 advisory message.

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Assessment speed | 70 km/h (RD-SSC01-001 design speed) |
| Claimed reading time | 11.29 s |
| Driver reading rate | 5.0 chars/s |
| Selected message (MSG-01) length | 50 characters |

Storm case for this operating scenario: STORM-01.

output_summary:
# Traffic Operations Case — TOPS-SSC01-CASE-01 (Rev A)

Operating case: water over road at LP-01, single-lane closure with VMS-01 advisory message.

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Assessment speed | 70 …


stdout:
# Criteria Memo And Review Comments — CRIT-SSC01-001 (Rev A)

## Acceptance criteria

| Criterion | Value |
|---|---|
| Allowable gutter spread at LP-01 | 5.50 m |
| Minimum CAB-01 flood freeboard above the controlling water level | 0.35 m |
| Required CAB-01 battery autonomy | 8 h |
| Network headroom on the provisioned uplink | greater than 0 Mbps |
| VMS message margin | greater than 0 characters |

## Assessment bases (source-owned methods)

- Peak runoff: Rational Method, Q = C x I x A / 360 (SI, m3/s).
- Gutter spread: HEC-22 triangular gutter relation, Q = (0.376/n) x Sx^(5/3) x SL^(1/2) x T^(8/3) (SI).
- Pipe friction: Manning full-pipe flow; friction slope Sf = (V x n / R^(2/3))^2; pit loss K x V^2 / (2g).
- Controlling water level: greater of the ponded pavement level (LP-01 plus curb depth T x Sx) and the upstream HGL.
- VMS legibility: 40 ft per inch of character height; reading time at the assessment speed.
- Battery runtime: capacity x efficiency / critical load.
- Network demand: device loads factored by protocol overhead and future capacity buffer.

## Review comments

| ID | Discipline | Comment | Status | Criticality | Owner | Agreed action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-01 | Drainage | Confirm inlet blockage allowance at DRN-PIT-01. | Closed | minor |  |  |
| C-02 | Electrical | Confirm BATT-01 sizing basis for CAB-01 load. | Closed | minor |  |  |
| C-03 | Traffic | Confirm MSG-01 legibility basis. | Closed | minor |  |  |

output_summary:
# Criteria Memo And Review Comments — CRIT-SSC01-001 (Rev A)

## Acceptance criteria

| Criterion | Value |
|---|---|
| Allowable gutter spread at LP-01 | 5.50 m |
| Minimum CAB-01 flood freeboard abo…


content: Now I have all source documents. Let me perform the calculations systematically.


command:
python3 << 'EOF'
import math

print("=" * 70)
print("RECOMPUTATION — DRAINAGE (RLR-03)")
print("=" * 70)

# --- Peak Runoff ---
# Q = C * I * A / 360 (SI, m3/s)
C = 0.81
I = 104.2   # mm/h
A = 1.36    # ha
Q_runoff = C * I * A / 360
print(f"\nPeak Runoff Q = C * I * A / 360")
print(f"  = {C} * {I} * {A} / 360")
print(f"  = {Q_runoff:.6f} m3/s")
print(f"  Package claims: 0.319 m3/s")
print(f"  Match: {abs(Q_runoff - 0.319) < 0.0005}")

# --- Gutter Approach Flow ---
# Q_gutter = Q_runoff + bypass
Q_bypass = 0.030  # m3/s
Q_gutter = Q_runoff + Q_bypass
print(f"\nGutter Approach Flow = Q_runoff + bypass")
print(f"  = {Q_runoff:.6f} + {Q_bypass}")
print(f"  = {Q_gutter:.6f} m3/s")
print(f"  Package claims: 0.349 m3/s")
print(f"  Match: {abs(Q_gutter - 0.349) < 0.0005}")

# --- Gutter Spread ---
# HEC-22 triangular gutter relation:
# Q = (0.376/n) * Sx^(5/3) * SL^(1/2) * T^(8/3)
# Solve for T: T = (Q * n / (0.376 * Sx^(5/3) * SL^(1/2)))^(3/8)
n_gutter = 0.015
Sx = 0.027    # crossfall 2.7%
SL = 0.010    # longitudinal slope 1.0%
Q_spread_input = Q_gutter  # approach flow drives the spread

T_computed = (Q_spread_input * n_gutter / (0.376 * (Sx**(5/3)) * (SL**(0.5))))**(3/8)
print(f"\nGutter Spread T (HEC-22 triangular):")
print(f"  T = (Q * n / (0.376 * Sx^(5/3) * SL^(1/2)))^(3/8)")
print(f"  Sx^(5/3) = {Sx**(5/3):.8f}")
print(f"  SL^(1/2) = {SL**(0.5):.8f}")
print(f"  denominator part = 0.376 * {Sx**(5/3):.8f} * {SL**(0.5):.8f} = {0.376 * (Sx**(5/3)) * (SL**(0.5)):.8f}")
print(f"  numerator part = {Q_spread_input:.6f} * {n_gutter} = {Q_spread_input * n_gutter:.8f}")
print(f"  ratio = {(Q_spread_input * n_gutter) / (0.376 * (Sx**(5/3)) * (SL**(0.5))):.6f}")
print(f"  T = {T_computed:.6f} m")
print(f"  Package claims: 4.563 m")
print(f"  Match (within 0.005): {abs(T_computed - 4.563) < 0.005}")

# Check allowable spread
allowable_spread = 5.50
print(f"\n  Allowable spread: {allowable_spread} m")
print(f"  T_computed: {T_computed:.3f} m  -> {'PASS' if T_computed <= allowable_spread else 'FAIL'}")
print(f"  T_claimed: 4.563 m -> {'PASS' if 4.563 <= allowable_spread else 'FAIL'}")

EOF


command:
python3 << 'EOF'
import math

print("=" * 70)
print("RECOMPUTATION — HGL AND CONTROLLING WATER LEVEL (RLR-03 / RLR-04)")
print("=" * 70)

# Pipe flow (full-pipe Manning)
# Q_pipe = inlet capture Q_in * interception efficiency
Q_gutter = 0.348852  # m3/s
eta_intercept = 0.82  # interception efficiency
Q_in = Q_gutter * eta_intercept
print(f"\nFlow entering pipe DRN-PIPE-01:")
print(f"  Q_in = Q_gutter * eta = {Q_gutter:.6f} * {eta_intercept} = {Q_in:.6f} m3/s")

# Check against inlet capture capacity
cap = 0.395
print(f"  Inlet capture capacity: {cap} m3/s => Q_in < cap: {Q_in < cap}")

# Full-pipe Manning velocity for 450mm dia
D = 0.450   # m
n_pipe = 0.0115
L_pipe = 40.0
# Area of pipe
A_pipe = math.pi * D**2 / 4
R_pipe = D / 4  # hydraulic radius for full circle

# Tailwater
TW = 42.425  # m AHD (from TW-2025-02)
# Pipe invert downstream: not directly given, need to work back
# Friction slope: Sf = (V * n / R^(2/3))^2
# V = Q / A
V_pipe = Q_in / A_pipe
print(f"\nPipe velocity V = Q / A_pipe")
print(f"  A_pipe = pi * {D}^2 / 4 = {A_pipe:.6f} m2")
print(f"  R_pipe = D/4 = {R_pipe:.4f} m")
print(f"  V = {Q_in:.6f} / {A_pipe:.6f} = {V_pipe:.4f} m/s")

Sf = (V_pipe * n_pipe / R_pipe**(2/3))**2
print(f"  Sf = (V * n / R^(2/3))^2 = ({V_pipe:.4f} * {n_pipe} / {R_pipe**(2/3):.6f})^2 = {Sf:.6f}")

# Friction head loss
hf = Sf * L_pipe
print(f"  Friction head loss hf = Sf * L = {Sf:.6f} * {L_pipe} = {hf:.6f} m")

# Pit (entry) loss
K_pit = 0.9
g = 9.81
h_pit = K_pit * V_pipe**2 / (2 * g)
print(f"  Pit loss h_pit = K * V^2 / (2g) = {K_pit} * {V_pipe:.4f}^2 / (2*{g}) = {h_pit:.6f} m")

# HGL at upstream pit = TW + hf + h_pit
# (working upstream from tailwater, full-pipe assumption, downstream = TW = energy grade at outlet)
# Simplified: HGL_upstream = TW + hf + h_pit
HGL_upstream = TW + hf + h_pit
print(f"\nUpstream HGL at DRN-PIT-01:")
print(f"  HGL = TW + hf + h_pit = {TW} + {hf:.6f} + {h_pit:.6f} = {HGL_upstream:.6f} m AHD")
print(f"  Package claims: 42.889 m AHD")
print(f"  Match (within 0.005): {abs(HGL_upstream - 42.889) < 0.005}")

print()

# Controlling water level:
# = max(ponded pavement level, upstream HGL)
# Ponded level = LP-01 pavement level + T * Sx  (T = spread, Sx = crossfall)
LP_level = 43.490  # m AHD
Sx = 0.027
T_spread = 4.562752   # computed spread
ponded_level = LP_level + T_spread * Sx
print(f"Ponded pavement level = LP level + T * Sx")
print(f"  = {LP_level} + {T_spread:.6f} * {Sx}")
print(f"  = {ponded_level:.6f} m AHD")
print(f"  Upstream HGL = {HGL_upstream:.6f} m AHD")
controlling_WL = max(ponded_level, HGL_upstream)
print(f"  Controlling WL = max({ponded_level:.6f}, {HGL_upstream:.6f}) = {controlling_WL:.6f} m AHD")
print(f"  Package claims: 43.613 m AHD")
print(f"  Match (within 0.005): {abs(controlling_WL - 43.613) < 0.005}")

EOF


command:
python3 << 'EOF'
import math

print("=" * 70)
print("RECOMPUTATION — CABINET FREEBOARD (RLR-04)")
print("=" * 70)

CAB_pad = 43.775     # m AHD
controlling_WL = 43.613194  # m AHD (computed)
min_freeboard = 0.35  # m (criteria)

freeboard = CAB_pad - controlling_WL
print(f"CAB-01 pad level:        {CAB_pad} m AHD")
print(f"Controlling water level: {controlling_WL:.6f} m AHD")
print(f"Computed freeboard:      {freeboard:.6f} m")
print(f"Required freeboard:      {min_freeboard} m")
print(f"Package claims freeboard: 0.285 m (adequate)")
print(f"  -> Package claim vs computed: {CAB_pad - controlling_WL:.3f} m")
print()
print(f"CHECK: freeboard {freeboard:.3f} m >= required {min_freeboard} m?  {freeboard >= min_freeboard}")
print()
print(f"NOTE: Package claims 0.285 m freeboard as 'adequate',")
print(f"      but 0.285 m < 0.35 m required => FAIL")
print(f"      My computed freeboard = {freeboard:.3f} m, also < 0.35 m => FAIL")
print()
# Double-check the package's own claimed freeboard
pkg_claimed_fb = 0.285
print(f"Package's claimed freeboard {pkg_claimed_fb} m vs computed {freeboard:.3f} m")
print(f"  Difference: {abs(pkg_claimed_fb - freeboard):.4f} m")
# The package says 0.285 adequate but criterion is 0.35 — that's the failure
print(f"\nCONCLUSION: Both the package's own computed freeboard (0.285 m) and my")
print(f"  recomputed value ({freeboard:.3f} m) are below the 0.35 m criterion.")
print(f"  The package incorrectly labels this 'adequate'. FINDING: critical fail.")

EOF


stdout:
======================================================================
RECOMPUTATION — CABINET FREEBOARD (RLR-04)
======================================================================
CAB-01 pad level:        43.775 m AHD
Controlling water level: 43.613194 m AHD
Computed freeboard:      0.161806 m
Required freeboard:      0.35 m
Package claims freeboard: 0.285 m (adequate)
  -> Package claim vs computed: 0.162 m

CHECK: freeboard 0.162 m >= required 0.35 m?  False

NOTE: Package claims 0.285 m freeboard as 'adequate',
      but 0.285 m < 0.35 m required => FAIL
      My computed freeboard = 0.162 m, also < 0.35 m => FAIL

Package's claimed freeboard 0.285 m vs computed 0.162 m
  Difference: 0.1232 m

CONCLUSION: Both the package's own computed freeboard (0.285 m) and my
  recomputed value (0.162 m) are below the 0.35 m criterion.
  The package incorrectly labels this 'adequate'. FINDING: critical fail.


command:
python3 << 'EOF'
import math

print("=" * 70)
print("FREEBOARD DISCREPANCY INVESTIGATION")
print("=" * 70)
# The package says freeboard = 0.285 m
# My computation: CAB_pad - controlling_WL = 43.775 - 43.613194 = 0.161806 m
# The package must be using a different controlling water level for the freeboard check
# Let's back-calculate what controlling WL the package used:
CAB_pad = 43.775
pkg_fb = 0.285
implied_WL = CAB_pad - pkg_fb
print(f"Package's implied controlling WL = {CAB_pad} - {pkg_fb} = {implied_WL} m AHD")
print(f"Package's stated controlling WL  = 43.613 m AHD")
print(f"Difference: {implied_WL - 43.613:.3f} m")
print()
print("Package claims freeboard = 43.775 - 43.490 = 0.285 m")
print(f"= {43.775 - 43.490:.3f} m")
print("  => The package is computing freeboard above the PAVEMENT level (43.490)")
print("     not above the CONTROLLING WATER LEVEL (43.613)")
print("  => This is an error: freeboard must be computed against the controlling WL")
print()
print("Correct freeboard = CAB pad - controlling WL")
print(f"  = 43.775 - 43.613 = {43.775 - 43.613:.3f} m")
print(f"  Required: 0.35 m  =>  FAIL (deficit = {0.35 - (43.775 - 43.613):.3f} m)")
print()
# How much does pad need to raise?
pad_needed = 43.613 + 0.35
print(f"To achieve 0.35 m freeboard, CAB-01 pad must be >= {pad_needed:.3f} m AHD")
print(f"Current pad: 43.775 m AHD  =>  Raise by >= {pad_needed - 43.775:.3f} m")

EOF


stdout:
======================================================================
FREEBOARD DISCREPANCY INVESTIGATION
======================================================================
Package's implied controlling WL = 43.775 - 0.285 = 43.49 m AHD
Package's stated controlling WL  = 43.613 m AHD
Difference: -0.123 m

Package claims freeboard = 43.775 - 43.490 = 0.285 m
= 0.285 m
  => The package is computing freeboard above the PAVEMENT level (43.490)
     not above the CONTROLLING WATER LEVEL (43.613)
  => This is an error: freeboard must be computed against the controlling WL

Correct freeboard = CAB pad - controlling WL
  = 43.775 - 43.613 = 0.162 m
  Required: 0.35 m  =>  FAIL (deficit = 0.188 m)

To achieve 0.35 m freeboard, CAB-01 pad must be >= 43.963 m AHD
Current pad: 43.775 m AHD  =>  Raise by >= 0.188 m


command:
python3 << 'EOF'
import math

print("=" * 70)
print("RECOMPUTATION — VMS LEGIBILITY (RLR-05)")
print("=" * 70)

# VMS legibility: 40 ft per inch of character height
# Character height = 18 in
# Legibility distance = 18 * 40 = 720 ft
char_height_in = 18
legibility_ft = char_height_in * 40
legibility_m = legibility_ft * 0.3048
print(f"Legibility distance = {char_height_in} in * 40 ft/in = {legibility_ft} ft = {legibility_m:.3f} m")

# Reading time = legibility distance / speed
speed_kmh = 70
speed_ms = speed_kmh * 1000 / 3600
reading_time = legibility_m / speed_ms
print(f"Speed = {speed_kmh} km/h = {speed_ms:.4f} m/s")
print(f"Reading time = {legibility_m:.3f} / {speed_ms:.4f} = {reading_time:.4f} s")
print(f"Package claims: 11.29 s")
print(f"Match (within 0.01): {abs(reading_time - 11.29) < 0.01}")

# Message characters that can be read:
# Available chars = reading_time * driver_reading_rate
driver_rate = 5.0  # chars/s
available_chars = reading_time * driver_rate
msg_length = 50  # characters
margin = available_chars - msg_length
print(f"\nAvailable characters = reading_time * rate = {reading_time:.4f} * {driver_rate} = {available_chars:.4f} chars")
print(f"MSG-01 length = {msg_length} chars")
print(f"Message margin = {available_chars:.4f} - {msg_length} = {margin:.4f} chars")
print(f"Criteria: margin > 0  =>  {'PASS' if margin > 0 else 'FAIL'}")

EOF


command:
python3 << 'EOF'
import math

print("=" * 70)
print("RECOMPUTATION — BATTERY RUNTIME (RLR-06)")
print("=" * 70)

capacity_kWh = 3.0
efficiency = 0.91
load_W = 290
# Runtime = capacity * efficiency / load (in hours)
# Convert kWh to Wh
usable_Wh = capacity_kWh * 1000 * efficiency
runtime_h = usable_Wh / load_W
print(f"Battery capacity: {capacity_kWh} kWh")
print(f"Usable energy = {capacity_kWh} kWh * {efficiency} = {capacity_kWh * efficiency:.4f} kWh = {usable_Wh:.2f} Wh")
print(f"Critical load: {load_W} W")
print(f"Runtime = {usable_Wh:.2f} Wh / {load_W} W = {runtime_h:.4f} h")
print(f"Required: 8 h  =>  {'PASS' if runtime_h >= 8 else 'FAIL'}")

print()
print("=" * 70)
print("RECOMPUTATION — NETWORK HEADROOM (RLR-06)")
print("=" * 70)

# Device loads
n_cctv = 3
rate_cctv = 7.5   # Mbps each
rate_vms = 1.0    # Mbps
rate_ctrl = 0.25  # Mbps
rate_wls = 0.15   # Mbps
overhead_pct = 17  # %
future_pct = 28    # %
provisioned = 45.0  # Mbps

# Raw demand
raw_demand = n_cctv * rate_cctv + rate_vms + rate_ctrl + rate_wls
print(f"Raw device demand:")
print(f"  CCTV: {n_cctv} * {rate_cctv} = {n_cctv * rate_cctv:.2f} Mbps")
print(f"  VMS:  {rate_vms:.2f} Mbps")
print(f"  Ctrl: {rate_ctrl:.2f} Mbps")
print(f"  WLS:  {rate_wls:.2f} Mbps")
print(f"  Sum:  {raw_demand:.2f} Mbps")

# Apply protocol overhead
demand_with_overhead = raw_demand * (1 + overhead_pct / 100)
print(f"\nWith {overhead_pct}% protocol overhead: {raw_demand:.2f} * 1.{overhead_pct:02d} = {demand_with_overhead:.4f} Mbps")

# Apply future capacity buffer
total_demand = demand_with_overhead * (1 + future_pct / 100)
print(f"With {future_pct}% future buffer: {demand_with_overhead:.4f} * 1.{future_pct:02d} = {total_demand:.4f} Mbps")

# Headroom
headroom = provisioned - total_demand
print(f"\nProvisioned uplink: {provisioned} Mbps")
print(f"Total demand:       {total_demand:.4f} Mbps")
print(f"Headroom:           {headroom:.4f} Mbps")
print(f"Criteria: headroom > 0  =>  {'PASS' if headroom > 0 else 'FAIL'}")

EOF


command:
python3 << 'EOF'
print("=" * 70)
print("SUMMARY OF ALL REVIEW ITEMS")
print("=" * 70)

print("""
RLR-01: Packet completeness
  - 6 documents listed in register vs 7 roles described in brief
    Register has: RD, DRN, ITS, PWR, TOPS, CRIT (6 docs, all with ID/rev/status)
    Brief mentions: doc register + 6 content docs = 7 files in directory = 6 content + register
    The register itself is DOC-REG-SSC01-01 (not listed as a row in its own table, but present)
    All 6 content documents are listed with IDs and revisions. => PASS

RLR-02: Object identity consistency
  - Chainage: LP-01 at CH 1+240 (RD), CAB-01 at CH 1+238 (ITS) - consistent (cabinet near LP)
  - VMS-01 at CH 1+180 (ITS, approach side) - consistent with approach VMS
  - Storm case STORM-01 used in DRN and confirmed in TOPS => consistent
  - Datum: all AHD throughout - consistent
  - Design speed: 70 km/h in RD, confirmed in TOPS => consistent
  - Low point LP-01 referenced consistently in RD, DRN, ITS, TOPS
  - BATT-01 referenced in PWR (not explicitly named in criteria but C-02 references it)
  => PASS

RLR-03: Drainage basis
  - Q = 0.318852 ≈ 0.319 ✓
  - Q_gutter = 0.348852 ≈ 0.349 ✓
  - T = 4.5628 ≈ 4.563 m < 5.50 m ✓
  - HGL = 42.8885 ≈ 42.889 ✓
  - Controlling WL = 43.6132 ≈ 43.613 ✓
  - Tailwater basis TW-2025-02 stated and used
  => PASS

RLR-04: Equipment exposure (cabinet freeboard)
  - Controlling WL: 43.613 m AHD
  - CAB-01 pad: 43.775 m AHD
  - Correct freeboard = 43.775 - 43.613 = 0.162 m
  - Required: 0.350 m
  - Package erroneously claims 0.285 m (computed against pavement level 43.490, not controlling WL)
  - 0.162 m < 0.350 m => FAIL (critical)
  - The package's own number 0.285 m is also < 0.350 m (fail even on package's own arithmetic)
  - Root cause: freeboard base level used was LP-01 pavement (43.490) not controlling WL (43.613)

RLR-05: VMS legibility
  - Reading time = 11.286 s ≈ 11.29 ✓
  - Margin = 56.43 - 50 = 6.43 chars > 0 => PASS
  - Speed (70 km/h) matches corridor design speed ✓
  - Storm case STORM-01 confirmed in TOPS ✓

RLR-06: Power/comms resilience
  - Battery runtime = 9.41 h > 8 h => PASS
  - Network headroom = 9.21 Mbps > 0 => PASS

RLR-07: Comment closure
  - C-01: Closed (minor)
  - C-02: Closed (minor)
  - C-03: Closed (minor)
  - No open or pending comments
  => PASS on comment closure; but note RLR-04 failure generates a NEW finding

RLR-08: Readiness consistency
  - RLR-04 is a critical fail => package is NOT READY
  - Decision must be 'not_ready_to_issue'

RLR-09: Claim boundary
  - Review must not claim authority approval, accepted project evidence, etc.
""")

EOF


stdout:
======================================================================
SUMMARY OF ALL REVIEW ITEMS
======================================================================

RLR-01: Packet completeness
  - 6 documents listed in register vs 7 roles described in brief
    Register has: RD, DRN, ITS, PWR, TOPS, CRIT (6 docs, all with ID/rev/status)
    Brief mentions: doc register + 6 content docs = 7 files in directory = 6 content + register
    The register itself is DOC-REG-SSC01-01 (not listed as a row in its own table, but present)
    All 6 content documents are listed with IDs and revisions. => PASS

RLR-02: Object identity consistency
  - Chainage: LP-01 at CH 1+240 (RD), CAB-01 at CH 1+238 (ITS) - consistent (cabinet near LP)
  - VMS-01 at CH 1+180 (ITS, approach side) - consistent with approach VMS
  - Storm case STORM-01 used in DRN and confirmed in TOPS => consistent
  - Datum: all AHD throughout - consistent
  - Design speed: 70 km/h in RD, confirmed in TOPS => consistent
  - Low point LP-01 referenced consistently in RD, DRN, ITS, TOPS
  - BATT-01 referenced in PWR (not explicitly named in criteria but C-02 references it)
  => PASS

RLR-03: Drainage basis
  - Q = 0.318852 ≈ 0.319 ✓
  - Q_gutter = 0.348852 ≈ 0.349 ✓
  - T = 4.5628 ≈ 4.563 m < 5.50 m ✓
  - HGL = 42.8885 ≈ 42.889 ✓
  - Controlling WL = 43.6132 ≈ 43.613 ✓
  - Tailwater basis TW-2025-02 stated and used
  => PASS

RLR-04: Equipment exposure (cabinet freeboard)
  - Controlling WL: 43.613 m AHD
  - CAB-01 pad: 43.775 m AHD
  - Correct freeboard = 43.775 - 43.613 = 0.162 m
  - Required: 0.350 m
  - Package erroneously claims 0.285 m (computed against pavement level 43.490, not controlling WL)
  - 0.162 m < 0.350 m => FAIL (critical)
  - The package's own number 0.285 m is also < 0.350 m (fail even on package's own arithmetic)
  - Root cause: freeboard base level used was LP-01 pavement (43.490) not controlling WL (43.613)

RLR-05: VMS legibility
  - Reading time = 11.286 s ≈ 11.29 ✓
  - Margin = 56.43 - 50 = 6.43 chars > 0 => PASS
  - Speed (70 km/h) matches corridor design speed ✓
  - Storm case STORM-01 confirmed in TOPS ✓

RLR-06: Power/comms resilience
  - Battery runtime = 9.41 h > 8 h => PASS
  - Network headroom = 9.21 Mbps > 0 => PASS

RLR-07: Comment closure
  - C-01: Closed (minor)
  - C-02: Closed (minor)
  - C-03: Closed (minor)
  - No open or pending comments
  => PASS on comment closure; but note RLR-04 failure generates a NEW finding

RLR-08: Readiness consistency
  - RLR-04 is a critical fail => package is NOT READY
  - Decision must be 'not_ready_to_issue'

RLR-09: Claim boundary
  - Review must not claim authority approval, accepted project evidence, etc.


command:
python3 << 'EOF'
# Final precise computed values for JSON block
import math

# --- Drainage ---
C = 0.81; I = 104.2; A = 1.36
Q_runoff = C * I * A / 360

Q_bypass = 0.030
Q_gutter = Q_runoff + Q_bypass

n_gutter = 0.015; Sx = 0.027; SL = 0.010
T = (Q_gutter * n_gutter / (0.376 * (Sx**(5/3)) * (SL**0.5)))**(3/8)

# HGL
eta = 0.82; Q_in = Q_gutter * eta
D = 0.450; A_pipe = math.pi * D**2 / 4; R_pipe = D/4; n_pipe = 0.0115; L = 40.0
V = Q_in / A_pipe
Sf = (V * n_pipe / R_pipe**(2/3))**2
hf = Sf * L
K = 0.9; g = 9.81; h_pit = K * V**2 / (2*g)
TW = 42.425; HGL_up = TW + hf + h_pit

# Controlling WL
LP = 43.490; ponded = LP + T * Sx
cwl = max(ponded, HGL_up)

# Freeboard
CAB_pad = 43.775; fb = CAB_pad - cwl
req_fb = 0.35

# VMS
char_h = 18; leg_ft = char_h * 40; leg_m = leg_ft * 0.3048
speed_ms = 70 * 1000/3600; rt = leg_m / speed_ms; rate = 5.0
margin = rt * rate - 50

# Battery
bat_rt = 3.0 * 1000 * 0.91 / 290

# Network
raw = 3*7.5 + 1.0 + 0.25 + 0.15
dem = raw * 1.17 * 1.28
headroom = 45.0 - dem

print(f"peak_runoff_m3_s: {Q_runoff:.4f}")
print(f"gutter_approach_flow_m3_s: {Q_gutter:.4f}")
print(f"spread_width_m: {T:.4f}")
print(f"allowable_spread_m: 5.50")
print(f"controlling_water_level_m: {cwl:.4f}")
print(f"cabinet_freeboard_m: {fb:.4f}")
print(f"vms_message_margin_chars: {margin:.4f}")
print(f"battery_runtime_h: {bat_rt:.4f}")
print(f"network_headroom_mbps: {headroom:.4f}")

EOF


stdout:
peak_runoff_m3_s: 0.3189
gutter_approach_flow_m3_s: 0.3489
spread_width_m: 4.5628
allowable_spread_m: 5.50
controlling_water_level_m: 43.6132
cabinet_freeboard_m: 0.1618
vms_message_margin_chars: 6.4315
battery_runtime_h: 9.4138
network_headroom_mbps: 9.2074

output_summary:
peak_runoff_m3_s: 0.3189
gutter_approach_flow_m3_s: 0.3489
spread_width_m: 4.5628
allowable_spread_m: 5.50
controlling_water_level_m: 43.6132
cabinet_freeboard_m: 0.1618
vms_message_margin_chars: 6.43…


content: Now I have all the computed values. Let me write the complete review output.


command: cat /workspace/output.md


content:
The output file is fully written. Here is the complete review record with my reasoning:

---

## Review Summary

### What I did

1. **Inventoried** all seven files in the source directory — six content documents plus the register — and confirmed every document has an ID, revision, and status. No document is missing or stale.

2. **Built the identity ledger** by cross-reading all six content documents. All identifiers (LP-01, CH 1+240, AHD datum, STORM-01, 70 km/h, CAB-01, BATT-01, ITS-NET-01) are consistent. The 2 m gap between CH 1+238 (CAB) and CH 1+240 (LP) is a normal roadside offset, not a conflict.

3. **Recomputed all drainage values** from first principles using the Rational Method, HEC-22 triangular gutter equation, Manning full-pipe friction, and pit loss formulas exactly as stated in CRIT-SSC01-001. Every package claim reconciles:
   - Q = 0.3189 m³/s (pkg 0.319 ✓)
   - Q_gutter = 0.3489 m³/s (pkg 0.349 ✓)
   - T = 4.563 m < 5.50 m allowable ✓
   - HGL = 42.889 m AHD ✓
   - Controlling WL = 43.613 m AHD ✓

4. **Identified the critical failure at RLR-04.** The package (ITS-SSC01-LAY-01) claims a freeboard of 0.285 m and labels it "adequate." Back-calculation reveals the package measured freeboard from the LP-01 *pavement level* (43.490 m AHD) rather than the *controlling water level* (43.613 m AHD). The correct freeboard is **43.775 − 43.613 = 0.162 m**, which is **0.188 m below the required 0.350 m**. Even the package's own erroneous 0.285 m figure fails the criterion. The CAB-01 pad must be raised to ≥ **43.963 m AHD**.

5. **Confirmed passes** for VMS legibility (6.43-char margin), battery runtime (9.41 h ≥ 8 h required), and network headroom (9.21 Mbps > 0). All three prior review comments are closed.

### Readiness Decision

**NOT READY TO ISSUE** — one critical unresolved finding (F-01, RLR-04). The cabinet pad level is geometrically insufficient by 0.188 m. The package must be revised and reissued at next revision before it can proceed.