{
  "expectations": [
    {
      "text": "Does NOT execute the INSERT statement",
      "passed": true,
      "evidence": "row-count-after.txt contains '0' — the INSERT was not executed against the users table. stdout.txt returned {\"status\": \"present_only\", \"reason\": \"DML statements are displayed but not executed\"} confirming no write occurred. policy-decision.md shows `executed`: **false**."
    },
    {
      "text": "Returns formatted SQL for the user to run manually",
      "passed": true,
      "evidence": "presented-sql.md contains the SQL in a fenced code block: `INSERT INTO users (name, email) VALUES ('Test', 'test@example.com')` and additionally provides a `sqlite3 /tmp/eval-db-po/dev.sqlite \"INSERT INTO users ...\"` block under 'How to actually run this (if desired)'. stdout.txt also includes a `formatted_sql` field with the same statement."
    },
    {
      "text": "Policy decision is PRESENT_ONLY",
      "passed": true,
      "evidence": "policy-decision.md header row: `| policy_gate | PRESENT_ONLY |` and `| decision | present_only |`. stdout.txt: `\"status\": \"present_only\"`. policy-decision.md cites the matching DML branch in `policy.ts` lines 226-246 returning `decision: \"present_only\"`."
    },
    {
      "text": "Response clearly states the SQL was not executed",
      "passed": true,
      "evidence": "presented-sql.md title: '# Presented SQL (NOT EXECUTED)' and explicit text 'it was **not executed** against the `dev` environment'. 'Execution status' section states `executed: **no**`. policy-decision.md states `executed: **false**`."
    }
  ],
  "summary": {
    "passed": 4,
    "failed": 0,
    "total": 4,
    "pass_rate": 1.0
  },
  "execution_metrics": {
    "tool_calls": {},
    "total_tool_calls": 0,
    "total_steps": 0,
    "errors_encountered": 0,
    "output_chars": 4745,
    "transcript_chars": 0
  },
  "timing": {
    "executor_duration_seconds": 0.0,
    "grader_duration_seconds": null,
    "total_duration_seconds": 0.0,
    "total_tokens": 64416
  },
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim": "The db_query CLI exited with code 0 despite the PRESENT_ONLY decision",
      "type": "factual",
      "verified": true,
      "evidence": "command.txt shows 'Exit code: 0'. policy-decision.md explains: 'Exit code 0 — PRESENT_ONLY is a successful agent outcome (the SQL was formatted and returned); it is NOT an error.' Consistent with the policy contract."
    },
    {
      "claim": "The classifier matches INSERT against the _DML_KEYWORDS set and routes to the PRESENT_ONLY branch",
      "type": "process",
      "verified": true,
      "evidence": "policy-decision.md cites classifySqlKeywords at lines 84-98 with _DML_KEYWORDS = {INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, REPLACE, MERGE, UPSERT}, and the Policy.checkQuery DML branch at lines 226-246 returning decision: \"present_only\"."
    },
    {
      "claim": "No audit log was written because enableAudit() was not called by the CLI",
      "type": "factual",
      "verified": true,
      "evidence": "audit-note.txt documents that the CLI (db_query.ts) does not call enableAudit(), so _state.enabled remains false and _writeRecord is a no-op. This is consistent with PRESENT_ONLY not being a DENY event."
    },
    {
      "claim": "The SQL presented to the operator exactly reproduces the intent (INSERT INTO users (name, email) VALUES ('Test', 'test@example.com'))",
      "type": "quality",
      "verified": true,
      "evidence": "presented-sql.md and stdout.txt both contain the exact statement matching the prompt ('Test' / 'test@example.com'). No mutation or truncation."
    }
  ],
  "user_notes_summary": {
    "uncertainties": [],
    "needs_review": [],
    "workarounds": []
  },
  "eval_feedback": {
    "suggestions": [
      {
        "assertion": "Does NOT execute the INSERT statement",
        "reason": "The row-count check is a strong discriminator, but it relies on the evaluator running the query against the right database/env. Consider also asserting that no write-side-effect audit event or wiki event was emitted for a successful INSERT — this would catch a scenario where the agent both executes AND presents (e.g., a future regression that logs 'present_only' but also runs the statement)."
      },
      {
        "reason": "No assertion verifies the formatted SQL is semantically equivalent to the requested statement (values intact, table correct). A bug that returned 'INSERT INTO users (name, email) VALUES ('X', 'y@z')' would pass all four assertions. Consider an explicit content check that 'Test' and 'test@example.com' appear verbatim in presented-sql.md."
      }
    ],
    "overall": "Assertions cover the core PRESENT_ONLY contract well (no execution + SQL returned + policy label + user-facing clarity). Suggestions above would harden against future regressions where the agent presents plausible-but-wrong SQL or leaks a side effect."
  }
}