/**
 * Judge pass 2 for products (M12a): resolve only the rows pass 1 could not.
 *
 * Same contract as M7's judge pass (`core/scoring/judge.ts`) with one deliberate
 * difference: the rate cap is 50%, not 30%. Product names are messier than brand
 * names - single-token names, model numbers, engines that recommend in prose -
 * so more rows land ambiguous and the budget to resolve them is larger. What is
 * actually spent is reported in the run's sampling metadata (rule #6).
 *
 * Hitting either bound (the rate cap or the cost cap) stops the pass without
 * throwing; unjudged rows simply stay as pass 1 read them.
 */
import { CostGuard } from '../costs.js';
import type { EngineAnswer, JudgeClient, Sentiment } from '../types.js';
import { type ProductMention } from './detect.js';
/**
 * Fraction of product rows that may receive a judge call. Higher than the brand
 * check's {@link JUDGE_RATE_CAP} for the reason above; the cost guard still
 * bounds the money regardless of this number.
 */
export declare const SHOPPING_JUDGE_RATE_CAP = 0.5;
export interface RefineProductsDeps {
    judge: JudgeClient;
    guard: CostGuard;
    /** Projected per-call cost for authorization; defaults to a per-model estimate. */
    projectedCostUsd?: number;
}
export interface RefineProductsOptions {
    /** Max share of rows judged (default {@link SHOPPING_JUDGE_RATE_CAP}). */
    judgeRateCap?: number;
}
export interface RefineProductsResult {
    results: ProductMention[];
    /** Rows that actually received a judge call (what the run paid for). */
    judged: number;
}
/** What the judge decided about one product in one answer. */
export interface ProductVerdict {
    mentioned: boolean;
    /** 1-based rank on the answer's list, or null when it named no order. */
    position: number | null;
    sentiment?: Sentiment;
    /** The products the answer recommends, in order, as the judge read them. */
    recommended?: string[];
}
/**
 * Parse the judge's JSON verdict, or `null` when the output is not a verdict at
 * all.
 *
 * `null` matters: unlike the brand judge, a product verdict must not default to
 * "not mentioned" on unparseable output. Pass 1 already found a real term match
 * for most of these rows, and silently overwriting it with `false` would delete
 * a mention the answer genuinely contains.
 */
export declare function parseProductVerdict(text: string): ProductVerdict | null;
/**
 * Re-judge the ambiguous product rows (up to the rate cap and the cost cap),
 * returning a new results array plus how many rows were judged.
 *
 * `results[i]` must describe `answers[i]` (one row per product/answer pair).
 */
export declare function refineProductMentions(results: ProductMention[], answers: EngineAnswer[], deps: RefineProductsDeps, opts?: RefineProductsOptions): Promise<RefineProductsResult>;