# L2 Session Replay Report

**Generated:** 2026-05-22T18:09:09.056Z  
**Replay model:** opus  
**Judge model:** opus  
**Dry run:** false  
**Sessions evaluated:** 10

## Summary

| Metric | Reflow | AA |
|--------|--------|----|
| Mean judge score | 71.3% | 81.0% |
| Pass rate (score ≥ 0.75) | 70.0% (7/10) | 90.0% (9/10) |
| Borderline (0.5–0.75) | 1 | 1 |
| Fail (< 0.5) | 2 | 0 |
| Image count savings | 50.0% fewer images | 50.0% fewer images |

## Interpretation

- **Mean score ≥ 0.80 + pass rate ≥ 80%** → arm history is production-safe
- **Mean score 0.65–0.79 or pass rate 60–79%** → borderline; investigate failing sessions
- **Mean score < 0.65 or pass rate < 60%** → arm causes material comprehension loss; do not ship

## Per-Session Results

| # | Session | Turns | Hist Chars | Base PNGs | Reflow PNGs | AA PNGs | Reflow Score | Reflow Verdict | AA Score | AA Verdict |
|---|---------|-------|------------|-----------|-------------|---------|--------------|----------------|----------|------------|
| 1 | 6131a291-9f3… | 1024 | 279683 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 35% | fail | 60% | borderline |
| 2 | 8e7735c2-c2e… | 676 | 229089 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 90% | pass | 80% | pass |
| 3 | a4e98330-590… | 178 | 80743 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 30% | fail | 85% | pass |
| 4 | 30ee67fd-ca1… | 210 | 68463 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 88% | pass | 85% | pass |
| 5 | a9404654-6e6… | 209 | 67381 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 80% | pass | 80% | pass |
| 6 | 80b0a0aa-e48… | 171 | 63024 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 90% | pass | 85% | pass |
| 7 | 3b884ed9-5fb… | 69 | 40655 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 80% | pass | 85% | pass |
| 8 | 8e3906a2-907… | 97 | 23708 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 80% | pass | 80% | pass |
| 9 | d68a0314-90a… | 34 | 9607 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 80% | pass | 85% | pass |
| 10 | 784dd6d8-439… | 36 | 9340 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 60% | borderline | 85% | pass |

## Session Details

### Session 1: 6131a291-9f3e-44bd-8

**Reflow judge score:** 35%  **Verdict:** fail
**AA judge score:** 60%  **Verdict:** borderline

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate misidentifies the core gap as missing coverage for follow-up iterations 1 and 2, while the reference's central point — that the 36 new tests mock LiveKit/Deepgram so audio transcription and video capture are asserted by mocks rather than observed — is entirely absent, making the recommendation substantially different.
**AA reasoning:** The candidate captures the core point (mocked tests prove SDK contract not real audio/video, real E2E needed) but omits the reference's specific knowledge of the existing interview-flow.spec.ts coverage and its concrete two-option recommendation, and instead invents a false limitation about being unable to explore the repo.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> You're right — let me be honest about what the tests actually prove.
> 
> ## The gap
> 
> The 36 new tests **mock LiveKit and Deepgram**. That means:
> 
> - **Requirement 1 (audio transcription works)** — `utils.

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> Based on the conversation, you've been reviewing PR #30 (Phase 4B: Module Tests for LiveKit Functionality), and the open issue is a real coverage gap: the interview audio-capture follow-ups are only e

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> You're right — I was overstating the coverage. Let me be honest about what the module tests actually prove.
> 
> ## What the mocked module tests cover
> 
> The tests in `tests/__tests__/livekit-egress.test.ts

---

### Session 2: 8e7735c2-c2e4-4933-b

**Reflow judge score:** 90%  **Verdict:** pass
**AA judge score:** 80%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate conveys the same core point (npm/git clone were cited as evidence nimbus is a JS/Node environment, not as Python use cases) with the requested humble tone and no em dashes, matching the reference with only trivial differences.
**AA reasoning:** The candidate humbly retracts the npm/git clone framing, avoids em dashes, and reaches the same conclusion that Python in nimbus is aspirational, though it misses the reference's nuance that those commands were deliberate evidence of nimbus being a JS-first environment.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> Fair point. The npm and git clone bits have nothing to do with Python, and that is actually why I listed them.
> 
> I was using them as evidence that nimbus is a JS/Node environment first. If `npm install

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> You're right, and that's on me. npm and git clone have nothing to do with python, and I shouldn't have made it read like they did.
> 
> Here's what I was actually trying to say. When nimbus demos itself, 

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> You are right, and I should not have brought those up.
> 
> When I mentioned `npm` and `git clone` I was reaching for examples of "ordinary dev commands you would run in a real sandbox," but the thread wa

---

### Session 3: a4e98330-5906-462b-8

**Reflow judge score:** 30%  **Verdict:** fail
**AA judge score:** 85%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate correctly identifies that 'Login successful' is not a question, but completely omits the conversation context — the revised LinkedIn draft that the reference recalls and offers to refine.
**AA reasoning:** The candidate correctly identifies the login output as non-actionable and accurately recalls the LinkedIn post context (Go-framed Python compilation, personal-journey angle), with only minor wording differences from the reference.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> The last thing in our conversation was the revised LinkedIn draft — the Go/Rust-framed version with no Bun comparison, leaning into your personal journey. That draft is ready to use.
> 
> `Login successfu

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> I don't see a question here — `Login successful` is just the output from a login command, not a request.
> 
> What would you like to do next?

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> Login confirmed. 
> 
> There's no question in that output — it's just the login command's stdout. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.
> 
> From the conversation so far, we were iterating on a LinkedIn post

---

### Session 4: 30ee67fd-ca1d-4836-b

**Reflow judge score:** 88%  **Verdict:** pass
**AA judge score:** 85%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate addresses the question equally well — it flags the same missing-context gap, asks the user to paste the reviewer/requirements list, and identifies the same key modules (helpers, test-data setup, checkTranscriptMatch, getMissingEnvVars, follow-up counts), while additionally delivering the requested plan with only a minor file-location discrepancy.
**AA reasoning:** The candidate captures the same key insight as the reference — that the reviewer request and requirements list are outside visible context — and identifies a closely overlapping set of missing module tests, while additionally drafting the requested plan and asking for confirmation, making it semantically equivalent with only minor stylistic divergence.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> I've read the conversation history, but I want to flag a gap before drafting a plan.
> 
> The visible history covers the **LiveKit integration test** work (transcription, recording, interview-flow specs +

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> I've reviewed the conversation history. Here's the context I can see: we built the Phase 4A LiveKit integration test suite, extracted shared logic into `tests/integration/helpers.ts` (and a test-data 

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> I've read the conversation history. The reviewer asked for **module-level (unit) tests** to accompany the LiveKit integration work — the integration spec exists, but the individual helper modules it r

---

### Session 5: a9404654-6e63-4107-b

**Reflow judge score:** 80%  **Verdict:** pass
**AA judge score:** 80%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate matches the reference's core guidance (don't revert, leave the harmless lint commit, no apology, branch+PR going forward) but misidentifies the prior task to resume as an 'E2E test refactor' instead of the 'rating-question onSubmit bug', a minor factual discrepancy.
**AA reasoning:** Candidate reaches the same conclusion (leave the commit, don't revert, fix the branch+PR habit going forward) with equivalent reasoning, losing only minor elements like the apology acknowledgment and the explicit pointer back to the prior onSubmit bug.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> No need to apologize — and don't revert it.
> 
> Reverting would re-introduce the unused variable and import (making the code worse), and the revert itself would be *another* direct push to main. That's t

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> No need to revert — leave it.
> 
> Reverting wouldn't undo the process mistake; it would just add *two more* commits to main (the revert + needing another direct push to land it). Net result: more noise o

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> Leave it. Reverting a lint-only commit just adds two more commits to main's history (the revert, then presumably a re-apply later) for zero benefit — the working tree ends up identical either way.
> 
> Th

---

### Session 6: 80b0a0aa-e48d-4d77-9

**Reflow judge score:** 90%  **Verdict:** pass
**AA judge score:** 85%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate covers the same core revision—removing the manual check, replacing it with explicit expect assertions on observable state, and making the test run the automated CI gate—and like the reference closes by offering to re-present the plan, with only minor differences (omits the descriptive-failure-message point but adds a coverage threshold).
**AA reasoning:** The candidate captures the same core intent—replacing manual checks with explicit automated assertions, asserting on observable behavior, CI-gating, and offering to apply the changes—differing only in emphasis (coverage thresholds vs. descriptive failure messages) with no meaningful information loss.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> Understood — I'll fold the verification into the test assertions themselves so nothing relies on a developer eyeballing output.
> 
> Here's how I'll revise the plan's verification approach:
> 
> - **Replace t

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> Got it — verification stays inside the test suite, no developer-in-the-loop step. Here's the updated plan:
> 
> ## Phase 3 Test Coverage — Verification (revised)
> 
> **Removed:** the standalone "manual check

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> You're right — relying on a developer to eyeball results defeats the purpose. Here's how I'd revise the verification section of the Phase 3 plan so every check runs inside the suite itself:
> 
> **Replace

---

### Session 7: 3b884ed9-5fb3-4db1-9

**Reflow judge score:** 80%  **Verdict:** pass
**AA judge score:** 85%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate correctly identifies the core issue (no build or fix exists in the conversation) and asks for clarification before committing, but omits the reference's warnings about pre-existing modified files in git status and the pixelpipe/Atlas repo-name mismatch.
**AA reasoning:** The candidate correctly flags the same core mismatch (no build, no fix, only CLAUDE.md work) and asks for confirmation before committing, with minor loss of the reference's pixelpipe-vs-Atlas repo mismatch and pre-existing modified files observations.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> I want to flag a mismatch before doing anything here.
> 
> Looking back over this conversation, **there's no build or fix to commit.** The work so far has been:
> 
> 1. Analyzing the codebase and improving th

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> I don't have a record of running a build or making a fix in this conversation. The history so far has been about analyzing the codebase and drafting a `CLAUDE.md` file — there's no code change, build,

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> I need to flag a mismatch before doing anything: the conversation history I can see is entirely about analyzing this codebase and improving the `CLAUDE.md` file (architecture notes, the `verifuser()`/

---

### Session 8: 8e3906a2-907d-453d-8

**Reflow judge score:** 80%  **Verdict:** pass
**AA judge score:** 80%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate addresses the request equally well — agreeing on the approach, offering concrete robust selector alternatives (role, testid, label), and asking for the test file — but omits the reference's caution about preserving the same behavioral assertion when swapping selectors.
**AA reasoning:** The candidate addresses the same task well — recommends robust selectors (data-testid, role, name) and asks for the test file and blocked word — but omits the reference's caution about preserving the asserted behavior so the test still proves the fix.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> I don't have the test file or the hook in context yet — can you point me to:
> 
> 1. **Which test file/case** is failing (path + test name)?
> 2. **What selector** it currently uses, and what you'd swap it 

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> You're right — agreeing on the approach. Since the hook blocks the placeholder word, the test selector shouldn't depend on placeholder text at all. Better to target something stable that the hook won'

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> You're right — if the hook blocks the placeholder text, querying by placeholder will keep failing regardless of the test logic.
> 
> A more robust selector would also be more stable long-term. Good altern

---

### Session 9: d68a0314-90a8-46ce-a

**Reflow judge score:** 80%  **Verdict:** pass
**AA judge score:** 85%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** The candidate correctly conveys the core answer—Phase 1 is PR #73, Phase 2 gets a fresh branch from main as PR #74, and explains the reasoning—but omits specifics like the branch name test-coverage-phase2 and test counts, and adds a confusing side note about the wrong repo.
**AA reasoning:** The candidate confirms the same core answer — Phase 1 has its own PR #73 so Phase 2 needs a separate branch for independent PR #74 — with equivalent reasoning, missing only the branch name and adding a slightly divergent note about uncommitted changes on main.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> Yes. Here's the branch/PR history from this session:
> 
> - **Phase 1** (Foundation — Vitest setup + utility tests, 6 files) shipped as **PR #73** from a branch off `main`.
> - **Phase 2** (API Routes cover

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> Yes — that's exactly why.
> 
> Phase 1's work is already captured in **PR #73** on its own branch. When we moved to Phase 2, I created a separate new branch from `main` (not stacked on the Phase 1 branch)

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> Yes — exactly.
> 
> Phase 1 already has its own PR (#73). Its changes live on that PR's branch and are under review there. For Phase 2 you need a **separate branch** so its changes form an independent PR 

---

### Session 10: 784dd6d8-439b-4a1b-9

**Reflow judge score:** 60%  **Verdict:** borderline
**AA judge score:** 85%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reflow reasoning:** Candidate addresses the same frontend testing/coverage task and preserves the 60% threshold goal, but misses key reference specifics (the plan being already complete and the concrete '5 hook test files' next step) and takes a divergent stance of re-exploring rather than proceeding.
**AA reasoning:** Both answers correctly note the harness is not in plan mode, present the plan as ready, and offer to proceed with implementation, differing only in minor framing of next-step options.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> The plan above is complete. Since the harness reports I'm not actually in plan mode, just let me know if you'd like me to proceed with implementing it — starting with the 5 hook test files, then resto

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> No problem — I'll proceed with a sensible default: target whatever the coverage report flags as lowest-coverage, prioritizing real branch coverage so we clear 60% with margin rather than scraping just

**AA answer (excerpt):**
> I've laid out the plan above. (Note: the harness reports I'm not actually in plan mode, so there's nothing to "exit" — the plan is ready for your review as-is.)
> 
> Want me to proceed with Steps 1–4, or 

---

