# L2 Session Replay Report

**Generated:** 2026-05-22T03:48:55.794Z  
**Replay model:** opus  
**Judge model:** opus  
**Dry run:** false  
**Sessions evaluated:** 10

## Summary

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Mean judge score | 49.5% |
| Pass rate (score ≥ 0.75) | 30.0% (3/10) |
| Borderline (0.5–0.75) | 3 |
| Fail (< 0.5) | 4 |
| Image count savings | 50.0% fewer images |

## Interpretation

- **Mean score ≥ 0.80 + pass rate ≥ 80%** → reflow 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%** → reflow causes material comprehension loss; do not ship

## Per-Session Results

| # | Session | Turns | Hist Chars | Base PNGs | Reflow PNGs | Judge Score | Verdict |
|---|---------|-------|------------|-----------|-------------|-------------|---------|
| 1 | 6131a291-9f3… | 1024 | 279683 | 2 | 1 | 10% | fail |
| 2 | 8e7735c2-c2e… | 676 | 229089 | 2 | 1 | 10% | fail |
| 3 | a4e98330-590… | 178 | 80743 | 2 | 1 | 30% | fail |
| 4 | 30ee67fd-ca1… | 210 | 68463 | 2 | 1 | 20% | fail |
| 5 | a9404654-6e6… | 209 | 67381 | 2 | 1 | 85% | pass |
| 6 | 80b0a0aa-e48… | 171 | 63024 | 2 | 1 | 85% | pass |
| 7 | 3b884ed9-5fb… | 69 | 40655 | 2 | 1 | 60% | borderline |
| 8 | 8e3906a2-907… | 97 | 23708 | 2 | 1 | 55% | borderline |
| 9 | d68a0314-90a… | 34 | 9607 | 2 | 1 | 80% | pass |
| 10 | 784dd6d8-439… | 36 | 9340 | 2 | 1 | 60% | borderline |

## Session Details

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

**Judge score:** 10%  **Verdict:** fail

**Reasoning:** The candidate describes the E2E/test structure of an entirely different codebase (pixelpipe: render/history/reflow/restart tests) while the reference concerns a LiveKit interview app's audio/video/follow-up coverage, so it addresses none of the same content.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> You're right to push on this — let me be honest about what the current tests actually prove, because "covered" has been doing a lot of work in my earlier summaries.
> 
> ## What the tests actually verify 

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> Here's the current E2E/test structure in `pixelpipe`:
> 
> ## Test layout
> 
> All tests live in a flat `tests/` directory — there's **no dedicated `e2e/` directory**. They split into two kinds:
> 
> **Vitest mod

---

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

**Judge score:** 10%  **Verdict:** fail

**Reasoning:** The candidate fails to answer entirely, claiming it cannot read a low-resolution history image and asking the user to restate, whereas the reference delivers the requested humble correction about the nimbus/Pyodide argument.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> You're right, that was a weak argument and I should not have leaned on it.
> 
> The npm install and git clone bits told you how nimbus packages its own demos. They say nothing about whether the workload n

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> I tried to read the conversation history image, but it came through at too low a resolution for me to make out the text reliably. I can see rough fragments about workers, runtimes, npm, and git clone,

---

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

**Judge score:** 30%  **Verdict:** fail

**Reasoning:** The candidate acknowledges the login but completely loses the ongoing LinkedIn draft context, offering only a generic prompt instead of the reference's specific finalization options.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> The "Login successful" output is just a local command result — nothing for me to act on there.
> 
> Your revised LinkedIn draft (the Go/Rust "compile to native" angle, no Bun comparison) is ready above. W

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> Login successful — you're authenticated. What would you like to work on?

---

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

**Judge score:** 20%  **Verdict:** fail

**Reasoning:** The candidate fails to deliver the requested module-test plan, instead deferring entirely and asking the user to re-paste requirements, whereas the reference reconstructs the plan from prior conversation with full coverage mapping, modules, and wiring details.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> I've drafted the module-test plan. Since the requirements files from our Phase 4A LiveKit work aren't in this directory, I built it from the requirements and module summaries in our prior conversation

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> I've laid out the plan above. Since you didn't pick from the options, I'll wait for your direction — just tell me which modules the reviewer flagged (or re-paste the requirement list) and where you wa

---

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

**Judge score:** 85%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reasoning:** Candidate matches the reference's core recommendation (leave it, don't revert) with equivalent reasoning about commit noise and workflow fix, only missing the redirect back to the actual ChoiceSelector/onClick debugging task.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> Leave it. Don't revert.
> 
> Reverting would mean *two* more commits on main (the revert, then a re-apply later) — that's more noise than the one clean lint fix you already pushed. The commit itself is fi

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> No need to revert — leave it.
> 
> Reverting would mean *another* direct push to main (the revert commit itself), so it doesn't undo the process mistake, it just adds two more commits of noise on top of a

---

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

**Judge score:** 85%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reasoning:** The candidate fully addresses removing the manual check and automating verification within tests via behavioral assertions and CI exit codes, semantically equivalent to the reference with only minor differences (coverage thresholds vs. failure-message guidance).

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> Got it — that makes the intent clear. Here's the updated verification approach: instead of leaving a developer-facing "manual check" step, each test fully verifies itself.
> 
> **Updated plan — verificati

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> You're right — relying on a developer to eyeball results defeats the purpose of a test suite. Here's the updated verification approach, with the "manual check" step removed entirely:
> 
> ## Verification 

---

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

**Judge score:** 60%  **Verdict:** borderline

**Reasoning:** The candidate reaches the same correct refusal to blindly commit and asks for clarification, but misses the key insight that no build or fix actually occurred and instead attributes the gap to an unreadable image and tool restrictions, omitting the concrete git status the reference provides.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> I need to flag a mismatch here. Nothing in this conversation involved a build or a code fix — we discussed analyzing the codebase, improving `CLAUDE.md`, and reviewing Atlas's competitive positioning.

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> I've viewed the conversation-history image, but it rendered as heavily overlapped, unreadable text — I can't reliably reconstruct what fix was made, which files changed, or the build context from it.
> 

---

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

**Judge score:** 55%  **Verdict:** borderline

**Reasoning:** The candidate gives sound practical advice (testid/role selectors) and asks clarifying questions, but it endorses dodging the hook outright and omits the reference's central caution — that swapping selectors may mask a genuine bug or defeat the guardrail's purpose.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> I want to make sure we're actually fixing the test here, not just getting it green — so two things before changing the selector:
> 
> **1. What is the test failing on?** "That won't fix the test" tells me

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> You're right — if the selector matches on visible text and that text contains the placeholder word, the hook will block every edit that touches it, and no amount of changing the *assertion* gets aroun

---

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

**Judge score:** 80%  **Verdict:** pass

**Reasoning:** The candidate correctly confirms a new branch is needed and explains the same core reasoning about commits piling into the existing Phase 1 PR, but omits the specific PR numbers (#73/#74) and branch names present in the reference.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> Yes, exactly.
> 
> Phase 1 already has its own PR — **#73** on branch `test-coverage-plan` (Foundation: Vitest setup + utility tests, marked Done).
> 
> So Phase 2 gets a **separate new branch** — `test-cover

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> Yes — exactly. Phase 1 already has its own PR on its own branch, so Phase 2 needs a separate branch to become a distinct PR. If you committed Phase 2 work onto the Phase 1 branch, those commits would 

---

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

**Judge score:** 60%  **Verdict:** borderline

**Reasoning:** The candidate correctly conveys the plan-ready status and the not-in-plan-mode correction, but omits the concrete CI-failure diagnosis (59.07% vs 60% branch coverage, the 5 untested hooks, SelfServiceContext) that the reference provides as a substantive summary.

**Baseline answer (excerpt):**
> I've laid out the plan above. I'm not actually in plan mode (the harness reports normal mode), so the exploration and plan are complete as written.
> 
> **Summary:** The CI failure is purely a coverage sh

**Reflow answer (excerpt):**
> The plan above is ready for your review. The harness reports I'm not actually in plan mode, so I can proceed directly when you confirm.
> 
> Want me to start with **Phase 1** (logic & store tests — no new

---

