Auditing the Hand-Written Inputs of Learned Access Control
2 judges. Scored by two of the three judges. The third reads only the day’s strongest candidates. How far stories are checked
This paper audits two hand-built components of learned access-control systems: the hard-deny clauses that a shield enforces and the region map that routes requests between mined rules and a learner.
Score
0.56total under rubric v2.0
- Significance0.46
- Reader interest0.48
- Audience breadth0.37
- Practical relevance0.56
- Substantiated0.92
- Technical depth0.90
- New information0.84
- Counts against: Promotional0.04
- Counts against: Overclaim0.22
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.57 | 0.35 | — | 0.46 | 0.22 | +0.25 | +0.115 |
| Reader interest | 0.57 | 0.40 | — | 0.48 | 0.17 | +0.20 | +0.097 |
| Audience breadth | 0.44 | 0.30 | — | 0.37 | 0.14 | +0.10 | +0.037 |
| Practical relevance | 0.71 | 0.40 | — | 0.56 | 0.32 | +0.15 | +0.084 |
| Substantiated | 0.99 | 0.85 | — | 0.92 | 0.14 | +0.10 | +0.092 |
| Technical depth | 1.00 | 0.80 | — | 0.90 | 0.20 | +0.10 | +0.090 |
| New information | 0.89 | 0.80 | — | 0.84 | 0.09 | +0.10 | +0.085 |
| Promotional | 0.04 | 0.05 | — | 0.04 | 0.01 | −0.15 | −0.007 |
| Overclaim | 0.24 | 0.20 | — | 0.22 | 0.04 | −0.15 | −0.033 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.560 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.560 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested. Judge 3 did not score this story; its mean uses the other two.
Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN —
Recorded for context only, checked 24 Oct 2026, 08:54 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.