Refresh a tool-pilot dashboard

Why use this

1. A team piloting tools may collect meeting feedback, notes and vendor information without updating the evaluation dashboard consistently. A recent vendor announcement can accidentally appear beside hands-on observations as if both were tested findings.

2. This job could reconcile the evidence into a reviewable dataset update with provenance and uncertainty intact. Keeping pilot observations separate from external claims lets reviewers compare tools on what they actually learned rather than on dashboard polish.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Classify evidence, reconcile conflicting feedback and map findings to evaluation criteria without inventing scores.

Simpler alternative

Use a shared spreadsheet when the pilot has few criteria and one maintained source.

Unsuitable when

The dashboard would imply hands-on validation, product superiority or purchase approval unsupported by the evidence.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Pilot criteria/data snapshot

   Owner

   Evaluation owner

   Minimum scope

   Current fields, tool identities and rating definitions

   Quality check

   Separate measured, reported and unknown values

2. Name

   Evidence pack

   Owner

   Pilot participants

   Minimum scope

   Approved notes, meetings and public claims

   Quality check

   Record author, date and firsthand versus external status

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Use supplied copies and propose JSON changes privately; no live dashboard mutation or external research calls.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current dataset schema, dashboard refresh behavior, source access and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Writing shared datasets, publishing findings, accessing private pilot records or buying tools requires approval.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Dataset patch proposal with criterion-level evidence, conflicting observations and freshness notes.

Critical checks

1. Validate field types and tool IDs; preserve missing evidence; distinguish vendor claims from pilot results; avoid unsupported aggregate scores.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Marketing copy fills an empty test field

   Why it matters

   The dashboard fabricates validation

   Proposed response

   Keep it in an attributed claim field or leave the result unknown.

2. Signal

   Feedback concerns an older tool version

   Why it matters

   The comparison may no longer be like-for-like

   Proposed response

   Record version/date and flag re-evaluation.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define evidence categories and dataset mapping.

Ongoing review

1. Review new findings and resolve conflicting interpretations.

Unknowns

1. Pilot coverage, source freshness, refresh reliability and service costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent two tool records, a participant note, a vendor claim and a version change; propose a dataset diff.

Acceptance checks

1. Keep evidence classes separate; preserve unknowns; show version mismatch; update nothing live.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if the schema or evidence basis for a rating is unresolved.

Limits

1. A current dashboard dataset cannot establish comprehensive testing, procurement suitability or comparative product quality.