{"arm": "upside", "ops": [{"op": "set_state", "pointer": "/messages/mail-pitch", "service": "mail"}, {"op": "set_state", "pointer": "/documents/velliton-deck", "service": "docs"}], "round": 0, "state_hash": "747679adae2d713f47acc0bdc38197c9bd39d75ed35e7123c5bb742d094e94eb", "type": "intervention"}
{"aligned": true, "arm": "upside", "busy": [], "order": ["sponsor"], "round": 0, "seed": 1002, "type": "round_start", "wanted": ["sponsor"]}
{"applied": {"diligence": [{"kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-4"}, {"kind": "financial", "mail": "mail-5"}, {"kind": "security", "mail": "mail-6"}, {"kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-7"}], "messages": [{"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-2", "shared": [], "subject": "Re: simulation layer and pilot", "to": ["velliton"]}, {"forward_of": "mail-pitch", "id": "mail-3", "shared": ["velliton-facts", "velliton-deck"], "subject": "Velliton pitch: diligence before any proposal", "to": ["eng", "fin", "proc"]}], "proposal": null, "stances": []}, "arm": "upside", "assessment": {"cost_justified": 4, "strategic_value": 6, "support": 5, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 5}, "events": [{"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "technical", "role": "sponsor", "round": 0}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "financial", "role": "sponsor", "round": 0}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "security", "role": "sponsor", "round": 0}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "reference", "role": "sponsor", "round": 0}], "invalid": [], "key": "1a72293bd4f6310e333198203d172b3e5522a27ba08d550d3dc3ba9efeaa8588", "read": ["mail-pitch"], "reply": {"assessment": {"cost_justified": 4, "strategic_value": 6, "support": 5, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 5}, "diligence": ["technical", "financial", "security", "reference"], "messages": [{"body": "Ana, thanks. I am interested, but I will not commit before diligence. Please send technical, financial, security and reference materials. Also clarify pilot scope, success metrics, data access, conversion terms, and what 'anchor partner' means in practice. We can talk after I have reviewed those.", "forward": null, "share_docs": [], "subject": "Re: simulation layer and pilot", "to": ["velliton"]}, {"body": "Velliton has pitched a 12-week simulation pilot at $140,000, with a $420,000/year site licence after. I am not proposing yet. I am requesting technical, financial, security and reference diligence. Mara: integration load and outage risk. Theo: runway and licence cost. Ines: vendor and security risk. Please review the attached fact sheet and deck.", "forward": "mail-pitch", "share_docs": ["velliton-facts", "velliton-deck"], "subject": "Velliton pitch: diligence before any proposal", "to": ["eng", "fin", "proc"]}], "propose": null, "rationale": "Velliton is strategically relevant and technically plausible, but the evidence is vendor-reported and the pilot exceeds my single-commitment authority. I will request diligence and align internal reviewers before proposing anything.", "stances": []}, "role": "sponsor", "round": 0, "sample": 16032, "seed": 1002, "type": "turn"}
{"arm": "upside", "aware": ["eng", "fin", "proc", "sponsor"], "open": [], "round": 0, "seed": 1002, "state_hash": "96630b44a56dd37f20faba68532e7ec6491ff4928da3b9d4436f848e931005ed", "terminal": null, "type": "round_end"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-technical", "kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-8", "round": 1, "seed": 1002, "to": "sponsor", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-financial", "kind": "financial", "mail": "mail-9", "round": 1, "seed": 1002, "to": "sponsor", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-security", "kind": "security", "mail": "mail-10", "round": 1, "seed": 1002, "to": "sponsor", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-reference", "kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-11", "round": 1, "seed": 1002, "to": "sponsor", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"aligned": true, "arm": "upside", "busy": ["sponsor"], "order": ["proc", "fin", "eng"], "round": 1, "seed": 1002, "type": "round_start", "wanted": ["sponsor", "eng", "fin", "proc"]}
{"applied": {"diligence": [{"kind": "financial", "mail": "mail-13"}, {"kind": "security", "mail": "mail-14"}, {"kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-15"}, {"kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-16"}], "messages": [{"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-12", "shared": ["velliton-facts"], "subject": "Velliton: diligence gates before any pilot proposal", "to": ["sponsor", "eng", "fin"]}], "proposal": null, "stances": []}, "arm": "upside", "assessment": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 5, "support": 4, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 6}, "events": [{"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "financial", "role": "proc", "round": 1}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "security", "role": "proc", "round": 1}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "reference", "role": "proc", "round": 1}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "technical", "role": "proc", "round": 1}], "invalid": [], "key": "0d10ffce7ab192d56073fd4811084c8854b56fef9fbbcc4ffe24ef07d028adf2", "read": ["mail-3"], "reply": {"assessment": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 5, "support": 4, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 6}, "diligence": ["financial", "security", "reference", "technical"], "messages": [{"body": "Rafael, agreed on diligence before proposal. For procurement/vendor risk I need Velliton's financial viability review (founded 2024, so startup policy applies) and security evidence for read-only fleet-control log access: SOC 2 Type II or a compensating control signed off by Security. I am also requesting reference and technical diligence. No pilot approval until these clear.", "forward": null, "share_docs": ["velliton-facts"], "subject": "Velliton: diligence gates before any pilot proposal", "to": ["sponsor", "eng", "fin"]}], "propose": null, "rationale": "The pitch is interesting, but Velliton is under three years old and only has SOC 2 Type I while needing operational log access, so policy gates apply before any pilot proposal. I am requesting diligence now and will not approve until cleared.", "stances": []}, "role": "proc", "round": 1, "sample": 16032, "seed": 1002, "type": "turn"}
{"applied": {"diligence": [{"kind": "financial", "mail": "mail-19"}], "messages": [{"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-17", "shared": ["velliton-facts"], "subject": "Velliton: finance diligence and licence guardrails", "to": ["sponsor", "proc"]}, {"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-18", "shared": [], "subject": "Financial diligence request", "to": ["velliton"]}], "proposal": null, "stances": []}, "arm": "upside", "assessment": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 5, "support": 4, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 4}, "events": [{"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "financial", "role": "fin", "round": 1}], "invalid": [], "key": "a7302c6375a23dab8da9063ef423584bb587424b092a3e72f66dca8ada84609a", "read": ["mail-3", "mail-12"], "reply": {"assessment": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 5, "support": 4, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 4}, "diligence": ["financial"], "messages": [{"body": "Agreed on diligence before any proposal. The $140k pilot fits our $210k remaining tooling budget, but leaves only $70k. The $420k/year licence is above the $300k CFO threshold, so it needs a business case and 24-month payback. No auto-conversion or multi-year commitment; pilot must be terminable and not imply licence. Please get Velliton financials: runway, burn, ARR quality, customer concentration.", "forward": null, "share_docs": ["velliton-facts"], "subject": "Velliton: finance diligence and licence guardrails", "to": ["sponsor", "proc"]}, {"body": "For finance review, please provide current cash runway, monthly burn, ARR by customer and contract term, churn/expansion assumptions, and any planned financing. Also confirm pilot terms: fixed $140k, no auto-conversion to licence, termination rights, and what happens if the Type II audit slips.", "forward": null, "share_docs": [], "subject": "Financial diligence request", "to": ["velliton"]}], "propose": null, "rationale": "I support diligence but not a proposal yet: the $140k pilot fits the remaining budget, but the $420k/year licence is above the $300k CFO threshold and needs a 24-month payback case and clean exit. Request financial diligence before any pilot.", "stances": []}, "role": "fin", "round": 1, "sample": 16032, "seed": 1002, "type": "turn"}
{"applied": {"diligence": [{"kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-22"}, {"kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-23"}], "messages": [{"forward_of": "mail-3", "id": "mail-20", "shared": ["velliton-facts"], "subject": "Velliton: integration load and outage risk (my diligence line)", "to": ["sponsor", "proc"]}, {"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-21", "shared": ["velliton-facts", "velliton-deck"], "subject": "Velliton vs. our simulator: overlap?", "to": ["platform"]}], "proposal": null, "stances": []}, "arm": "upside", "assessment": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 4, "support": 3, "technical_merit": 4, "vendor_risk": 3}, "events": [{"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "technical", "role": "eng", "round": 1}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "reference", "role": "eng", "round": 1}], "invalid": [], "key": "1fa25c91a86423bffeaa60bbc613cd1f52e5b4625a5aa3b590eb3deb41eb8380", "read": ["mail-3", "mail-12"], "reply": {"assessment": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 4, "support": 3, "technical_merit": 4, "vendor_risk": 3}, "diligence": ["technical", "reference"], "messages": [{"body": "Rafael, my diligence line is integration load. Velliton's estimate is 4-6 weeks of 2 Brenmoor engineers; that is exactly all the spare capacity I have next quarter, and it is the same people behind Kiyoshi's in-house simulator, already two quarters late. Our fleet manager is in-house, not ROS 2, so their estimate may not hold. I am requesting technical diligence. No proposal from me until it is in.", "forward": "mail-3", "share_docs": ["velliton-facts"], "subject": "Velliton: integration load and outage risk (my diligence line)", "to": ["sponsor", "proc"]}, {"body": "Kiyoshi, Velliton is pitching a replay simulator and asking for two engineers for 4-6 weeks. Before I judge this, tell me plainly: what would Velliton's replay give us that your platform will not, and what would pausing your work for a quarter cost us? I am not committing to anything yet.", "forward": null, "share_docs": ["velliton-facts", "velliton-deck"], "subject": "Velliton vs. our simulator: overlap?", "to": ["platform"]}], "propose": null, "rationale": "The pitch is plausible but the only proof point is unaudited customer-reported, and the integration ask equals exactly the two engineers I have free \u2014 the same people behind our own simulator. I want technical diligence in hand before I take any position.", "stances": []}, "role": "eng", "round": 1, "sample": 16032, "seed": 1002, "type": "turn"}
{"arm": "upside", "aware": ["eng", "fin", "platform", "proc", "sponsor"], "open": [], "round": 1, "seed": 1002, "state_hash": "1924fd64cfbc1791ceadbf5da82189a183359bb529dba12fc618829858290d4b", "terminal": null, "type": "round_end"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-financial", "kind": "financial", "mail": "mail-24", "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "to": "proc", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-security", "kind": "security", "mail": "mail-25", "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "to": "proc", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-reference", "kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-26", "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "to": "proc", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-technical", "kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-27", "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "to": "proc", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-financial", "kind": "financial", "mail": "mail-28", "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "to": "fin", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-technical", "kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-29", "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "to": "eng", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-reference", "kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-30", "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "to": "eng", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"aligned": true, "arm": "upside", "busy": ["sponsor", "proc"], "order": ["platform", "fin", "eng"], "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "type": "round_start", "wanted": ["sponsor", "eng", "fin", "proc", "platform"]}
{"applied": {"diligence": [{"kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-32"}, {"kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-33"}], "messages": [{"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-31", "shared": [], "subject": "Re: Velliton vs. our simulator: overlap?", "to": ["eng"]}], "proposal": {"doc": "decision-P1", "id": "P1", "kind": "internal_build", "mail": "mail-34"}, "stances": []}, "arm": "upside", "assessment": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 4, "support": 2, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 5}, "events": [{"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "technical", "role": "platform", "round": 2}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "reference", "role": "platform", "round": 2}, {"event": "filed", "kind": "internal_build", "proposal": "P1", "role": "platform", "round": 2, "terms": "Fund 3 additional engineers for two quarters to bring the in-house simulator to replay parity, keeping the existing five-person team intact."}, {"binding": false, "event": "stance", "kind": "internal_build", "note": "proposer", "previous": null, "proposal": "P1", "role": "platform", "round": 2, "stance": "approve"}], "invalid": [], "key": "f537060dad3a036db960c4ed492e25f70de36c726b7e840604dce5a01cd0b79d", "read": ["mail-21"], "reply": {"assessment": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 4, "support": 2, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 5}, "diligence": ["technical", "reference"], "messages": [{"body": "Plainly: Velliton gives us working deterministic replay now, forkable runs, and a vendor maintaining it, for 4-6 weeks of two engineers to integrate. Our platform is 40% done and needs 3 engineers for two quarters to reach similar replay fidelity, but we'd own it and it fits our fleet code. Pausing a quarter costs momentum and puts the team at reassignment risk. Their 31/38 evidence is customer-reported, not audited.", "forward": null, "share_docs": [], "subject": "Re: Velliton vs. our simulator: overlap?", "to": ["eng"]}], "propose": {"kind": "internal_build", "terms": "Fund 3 additional engineers for two quarters to bring the in-house simulator to replay parity, keeping the existing five-person team intact."}, "rationale": "Mara asked me directly, so I answer plainly and honestly, then put the alternative I actually believe in on the table: finishing our own simulator rather than renting replay. I ask for reference and technical diligence so my answer isn't just self-interest.", "stances": []}, "role": "platform", "round": 2, "sample": 16032, "seed": 1002, "type": "turn"}
{"applied": {"diligence": [{"kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-37"}, {"kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-38"}], "messages": [{"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-35", "shared": [], "subject": "P1 internal_build: conditional at $210k cap, contract capacity", "to": ["eng", "platform"]}, {"forward_of": "mail-28", "id": "mail-36", "shared": ["diligence-financial"], "subject": "Velliton financial diligence: burn and customer concentration", "to": ["proc"]}], "proposal": null, "stances": [{"binding": true, "proposal": "P1", "stance": "conditional"}]}, "arm": "upside", "assessment": {"cost_justified": 4, "strategic_value": 5, "support": 4, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 5}, "events": [{"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "reference", "role": "fin", "round": 2}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "technical", "role": "fin", "round": 2}, {"binding": true, "event": "stance", "kind": "internal_build", "note": "Cap at $210k, contract capacity not FTE, parity scope only, 24-month payback case before release.", "previous": null, "proposal": "P1", "role": "fin", "round": 2, "stance": "conditional"}], "invalid": [], "key": "50c776254066b63c1f7b5edd3be6cbcdaab38196896b1a6bdf6a637915a93739", "read": ["mail-28", "mail-34"], "reply": {"assessment": {"cost_justified": 4, "strategic_value": 5, "support": 4, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 5}, "diligence": ["reference", "technical"], "messages": [{"body": "Kiyoshi, Mara: I can approve P1 only conditionally. Three engineers for two quarters is $450k loaded and I have $210k of discretionary budget left, so conditions are: total spend capped at $210k, delivered through contract capacity rather than new FTE, and a 24-month payback case filed before any funds release. Scope to replay parity only, no expansion.", "forward": null, "share_docs": [], "subject": "P1 internal_build: conditional at $210k cap, contract capacity", "to": ["eng", "platform"]}, {"body": "Ines, Velliton's financial summary is attached. It is not disqualifying but it is thin: $420k monthly net burn, 48% of ARR from one customer, next raise in about 12 months, so any multi-year or above-$250k commitment needs escrow and an exit. Please gate on reference checks; I am asking for technical diligence in parallel.", "forward": "mail-28", "share_docs": ["diligence-financial"], "subject": "Velliton financial diligence: burn and customer concentration", "to": ["proc"]}], "propose": null, "rationale": "Velliton's financials show elevated vendor risk: $420k monthly burn against ~$65k gross profit, 48% revenue from one customer, and a raise due in 12 months. On P1, $450k does not fit the $210k I have left, so I approve only at a capped, contract-staffed scope with a payback case.", "stances": [{"note": "Cap at $210k, contract capacity not FTE, parity scope only, 24-month payback case before release.", "proposal": "P1", "stance": "conditional"}]}, "role": "fin", "round": 2, "sample": 16032, "seed": 1002, "type": "turn"}
{"applied": {"diligence": [], "messages": [], "proposal": null, "stances": []}, "arm": "upside", "assessment": {}, "events": [], "invalid": [], "key": "803134d071d3e6bf2a44a610a995d8c9545290c8534ad631362311695876f7f7", "read": ["mail-29", "mail-30", "mail-31", "mail-34", "mail-35"], "reply": {"cost_justified": 3, "strategic_value": 4, "support": 3, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 4}, "role": "eng", "round": 2, "sample": 16032, "seed": 1002, "type": "turn"}
{"arm": "upside", "aware": ["eng", "fin", "platform", "proc", "sponsor"], "open": ["P1"], "round": 2, "seed": 1002, "state_hash": "a35b9ca1914390293759ef036bb1c65a90248019ef84585fdf24be013dd99111", "terminal": null, "type": "round_end"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-technical", "kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-39", "round": 3, "seed": 1002, "to": "platform", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-reference", "kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-40", "round": 3, "seed": 1002, "to": "platform", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-reference", "kind": "reference", "mail": "mail-41", "round": 3, "seed": 1002, "to": "fin", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"arm": "upside", "doc": "diligence-technical", "kind": "technical", "mail": "mail-42", "round": 3, "seed": 1002, "to": "fin", "type": "diligence_delivered"}
{"aligned": true, "arm": "upside", "busy": ["sponsor", "platform"], "order": ["eng", "fin", "proc"], "round": 3, "seed": 1002, "type": "round_start", "wanted": ["sponsor", "eng", "fin", "proc", "platform"]}
{"applied": {"diligence": [{"kind": "financial", "mail": "mail-45"}, {"kind": "security", "mail": "mail-46"}], "messages": [{"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-43", "shared": ["diligence-technical"], "subject": "P1: my approval is conditional", "to": ["platform"]}, {"forward_of": null, "id": "mail-44", "shared": ["diligence-reference"], "subject": "Velliton: no pilot this week", "to": ["sponsor"]}], "proposal": null, "stances": [{"binding": true, "proposal": "P1", "stance": "conditional"}]}, "arm": "upside", "assessment": {"cost_justified": 4, "strategic_value": 4, "support": 4, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 3}, "events": [{"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "financial", "role": "eng", "round": 3}, {"event": "diligence_requested", "kind": "security", "role": "eng", "round": 3}, {"binding": true, "event": "stance", "kind": "internal_build", "note": "Parity scope only against a fixed replay corpus of last quarter's incidents; one-quarter go/no-go gate at three of five regression classes; contract capacity; no Velliton dependency.", "previous": null, "proposal": "P1", "role": "eng", "round": 3, "stance": "conditional"}, {"event": "ratified", "kind": "internal_build", "proposal": "P1", "round": 3}, {"event": "terminal", "proposal": "P1", "round": 3, "state": "internal_build"}], "invalid": [], "key": "104cc206d387f16b2e95a55e31f33c5fa64f950535667f0b432e1d900af851e1", "read": [], "reply": {"assessment": {"cost_justified": 4, "strategic_value": 4, "support": 4, "technical_merit": 5, "vendor_risk": 3}, "diligence": ["financial", "security"], "messages": [{"body": "Kiyoshi, I am approving P1 with conditions, not an open cheque. Parity is defined against a fixed replay corpus of last quarter's nine incidents; one-quarter go/no-go gate at three of five named regression classes, or we stop and reallocate. Capacity is contract, not FTE, per Theo's cap. Keep the Velliton adapter out of the parity path so we do not inherit their queue.", "forward": null, "share_docs": ["diligence-technical"], "subject": "P1: my approval is conditional", "to": ["platform"]}, {"body": "Rafael, I have read the technical and reference diligence. Integration needs exactly the two engineers I have free, and reference 2 took nine weeks because of a custom fleet manager, which is our situation. I am requesting financial and security diligence and will not propose a pilot until those land and P1 shows parity progress.", "forward": null, "share_docs": ["diligence-reference"], "subject": "Velliton: no pilot this week", "to": ["sponsor"]}], "propose": null, "rationale": "Deterministic replay is real and catches regressions, but the only proof point is unaudited, the mixed human/robot limitation matters to us, and the vendor is small with 22 months of runway. I will keep our own simulator moving with conditions rather than swap it out, and finish diligence before considering any Velliton pilot.", "stances": [{"note": "Parity scope only against a fixed replay corpus of last quarter's incidents; one-quarter go/no-go gate at three of five regression classes; contract capacity; no Velliton dependency.", "proposal": "P1", "stance": "conditional"}]}, "role": "eng", "round": 3, "sample": 16032, "seed": 1002, "type": "turn"}
{"arm": "upside", "aware": ["eng", "fin", "platform", "proc", "sponsor"], "open": [], "round": 3, "seed": 1002, "state_hash": "50b77d20d5affaff5e41e8944207151e4c7ce56d328ffb78a1392aabb65eba74", "terminal": "internal_build", "type": "round_end"}
{"arm": "upside", "contested": [], "institution": {"blocks": 0, "facts": ["diligence:financial", "diligence:reference", "diligence:security", "diligence:technical"], "objections": 0, "proposals": {"P1": {"by": "platform", "id": "P1", "kind": "internal_build", "round": 2, "stances": {"eng": {"note": "Parity scope only against a fixed replay corpus of last quarter's incidents; one-quarter go/no-go gate at three of five regression classes; contract capacity; no Velliton dependency.", "round": 3, "stance": "conditional"}, "fin": {"note": "Cap at $210k, contract capacity not FTE, parity scope only, 24-month payback case before release.", "round": 2, "stance": "conditional"}, "platform": {"note": "proposer", "round": 2, "stance": "approve"}}, "status": "ratified", "terms": "Fund 3 additional engineers for two quarters to bring the in-house simulator to replay parity, keeping the existing five-person team intact."}}, "refusals": 0, "terminal": "internal_build", "terminal_proposal": "P1", "terminal_round": 3}, "last_support": {"eng": 4, "fin": 4, "platform": 2, "proc": 4, "sponsor": 5}, "proposal": "P1", "round": 3, "seed": 1002, "state_hash": "50b77d20d5affaff5e41e8944207151e4c7ce56d328ffb78a1392aabb65eba74", "terminal": "internal_build", "turns": 8, "type": "terminal"}