Keep discarded findings out of final review comments #5

Problem

A final review comment can repeat a discarded concern even after the model reads the core skill and reviews reference.

Public case C4 in PR #2 asks for the settled assessment: approval with one schema-dialect follow-up. The candidate starts:

Approved. The freeze deliberately applies only to external-client contracts; standalone contracts remain editable.

It then explains the active schema concern correctly. The opening still carries the discarded freeze concern into a comment for an author who has not seen the drafting discussion.

The existing guidance already says to use the latest assessment and include only history the recipient needs. This is a follow-up reliability investigation; a skill change has not yet been shown to be necessary.

Proposed work

• Calibrate the case's distinction between useful recipient context and a discarded finding.
• Repeat the fictional case with and without the skill.
• Investigate a small change only if the failure persists and points to a gap or conflict in the guidance. Review-specific detail belongs in the reviews reference.

Acceptance

• The final comment includes the active concern, caller example, current review status and next action.
• It omits the discarded concern and unnecessary explanations of its resolution.
• Related cases retain history when the recipient actually needs it to act.
• Any change has evidence from repeated cases and does not add a case-specific rule to the general skill.

Writer: gpt-6.1-sol; grader: gpt-5.6-luna; reasoning: medium. This example is fictional and contains no private review history.

Additional coverage lives in the private eval repository.