LaserLab v0.4.0: true blinded review and dark lab UI - #27
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7d7becbecc
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "capture_id": capture.get("capture_id"), | ||
| "source_id": capture.get("source_id"), | ||
| "kind": capture.get("kind"), | ||
| "frame_count": len(capture.get("frames", [])), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hide counts that identify the laser capture
In blinded runs with standard or strict control generation, keeping exact per-capture frame_count in the sealed manifest lets a reviewer infer which capture was labeled laser whenever the captures have different frame counts: the sealed run still exposes total review samples/results, and generated controls are added only for laser frames. For example, with 10- and 20-frame captures and standard controls, the blinded sample total reveals whether 10 or 20 frames received generated controls, defeating source-role sealing before unblind. Consider omitting or coarsening per-capture counts in the sealed manifest, or otherwise avoiding a total that includes generated controls until unblind.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Summary
Validation
git diff --checkpassedLaserLab-v0.4.0-windows-x86_64.ziprebuilt and verifiedLaserLab.exe --smokepassedLaserLabCLI.exe --helppassedCloses #12