# Accept the exact film against a written rubric

*Trusting the quality checks · Acceptance rubric + human review. From the portfolio of Guilherme Rohden. Excerpts are quoted verbatim; internal paths and identifiers are redacted.*

The rubric’s gating rules, the recorded verdict for the reviewed export, and the caption gap a later NASA-footage run exposed.

## The decision

I defined two human gates: the intended film-wide decisions must be visible in the pixels, and I must be willing to publish the film. Cut placement, rhythm and seams are recorded as diagnosis, not as gates.

The rubric names the film, asks for worst-instance timestamps, and samples three random parts plus the opening and closing minute. That costs review time and judgment, and a revised cut needs its own acceptance.

## From the source

**Human-watch rubric.** Which rows gate the launch and which only diagnose:

> **Rows 3 and 5 GATE the launch.** A FAIL on either stops it. Rows 1, 2 and 4 are **recorded as
> diagnosis**: they are defect counts that say what to fix next, and a FAIL there does not on its own
> hold the launch (Spec 194 Q7, answered 8 September 2026).

**The recorded verdict.** The export identifier is redacted:

> Watched by the owner, file `[REDACTED: reviewed export A identifier]`. **Both gating rows PASS — the
> human half of Spec 191's launch gate is MET.**

**NASA-footage run, 10 October 2026.** A concrete gap in automated caption QA:

> *11 · Minor · caption placement*
>
> Burned-in captions do not avoid text burned into the source (NASA's banners); the caption-collision QA only knows the editor's own elements

## Keep the artifacts and verdicts distinct

| Artifact | What it supports | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Export A, rendered 6 September, 48:20 | The 8 September review passed both human gates | That approval covers this export only |
| Later revised cut | Its density gate passed | Needed its own export and watch |
| October NASA-footage run | Automated QA missed collisions with text burned into the source | Separate footage and run |

## What this shows

Human acceptance is bound to **one named export**, and automated checks and human inspection contribute different evidence. In the NASA run, source comparison also kept static slides and source-native black frames from being reported as rendering defects.