orchestrate-justification-qualitylisted

# Orchestrate Justification Quality Two published facts should shape how you treat this: 1. The Orchestrate output rubric evaluates **"whether agents provide sound justifications for decisions"** — the CSV is not scored on verdicts alone. 2. HackerRank's Chakra scoring engine is **evidence-anchored**: *"every score traces back to a specific, verbatim moment in the transcript"* and *"nothing in the report is inferred beyond what's in the transcript."* Point 2 is about their interview scorer, not your CSV — but it reveals the evaluation philosophy of the organization designing your rubric. **They score specific, traceable evidence and refuse to credit vague generalities.** Write your agent's justifications for a reader with that disposition. ## The Chakra rubric, read as a writing guide Chakra's 4-point scale, translated into what it implies about output quality: | Score | Chakra's criterion | What that means for a justification | |---|---|---| | 3 — Met | "clarity, ownership, structured reasoning, specific examples" | Names the specific evidence, states the decision rule, commits to the call | | 2 — Partially met | "relevant evidence but lacking depth or specificity" | Gestures at the right reason without citing what actually drove it | | 1 — Not met | "incorrect reasoning or only vague, theoretical responses" | Generic filler that could apply to any ticket | | 0 — Not assessed | no relevant evidence exists | Empty or off-topic | The gap between a 2 and a 3 is almost en