# Evaluator Independence

The implementation agent can and should propose tests, but its tests are correlated evidence. The same model, context, assumptions, and reward signals that produced a bug may reproduce the blind spot in validation.

## Independence Options

Use one or more:

- a different model family or provider;
- a fresh agent context without the implementation rationale;
- procedural or property-based checks;
- static analysis, type systems, schemas, and formal methods where applicable;
- calibrated human reviewers;
- production outcomes and telemetry;
- adversarial cases from incidents, users, or a separate red team;
- separate data sources and hidden test sets.

## Independence Record

For each important claim, record:

- builder identity and model/version;
- evaluator identity and model/version;
- shared prompts, data, tools, or context;
- independent evidence source;
- known correlated assumptions;
- disagreements and adjudication.

Do not claim independence merely because two agents had different names. If they share the model, prompt, context, and data, call the evidence correlated.

## Practical Rule

The more irreversible, private, regulated, expensive, or physically consequential the action, the more independence the evidence package needs.
