Mike — the final proposal received **10/10 from simulated Dan** in round 5. The loop stopped because it reached 10/10 after the required five distinct rounds. Early 10s in rounds 2 and 4 triggered stricter rating instructions; the final review covered publication rules, conflicting evidence, resource limits, and numbers quoted outside the report.

Your concern survives: the proposal prevents a small, selected set of tasks from supporting broad capability or reliability claims. It preserves subjective judgments, disagreement, and uncertainty alongside the numbers. It drops the unsupported **250-task cutoff**, and proposes a bounded field report rather than claiming to deliver a validated general benchmark. Researcher acceptance remains unproven.

Each round used a fresh subagent without inherited conversation history, instructed to read only its current request, the skill, and the persona. Exact requests and full responses are in `rounds/`; scores and changes are in `results.md`. Scores across changed rubrics are not directly comparable.

The task counts, one-week schedule, and budgets are proposed assumptions, not confirmed capacity. No pilot was run and no real colleague was contacted. This is simulated approval, not Dan's actual sign-off; verify load-bearing assumptions with him before acting.