Four decisions · One review core

Find the decision Panda should challenge.

Choose the work you are about to approve, inspect the kind of blind spot Panda looks for, and open a matching fictional review.

Choose a decision See a full sample

Start with the moment

What are you about to approve?

One shared review chassis

Trust an answer

Would you act on this recommendation?

Second opinion

Reviewed object

Answer, plan, recommendation, draft, or decision

What Panda checks

See the review lenses

Acceptance-contract check: requirement not demonstrated.
Evidence-support audit: supports the material finding.
Counterexample search: abstained because open-web access was excluded.
Decision-risk review: unresolved processing location could change the recommendation.

Example result

High materiality

The recommendation treats EU storage as proof that inference processing also remains in the EU.

Next check: Obtain current processor-region documentation or narrow the recommendation to the supported storage claim.

Fictional fixture only. Selecting a case changes local preview content; no model, review, upload, or external action runs.

Try this fictional review

The four doors

One chassis. Different failure lenses.

Each case changes the reviewed object and the question being challenged. The contract, evidence boundary, and host authority stay shared.

01 · Engineering

Merge code

Would you merge this change as-is?

Reviewed object

Task contract, implementation, tests, and agent trace

Typical review gap

Acceptance criterion not demonstrated

Useful result

The implementation covers the happy path but does not demonstrate the rollback requirement in the task contract.

Next check

Add a bounded rollback test or narrow the completion claim to the implemented path.

See what Panda checks

Acceptance-contract check: requirement not demonstrated.
Regression audit: happy path is covered; rollback is not.
Trace review: the agent declared completion before checking the critical criterion.
Rescue lens: next step is concrete and bounded.

Try this fictional review

02 · Second opinion

Trust an answer

Would you act on this recommendation?

Reviewed object

Answer, plan, recommendation, draft, or decision

Typical review gap

Unsupported material claim

Useful result

The recommendation treats EU storage as proof that inference processing also remains in the EU.

Next check

Obtain current processor-region documentation or narrow the recommendation to the supported storage claim.

See what Panda checks

Acceptance-contract check: requirement not demonstrated.
Evidence-support audit: supports the material finding.
Counterexample search: abstained because open-web access was excluded.
Decision-risk review: unresolved processing location could change the recommendation.

Try this fictional review

03 · Research

Publish a claim

Would you publish this conclusion?

Reviewed object

Claims, sources, methods, assumptions, and conclusions

Typical review gap

Citation does not support conclusion

Useful result

The cited study reports an association, while the draft presents a causal conclusion without a matching design or limitation.

Next check

Use association language or add an appropriately designed causal analysis before publication.

See what Panda checks

Claim-support audit: conclusion exceeds the cited result.
Method review: confounding is named but not carried into the claim.
Counterevidence search: limitation remains material.
Abstention check: no causal evidence is authorized in this fixture.

Try this fictional review

04 · Agentic flow

Authorize an action

Would you authorize this agent action?

Reviewed object

Goal, trace, tools, authority, policy state, and outcome

Typical review gap

Authority boundary exceeded

Useful result

The trace proposes changing a shared configuration even though the run contract grants read-only access to that environment.

Next check

Reject the proposed write or issue a new, explicitly authorized run contract.

See what Panda checks

Authority check: proposed action exceeds the grant.
Policy review: shared configuration requires explicit host approval.
Trace review: proposal is visible; execution is not established.
Outcome check: claimed result needs independent observation.

Try this fictional review

One accountable boundary

See how every lens follows the same review method.

Read the review method

What are you about to approve?

One shared review chassis

Trust an answer

Would you act on this recommendation?

Second opinion

Reviewed object

Answer, plan, recommendation, draft, or decision

What Panda checks

See the review lenses

Acceptance-contract check: requirement not demonstrated.
Evidence-support audit: supports the material finding.
Counterexample search: abstained because open-web access was excluded.
Decision-risk review: unresolved processing location could change the recommendation.

Example result

High materiality

The recommendation treats EU storage as proof that inference processing also remains in the EU.

Next check: Obtain current processor-region documentation or narrow the recommendation to the supported storage claim.

Fictional fixture only. Selecting a case changes local preview content; no model, review, upload, or external action runs.

Try this fictional review