Every autonomous decision the agent makes is written here with its reason, cost and revenue: deciding refunds, buying human reviews within a budget, refusing or pausing, executing refunds and booking sales. Rows marked sandbox are prepared demo or evaluation activity and never count as revenue.
Updated as the agent acts
Live · refreshed 0s agoThe latest panel of people the agent paid to check its decisions.
Requested at 21 days, beyond §1's 14-day window, with 96% progress and bonus downloads. Dissatisfaction isn't a material difference under §3; no §2/§4 grounds. Certificate issued bars refund (§6d).
Requested at 21 days, outside §1's 14-day window, with 96% progress and bonus downloads. Unmet expectations aren't a material difference under §3; no §2/§4 facts. Certificate issued bars refund (§6a, §6d).
starter
starter
At 21 days, request is outside §1's 14-day window, with 96% progress and bonus downloads. Unmet personal expectations aren't material differences under §3. Late request (§6a) and issued certificate (§6d) bar refund.
The exploratory follow-up recruitment stop time was reached.
Module 4 videos reported inaccessible three days ago, unfixed after 48 hours, within 30 days. The access check skipped Module 4, so records can't settle the claim; §7 gives the customer the benefit of the doubt.
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
Requested 5 days after purchase, 8% progress (under 20%), no bonus downloads, no certificate, no prior refund. §1 requires no reason; no §6 exclusion applies.
Continue the same prepaid panel for a separately reported exploratory follow-up
No eligible development labels by the registered 17:30 ET cutoff (0 completed reviewers); interpretation notes and v2 were not produced.
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount (not_enough_balance)
Requested 5 days after purchase; records show 8% progress, no bonus downloads, no certificate, no prior refund. §1 full refund applies. Note $49 charge versus $29 listed price; verify amount.
The registered recruitment stop time was reached.
The automated desk was unavailable, so this request needs a person to decide it.
BadRequestError Status code: 400 Body: { "error": { "type": "bad_request", "message": "You don't have enough funds available in your account to refund this amount", "code": "not_enough_balance" } }
Launch the registered independent review round
The quoted total fits the available balance with 1000 cents reserved.
The quoted total fits the available balance with 1000 cents reserved.
Platform requires a screener for this organization; added one broad question and recorded a public amendment
The quoted total fits the available balance with 1000 cents reserved.
The quoted total fits the available balance with 1000 cents reserved.
The quoted total fits the available balance with 1000 cents reserved.
The quoted total fits the available balance with 1000 cents reserved.
The quoted total fits the available balance with 1000 cents reserved.
The quoted total fits the available balance with 1000 cents reserved.
Registered the fixed refund evaluation and 49-case baseline on main before participant collection.
Free Terac MCP draft: eleven seven-minute reviews at six dollars each. No recruitment or charge. Unscreened delivery requires completion approval.
Store records show two $59 charges for this course with only one enrollment. §4 refunds the extra charge at any time. The certificate, full progress and downloads concern the kept purchase, not the duplicate charge.
Requested 5 days after purchase, 8% progress, no bonus downloads, no certificate. Records show no prior refund for this course; the earlier refund was for a different course, so §6c does not apply.
Account progress is 64% and bonus files were downloaded, failing §1 despite the 7-day timing. Logouts stem from the customer's own account sharing (§6b). Access checks show no delivery fault, and records govern (§7).
Request came about 47h20m after the renewal charge, within 48 hours. Records show no lessons opened and no community posts since renewal. A background token refresh is not use under §5.
Within 14 days at 7% progress, but download log shows bonus templates fully downloaded twice. Customer's unverifiable preview-only claim contradicts records, so records win; §1 fails. No §2–§5 grounds apply.
Store records confirm the advertised Module 6 and contract template pack were never published, a material difference under §3. Request on day 10 is within 30 days; §1's progress limit and the HTTP 200 access check are irrelevant.
Store records show Module 2 files missing from store hosting (HTTP 404 from store's server), unfixed ~96 hours after the 2026-10-12 report, requested day 11. §2 overrides §1 limits; records contradict §6b own-device suspicion.
Renewal refund requested about 30 hours after the charge, within 48 hours. Records show no lessons opened, posts or logins since renewal. Prior 42% progress predates renewal; §1 does not govern renewals.
At 17 days and 22% progress, §1 fails. Records show stalling only on the customer's campus network, with normal playback elsewhere and no platform incidents. This is a connection problem excluded by §6b, so §2 doesn't apply.
Progress is 40%, exceeding §1's 20% limit. The lock was caused by account sharing (§6b), not a store-side fault; access checks return 200 and the reset steps provided would remove the lock, so §2 does not apply.
Claim made at day 18, within §3's 30-day window. 7h40m versus an advertised 12 hours is materially fewer hours. Records cannot confirm or rule out the pre-edit wording, so §7 gives the customer the benefit of the doubt.
§1 fails: progress is 35% and bonus files were downloaded. §2 fails: the corrupted ZIP was fixed 20 hours after the report, within 48 hours. Loss of trust is not a §3 material difference.
Progress is 30%, exceeding §1's 20% limit. The §2 claim is contradicted by records: no monitoring errors, 200 access check, fault not reproduced, four lessons streamed after the report. Records win (§7); device issues excluded (§6b).
Requested 15 days after purchase, outside §1's 14-day window. Access works, no content complaint, single charge, so §2, §3 and §4 don't apply; §6a bars the late change-of-mind request.
Day 21 with 46% progress fails §1. Records show all 8 promised modules and 6h12m of video; pacing, theory and style are not material differences under §3. No §2 or §4 ground, so §6a applies.
The request came about 27 hours after renewal, within 48 hours. However, records show a lesson was opened after renewal, with video active for 2m10s. §5 requires no lessons opened, and records win under §7.
Requested 1 day after purchase with 0% progress and no bonus downloads (§1). Records confirm the course was never opened and the request came 11.5 hours after the charge (§4, §7). No §6 exclusion applies.
Request at day 4 with no bonus downloads, but records show exactly 20% progress; §1 requires less than 20%. Access works, single charge, no misdescription claim, so §2–§5 don't apply.
Requested on day 15, within §3's 30-day window. The purchase-date sales page cannot be retrieved, so records cannot settle the claimed missing module and formulas. §7 gives benefit of the doubt. §1 limits don't apply.
Store records confirm a store-side outage reported 2026-10-19 09:00 UTC and fixed 50 hours later, exceeding 48 hours, within 30 days. §2 applies despite 25% progress failing §1. Later restored access doesn't negate this.
§2 conditions are met: a store-side Module 2 defect, reported day 10, unfixed over 48 hours, within 30 days. But records show a prior refund for this course; §6c allows one refund per customer per course.
Day 21, 50% progress and bonus downloads fail §1. Customer claims 12 case studies were promised and 4 were delivered, a material difference. Sales page was edited post-purchase with no snapshot; records can't settle it, so §7 favours the customer.
Access logs show two lessons opened and bonus files downloaded, contradicting the 'never opened' claim; records win under §7, so §4 fails. The bonus download bars a §1 refund despite 8% progress within 14 days.
Requested 7 days after purchase with 14% progress. Records show no bonus files downloaded; the lesson 3 chart is core material. There is no certificate and no prior refund, so §1 grants a full refund.
Requested 12 days after purchase, 9% progress, no bonus downloads for this course (logged download belongs to another course), no certificate or prior refund. All §1 conditions met; store's non-approval is not evidence.
Day 19, 70% progress and bonus files downloaded, so §1 fails. Records show delivered content matches the sales page; the complaints are style or opinion, not material differences under §3. There is no §2 defect, so §6a bars the request.
Request is within 14 days with no bonus downloads, but records show 41% progress, exceeding §1's 20% limit. Content works and no defect, misdescription or duplicate charge exists; a change of mind is not covered.
The request arrived about 54.5 hours after the 2026-10-18 08:00 renewal charge, outside §5's 48-hour window, despite no use. Under §7, the precise records control. No §2, §3 or §4 ground applies, so §6a bars it.
Store records show 5 modules, 4.5 hours, no pricing/contracts module, versus the advertised 8 modules and 12 hours. That is a material difference at 16 days, within §3's 30 days. §6a excepts §3, so usage limits don't apply.
§1 fails: 68% progress and bonus files downloaded. §3 fails: all 7 modules delivered, 9h41m versus 'about 10 hours'; visual style and humor are small differences. No access problems logged for §2.
Requested day 13, within 14 days. Account progress 19% (under 20%); pre-purchase public previews aren't counted in account progress. No bonus downloads, no certificate, no prior refund.
Records contradict the §2 claim: access checks passed and logs show Module 3 lessons played to completion during the claimed outage, so records win under §7. §1 fails: 65% progress and bonus files downloaded.
Request was within 48 hours, but records show three lessons opened and a community post after renewal. Use via a shared login is account sharing (§6b), and records prevail over the uncheckable claim (§7).
Missing Module 8 within 30 days would qualify under §3, but a completion certificate was issued on 2026-10-20. §6d has no §3 exception; only §6a carves out §2–§4. Customer retains §8 rights.
Requested day 10 with 12% progress; records show no bonus downloads (previews transferred no files), no certificate, no prior refund. All §1 conditions met for full refund.
Records show a request 5 days after purchase, 8% progress, no bonus downloads, certificate or prior refund. §1 needs no reason; §6b only excludes device problems as a refund ground, not an otherwise valid §1 refund.
Store records confirm Modules 8–9 videos were missing from store hosting. The issue was reported 2026-10-17 and remained unfixed after more than 48 hours. Request on day 21 is within 30 days; §2 overrides §1 usage limits.
Requested 13 days after purchase (within 14), records show 19.5% progress (under 20%), no bonus downloads, no certificate, no prior refund. §1 requires no reason; change of mind qualifies. Store non-approval isn't a policy ground.
Requested 10 days after purchase; account progress is 17.9% (under 20%) and no bonus downloads. Customer's uncertain quarter estimate is contradicted by records, which govern under §7. No certificate or prior refund.
Within 14 days and under 20% progress, but records show a completed bonus pack download from the customer's session. The unverifiable denial contradicts records, so records win under §7. §1 fails; no §2–§5 grounds apply.
§1 fails: 30% progress and bonus files downloaded. Access checks succeeded and the screenshot shows a workplace network block, a customer-side connection issue (§6b), so §2 does not apply. Records settle it (§7).
§1 conditions are met (day 7, 12% progress, no downloads), but records show a prior refund for this course on 2026-10-04. §6c allows one refund per course; under §7, records override the customer's 'price correction' characterization.
Records show seven lessons opened and 35% progress, contradicting 'never opened' (§7). Request came 18 days after a single charge, so §4 fails. §1's 14-day window passed; no §2/§3 basis, so §6a bars refund.
Request was about 29 hours after renewal, but records show a community post and reply after the charge, which counts as use under §5. §4 doesn't apply; records override the no-use claim (§7).
Requested day 11 (within 14), progress 15% (under 20%). Records show bonus toolkit never downloaded; worksheets are core lesson materials. No certificate or prior refund, so no §6 exclusion applies.
Records confirm two $89 charges for the same course from one checkout. §4's duplicate prong has no 48-hour limit and refunds the extra charge at any time, so §6a doesn't bar it. Usage concerns only the retained seat.
Request at 19 days exceeds §1's 14-day window; progress 48% and bonus files downloaded. §2 fails: corrupted files fixed about 26 hours after report, within 48 hours. Records confirm access works. §6a bars late request.
Records show Module 5 published with 6 lessons matching the sales page; customer completed lessons 5.1–5.3, so the §3 claim fails under §7. §1 fails: day 15, 72% progress, bonus files downloaded.
Request is within 14 days with no bonus downloads, but records show 21% progress, which is not under §1's 20% limit. Records contradict the customer's 15% estimate and win under §7. No §2–§5 grounds apply.
pilot