# Configure Review Screens and Comparison Directions Generated: 2026-11-13T08:01:27.494Z Source build: local Canonical docs: https://teammately.ai/docs --- id: workflow.agent-setup.review-assets title: Configure Review Screens and Comparison Directions summary: Prepare reusable presentation and variation guidance for focused expert work. kind: task product_area: agent_setup status: stable updated: 2026-11-11 canonical: /docs/agent-setup/review-assets --- # Configure Review Screens and Comparison Directions Prepare reusable presentation and variation guidance for focused expert work. ## Prerequisites A defined expert objective and access to the Project’s review assets. ## Steps 1. Choose or edit a Review Screen to present the inputs and material the expert needs to inspect. 2. Choose Comparison Directions that describe useful differences between alternatives for the assignment. 3. Select the intended assets when preparing the Contribution. Check that the expert can understand the question without reconstructing its context. 4. Review resulting learning separately from asset configuration. A useful presentation does not establish the expected judgment. ## Object and state changes Review Screens govern presentation. Comparison Directions govern variation guidance. The Case input and approved standard keep their own owners. ## Success criteria The selected assets help the expert examine the intended distinction while preserving the task’s input and judgment boundaries. ## Common failure modes Using a screen edit to redefine canonical input; treating generated alternatives as approved policy. ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Continue this workflow" %} - [Review Screens](/docs/assets/review-screens) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related troubleshooting pages {% related-card-grid title="Resolve a problem" %} - [Permissions troubleshooting](/docs/troubleshooting/permissions) - [Benchmark run troubleshooting](/docs/troubleshooting/benchmark-runs) {% /related-card-grid %} --- id: agent-setup.reviewer-screen title: Review Screens summary: Create and reuse expert presentation assets, inspect their usage, and attach the intended screen to a Contribution. kind: reference product_area: assets status: stable updated: 2026-10-30 canonical: /docs/assets/review-screens --- # Review Screens ## Definition Review Screens is the project library for reusable expert-facing Case presentation. Open **Assets → Review Screens** to inspect individual screens, edit their design and see their usage. The library contains separate screen identities. It is not one project-wide editor under Agent Setup. ## Fields, states, or lifecycle rules - Each screen is a selectable project asset. - Library pagination and usage filters change the view, not the screen. - Screen design can use the supported project and Case presentation fields. - The Contribution composer can attach one intended Review Screen. - Selecting more than one screen for one request is rejected. - Presentation does not change canonical Case input, material requirements or approval authority. ## Design for the requested judgment Show the context an expert needs to interpret the Case and alternatives. Use representative inputs and required materials in the preview. A visible field does not become required input merely because the screen shows it. Keep primary input, supporting documents, candidate responses and reference responses distinguishable. Avoid relying on a title, private project knowledge or hidden metadata to supply facts the expert needs. ## Select the screen for work Attach the intended asset while preparing a Contribution. Review that request's objective, expert and review components together with the screen. A screen provides presentation; it does not choose the expert's decision or replace the task definition. Inspect usage before making a broad change to a reused screen. Earlier accepted work retains its recorded inputs and responses, and current source content remains owned by the Case or standard. Use Comparison Directions when the need concerns how alternatives should differ. Use Lemon instructions when the need concerns agent conduct. Use Project Input Schema when the actual Case input or material contract must change. ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %} - [Request an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution) - [Project Input Schema](/docs/project-settings/input-schema) - [Comparison Directions](/docs/assets/comparison-directions) - [Assets](/docs/assets) {% /related-card-grid %} --- id: troubleshooting.permissions title: Permissions troubleshooting summary: Separate Project membership from Expert Contribution assignment and readiness when an expert has no tasks available. kind: error product_area: troubleshooting status: stable updated: 2026-11-06 canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/permissions --- # Permissions troubleshooting Use this when project role, reviewer assignment, or approval ownership prevents someone from completing the intended work. ## Symptom A user can access Teammately but cannot open the expected Project, or an expert reports **no tasks available** after opening their Contribution link. These symptoms belong to different owning surfaces. ## Likely causes - The user lacks the required Project permission through a direct grant, workspace group, or workspace role. - The Contribution was requested for a different recipient. - The Contribution exists but its next Task or Checkpoint is not ready. - The current IP is blocked before Project membership is evaluated. ## Diagnostic checks - Check direct grants in **Project Settings → Project Members**, the user's workspace-group membership, and the group's permission for the intended Project. Absence from the direct member list alone does not establish lack of access. Inspect workspace status and role in **Admin → Directory → Members** as well. - Open the Contribution from the sender-side Expert Contributions workspace and verify its recipient and status. - Check whether the expert has an executable Task or Checkpoint, not merely whether the Contribution exists. - If **Access Restricted** is visible, resolve the IP allowlist first. ## Fix - Add the correct individual workspace user under **Project Settings → Project Members** when direct Project membership is missing. - If access is intended through a workspace group, confirm both the user's membership in that group and its permission for the intended Project. - Correct the Contribution recipient through the owning Contribution workflow when the request went to the wrong person. - Resolve lifecycle or readiness problems in Expert Contributions when access succeeds but no Task can be entered. - Do not infer a permission from a role label or edit governed artifacts merely to make a control appear. ## Prevention - Separate reviewer access from approval authority in review setup. - Check assignments before launching a review session. - Use a small pilot Contribution before assigning a larger specialist cohort. - Keep project membership changes visible to review owners. ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %} - [Request an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution) - [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions) - [Complete an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %} - [Permissions](/docs/reference/permissions) - [Roles and Permissions](/docs/governance/roles-and-permissions) - [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions) {% /related-card-grid %} --- id: troubleshooting.benchmark-runs title: Benchmark run troubleshooting summary: Diagnose a Run that cannot start, has no usable outputs, or produces results that cannot be compared safely. kind: error product_area: troubleshooting status: stable updated: 2026-11-06 canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/benchmark-runs --- # Benchmark run troubleshooting ## Symptoms - The evaluation surface has no Benchmark Version to run. - Output import or mapping cannot identify a Case or output column. - A Run is created but remains empty, incomplete, or failed. - Results appear under the wrong candidate label or Harness Version. - Two Runs show a score change but do not share a comparable snapshot boundary. ## Likely causes - No immutable Snapshot exists for the intended evaluation set. - Imported outputs are mapped to the wrong Case or column. - The saved Harness Version or candidate metadata does not match the evaluated system. - The Run is partial, failed, or being compared across different Benchmark Versions. ## Check the boundary before the failure 1. Confirm the URL and page identify the intended Project, Benchmark, and Benchmark Version. 2. Open the Version or Snapshot and verify it contains the expected Cases and evaluators. If it does not, repair coverage and create a new Snapshot; do not edit the historical Run. 3. For managed execution, confirm the saved Harness Version and recorded settings. For imported results, confirm that the external candidate context describes the system that produced the submitted responses. 4. If importing outputs, inspect the mapping preview. Match the Case identifier and candidate-output column deliberately; do not use a reference-output column as candidate behavior. 5. Open Run detail and inspect status, Case count, errors, metadata, and per-Case results before trusting aggregates. ## Fix - **No runnable version:** finish Case selection and create a Snapshot first. - **Missing imported outputs:** append only missing Cases to an uncompleted Trial using the exact manifest IDs. Correcting an accepted response or adding Cases after completion requires a new Trial in the external Run or a new Run. Preserve the original results. - **Wrong Harness or metadata:** create a correctly configured Run. Do not relabel completed results to represent a different system. - **Partial managed failure:** inspect and preserve the existing Run's recorded outcomes. For another independent execution under unchanged conditions, use **Run again**. **Run evaluation** reopens matching work, including failed work. Publish a new Harness Version when its code changes, or create a new Snapshot and Benchmark Version when Case content or criteria change. - **Confusing comparison:** compare the Benchmark Version, Harness Version, candidate metadata, and evaluator boundary. Qualify or avoid the comparison when more than the intended variable changed. ## Prevention Create a Snapshot before evaluation. For managed execution, save the exact Harness Version. For imported results, preserve external candidate context and preview the mapping on representative Cases. Before comparing, confirm that every difference between the two Runs is intentional and visible. ## Recovery check Open the recovered Run and sample several Case results. Confirm the displayed input, candidate output, reference output where present, applicable Rubrics, and metadata all belong together. A completed status alone does not prove correct mapping. {% example-demo title="Example: scores drop after output import" %} A team imports a new candidate file and sees a sudden score collapse. Run detail shows that the column containing reference outputs was mapped as candidate output. The operator creates a new Run, maps the actual candidate column, preserves the mistaken Run as an identifiable failed attempt, and compares only the corrected Run with the prior candidate under the same Benchmark Version. {% /example-demo %} ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related workflows" %} - [Run a Benchmark Evaluation](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-evaluation) - [Import External Evaluation Outputs](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/output-mapping) - [Inspect Evaluation Results](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/inspect-results) - [Evaluation Results](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/results) - [Run Details and Metadata](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-details) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference" %} - [Benchmarks and versions](/docs/concepts/benchmarks-and-versions) - [Benchmark snapshots](/docs/coverage-engineering/benchmark-snapshots) - [Outputs](/docs/object-model/outputs) {% /related-card-grid %}