C2-03 review: can an operator act on the reason shown?

Requirement C2-03: every alert shall show a reason an operator can act on. This is the review checklist the requirements table asked for. It was done by the agent that wrote the console, so it is not independent; the usability sessions are the independent check (see the last section).

The checks below are enforced by console/src/store.test.ts ("C2-03") for every recommendation the recommender can make (ADR 0002 and 0003).

What the recommender can raise

Trust state and reason	Recommendation	Card title	Reason shown	Extra text
RED, GNSS_LOSS	hand over only	"Hand over S2 from uav2"	GNSS signal lost or degraded	"No command is sent to uav2: its own failsafe is acting."
RED, STALE	hand over only	"Hand over S2 from uav2"	No recent navigation data	"No command is sent to uav2: it has stopped reporting."
RED, INCONSISTENT_INNOVATION	LAND and hand over	"Land uav2 and hand over S2"	GNSS position disagrees with the vehicle's own sensors	"This vehicle may be flying away from where it thinks it is, and nothing else will stop it."
AMBER, any	none by design (ADR 0002)	none	shown in the fleet row	none

Checklist

#	Question	Result
1	Is a reason shown for every alert, in words and not as a code?	Yes. Tested: no internal code (for example GNSS_LOSS) appears in a title, reason or action
2	Does each reason have its own wording?	Yes. Tested
3	Does the card say exactly what approving will do, naming the vehicle?	Yes, one line per action. Tested
4	Does it say what happens to the vehicle itself when no command is sent?	Not before this review. Added: the note in the table above
5	Is the time left to decide shown, and is an expired card unusable?	Yes. Tested
6	Is a dangerous wait called out?	Yes, for the frozen position (LAND). Not for loss or stale, where a failsafe is acting or data is gone
7	Can the operator tell why nothing is recommended for AMBER?	Yes, since the console freeze: the row says "No action is recommended unless it turns RED". Tested
8	Is every reason label one the system can actually produce?	No. BIAS_DRIFT has a label but no detector or recommendation uses it. It is reserved in the ICD, so the label stays
9	Is the vocabulary understood by someone who has never seen the console?	Not shown. The jargon "re-task" was replaced by "hand over" in card titles; no participant has been asked about either

Findings

1. Fixed: a re-task-only card left the operator to guess what happens to the vehicle (4).
2. Fixed: AMBER now says that no action is expected unless it turns RED (7).
3. Kept: BIAS_DRIFT is reserved in the ICD; nothing produces it (8).
4. Changed, not tested: card titles say "hand over" instead of "re-task" (9). Round 2 should ask what participants take the card to mean.

Why the status stays "partial"

The text content passes. But "an operator can act on" is a claim about people, and in round 1 neither participant acted on a card unaided (docs/usability/findings-2026-10.md). That was about noticing and understanding that a decision was theirs, not about the reason code, but the requirement is not shown as met until round 2 on the redesign.