Where does the AMD Token Factory sit in the pipeline?
It does the one model job: span extraction. Each call returns the words for action, tag and line, and its receipt records the request id, the model served, the host and the cost.
Speech-to-text has not run on a recording yet; the Token Factory lists no transcription model. The referee and the queue are plain Python on the operator’s side.
Couldn’t an LLM just judge the read-back?
We measured that. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, given the whole exchange and no plant registry, passed 2 wrong read-backs as VERIFIED and passed the XV-205 order, a valve the plant does not have. In SayAgain the model only points at words; the verdict is code.
A regex already meets the rule. Why a model at all?
On clean written words it does: that is our own result, and the page says so. Real speech is not clean: recognition errors, code-switched Bahasa, other people’s phrasing. The audio rows decide whether a model earns its place; if they say it does not, the report will say that.
What happens when the radio is too noisy to hear?
On the written-word rows, a failed model call is NOT_AUDITED and an exchange the referee cannot clear reaches a human as ABSTAIN, in amber: listen yourself. How it behaves on noisy audio is not measured in this build; the −6 dB look-alike failure case needs the human recordings (no audio evaluation in this submission).
Does SayAgain control anything in the plant?
No. It has no write path to the plant. A card leaves the queue only when a supervisor confirms it or dismisses it with a reason.
Isn’t this a way to watch workers?
It is planned to check procedures, not people: the exchanges carry roles (operator, field tech), not names, and nothing scores a person. No audio has been processed yet. Voice that identifies a person is personal data under UU PDP 27/2022, so production is planned to run inside the company network, keeping audio only for cards in the queue.
Don’t radio loggers already do this?
They record and transcribe, and some spot keywords. Among the loggers we checked, none documents comparing an instruction with its read-back. Automatic read-back checking exists in air-traffic research (HAAWAII); we have not found it on plant radio.
Why is it called SayAgain?
“Say again” is the radio procedure word for “repeat that”. A wrong read-back deserves one; SayAgain makes sure somebody asks for it.
What on this page is real today?
Every verdict, trace, receipt and count comes from files in this repository: bench/results/, docs/replay/data/, evidence/. The exchanges are written scripts for a fictional plant (text·scripted); no recording has been measured. Dashed boxes are results that do not exist yet.