[
 {
  "id": "C01",
  "http_status": 200,
  "recorded_at": "2026-11-03T23:16:08+00:00",
  "ms": 0,
  "reply": {
   "slug": "metacognitive-enhancer",
   "title": "Find cognitive biases in an agent's reasoning",
   "status": "ok",
   "input": "Everyone knows this vendor is the best. The last three deployments went fine, so this one definitely will too. I'm 100% certain we should skip the security review.",
   "total_ms": 51,
   "steps": [
    {
     "call": "POST /analyze",
     "request": {
      "text": "Everyone knows this vendor is the best. The last three deployments went fine, so this one definitely will too. I'm 100% certain we should skip the security review.",
      "confidence": 0.95
     },
     "status": 200,
     "ms": 34,
     "reply": {
      "biases_detected": [
       "overconfidence_bias"
      ],
      "calibrated_confidence": 0.95,
      "reasoning_quality": 0.1,
      "suggestions": [
       "Calibrate confidence using historical accuracy",
       "Use premortem analysis to anticipate failure modes",
       "Seek external validation for high-confidence judgments",
       "Consider whether overconfidence might be influencing judgment",
       "Seek external validation or peer review",
       "Improve reasoning structure with explicit premises and inferences",
       "Use formal logical frameworks when applicable",
       "Break complex problems into smaller, manageable subproblems"
      ]
     }
    }
   ],
   "note": "Real calls to the running service with the public demo identity; replies are unedited."
  }
 },
 {
  "id": "C02",
  "http_status": 200,
  "recorded_at": "2026-11-03T23:16:09+00:00",
  "ms": 0,
  "reply": {
   "slug": "metacognitive-enhancer",
   "title": "Find cognitive biases in an agent's reasoning",
   "status": "ok",
   "input": "Everyone knows this vendor is the best. The last three deployments went fine, so this one definitely will too. I'm 100% certain we should skip the security review.",
   "total_ms": 51,
   "steps": [
    {
     "call": "POST /analyze",
     "request": {
      "text": "Everyone knows this vendor is the best. The last three deployments went fine, so this one definitely will too. I'm 100% certain we should skip the security review.",
      "confidence": 0.95
     },
     "status": 200,
     "ms": 34,
     "reply": {
      "biases_detected": [
       "overconfidence_bias"
      ],
      "calibrated_confidence": 0.95,
      "reasoning_quality": 0.1,
      "suggestions": [
       "Calibrate confidence using historical accuracy",
       "Use premortem analysis to anticipate failure modes",
       "Seek external validation for high-confidence judgments",
       "Consider whether overconfidence might be influencing judgment",
       "Seek external validation or peer review",
       "Improve reasoning structure with explicit premises and inferences",
       "Use formal logical frameworks when applicable",
       "Break complex problems into smaller, manageable subproblems"
      ]
     }
    }
   ],
   "note": "Real calls to the running service with the public demo identity; replies are unedited."
  }
 }
]