Adversarial Quarto vs Beamer QA Workflow

Compare Quarto HTML slides against their Beamer PDF benchmark using an iterative critic/fixer loop.

Philosophy: The Beamer PDF is the gold standard. The Quarto translation must be at least as good in every dimension.

Workflow

Phase 0: Pre-flight → Phase 1: Critic audit → Phase 2: Fixer → Phase 3: Re-audit → Loop until APPROVED (max 5 rounds)

Hard Gates (Non-Negotiable)

Gate Condition

Overflow NO content cut off

Plot Quality Interactive charts >= static plots

Content Parity No missing slides/equations/text

Visual Regression Quarto >= Beamer in all dimensions

Slide Centering Content centered, no jumping

Notation Fidelity All math verbatim from Beamer

Phase 0: Pre-flight

• Locate Beamer (.tex/.pdf) and Quarto (.qmd/.html) files

• Check freshness (re-render if QMD newer than HTML)

• Verify TikZ SVGs if applicable

Phase 1: Initial Audit

Launch the quarto-critic agent to compare Beamer vs Quarto comprehensively. Report saved to quality_reports/[Lecture]_qa_critic_round1.md .

Phase 2: Fix Cycle

If not APPROVED, launch quarto-fixer agent to apply fixes (Critical → Major → Minor), re-render, and verify.

Phase 3: Re-Audit

Re-launch critic to verify fixes. Loop back to Phase 2 if needed.

Iteration Limits

Max 5 fix rounds. After that, escalate to user with remaining issues.

Final Report

Save to quality_reports/[Lecture]_qa_final.md with hard gate status, iteration summary, and remaining issues.