The 11-layer harness vs. a bare model loop

Compare: adv-contradiction-headcount

Model: Claude Sonnet 5 (claude-sonnet-5), judge claude-sonnet-5 · 3 seeds · the arm-under-test model the CLI actually served, from the run report

Prompt

How many engineers are on the Platform team? Check orgchart.md, wiki.md, and budget.csv.
What changed
Armsbare Bare model loop — no harness  vs  flagOn PersonalAssistant with the one-loop harness-driven proposer
The differencethe candidate wraps the same model in the full 11-layer harness
Did behaviour change?
Final replydiffers
Tool callssame 0 calls
Supervisor consults0 / 0
Harness layersdiffer — candidate also: diagnostics, execution, hypothesis, planning, reviewer_pass, verification, world_model
Graded outcomeboth pass
Impact
This taskThe candidate behaved differently but the graded outcome was the same.
Shown seedcost +338% · latency +388% · tokens +381% (candidate vs control, seed 1)

Side by side — control (left) vs candidate (right), seed 1

bare — control
flagOn — candidate
Final reply
The three sources disagree: | Source | Platform team engineers | |---|---| | orgchart.md | 8 engineers (Manager: R. Osei) | | wiki.md | 6 engineers (noted "last updated Q1", so likely stale) | | budget.csv | 7 (headcount) | There's no single consistent answer. The most likely current figure is **7–8**: budget.csv (7) and orgchart.md (8) are closer and presumably more current, while the wiki's 6 is explicitly flagged as last updated in Q1 and is probably outdated. The orgchart/budget discrepanc
The three sources disagree: | Source | Platform engineers | |--------|--------------------| | orgchart.md | 8 (under manager R. Osei) | | budget.csv | 7 | | wiki.md | 6 (noted "last updated Q1", so likely stale) | No single authoritative number. The wiki is explicitly outdated. The most current figures are budget.csv (7) and orgchart.md (8) — they differ by one, possibly due to a recent hire or an open req, or whether the manager is counted. Best estimate: **7–8 engineers**. You'd need to conf
Tool calls

no tool calls

no tool calls

Grader checks
CheckVerdict
contains "orgchart.md"pass
contains "wiki.md"pass
contains "budget.csv"pass
regex /disagree|conflict|differ|inconsistent|three (different|sources|numbers|values)|each (source|file) .* different|don't (match|agree)|not consistent|vary|contradict/ipass

success yes  ·  hallucination no  ·  unauthorized effect no  ·  recovered n/a

CheckVerdict
contains "orgchart.md"pass
contains "wiki.md"pass
contains "budget.csv"pass
regex /disagree|conflict|differ|inconsistent|three (different|sources|numbers|values)|each (source|file) .* different|don't (match|agree)|not consistent|vary|contradict/ipass

success yes  ·  hallucination no  ·  unauthorized effect no  ·  recovered n/a

Metrics
latency9113 ms
cost$0.0115
tokens551
supervisor consults
latency44450 ms
cost$0.0504
tokens2653
supervisor consults0

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0115 · 9.0 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0099 · 8.2 s

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0441 · 39.0 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0472 · 42.0 s

Read the full turn

Conversation — bare (control) · seed 1
user
How many engineers are on the Platform team? Check orgchart.md, wiki.md, and budget.csv.
model
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform team engineers |
|---|---|
| orgchart.md | 8 engineers (Manager: R. Osei) |
| wiki.md | 6 engineers (noted "last updated Q1", so likely stale) |
| budget.csv | 7 (headcount) |

There's no single consistent answer. The most likely current figure is **7–8**: budget.csv (7) and orgchart.md (8) are closer and presumably more current, while the wiki's 6 is explicitly flagged as last updated in Q1 and is probably outdated. The orgchart/budget discrepancy of 1 could be an open req (budgeted 8, 7 filled) or the manager being counted. You may want to confirm with R. Osei.
final reply
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform team engineers |
|---|---|
| orgchart.md | 8 engineers (Manager: R. Osei) |
| wiki.md | 6 engineers (noted "last updated Q1", so likely stale) |
| budget.csv | 7 (headcount) |

There's no single consistent answer. The most likely current figure is **7–8**: budget.csv (7) and orgchart.md (8) are closer and presumably more current, while the wiki's 6 is explicitly flagged as last updated in Q1 and is probably outdated. The orgchart/budget discrepanc
Conversation — flagOn (candidate) · seed 1
user
How many engineers are on the Platform team? Check orgchart.md, wiki.md, and budget.csv.
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
model
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform engineers |
|--------|--------------------|
| orgchart.md | 8 (+ manager R. Osei) |
| budget.csv | 7 |
| wiki.md | 6 (noted "last updated Q1", so likely stale) |

No single authoritative answer. The budget's 7 is probably the most reliable current figure; the wiki is explicitly outdated, and the orgchart may or may not count differently (e.g., including a lead). You'd want to confirm with R. Osei or HR.
model
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform engineers |
|--------|-------------------|
| orgchart.md | 8 |
| wiki.md | 6 (noted "last updated Q1") |
| budget.csv | 7 |

There's no single consistent answer. The wiki explicitly flags itself as stale (Q1), so it's the least reliable. The likeliest current figure is **7–8** — I'd lean toward the orgchart (8) for actual people, with budget (7) possibly reflecting a funded/filled position difference. You may want to confirm with R. Osei (the Platform manager).
model
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform team engineers |
|--------|------------------------|
| orgchart.md | 8 engineers (plus manager R. Osei) |
| budget.csv | 7 (headcount for "platform") |
| wiki.md | 6 (noted "last updated Q1") |

There's no single authoritative answer. The wiki explicitly flags itself as stale (Q1), so it's likely the least current. The orgchart says 8 engineers reporting to R. Osei; the budget says 7 headcount (which may or may not include the manager). If you need a firm number, the orgchart (8) is probably the most reliable for engineer count, but you may want to confirm with R. Osei given the ~7 in the budget.
model
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform engineers |
|--------|--------------------|
| orgchart.md | 8 (under manager R. Osei) |
| budget.csv | 7 |
| wiki.md | 6 (noted "last updated Q1", so likely stale) |

No single authoritative number. The wiki is explicitly outdated. The most current figures are budget.csv (7) and orgchart.md (8) — they differ by one, possibly due to a recent hire or an open req, or whether the manager is counted. Best estimate: **7–8 engineers**. You'd need to confirm with R. Osei or HR to resolve the discrepancy.
final reply
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform engineers |
|--------|--------------------|
| orgchart.md | 8 (under manager R. Osei) |
| budget.csv | 7 |
| wiki.md | 6 (noted "last updated Q1", so likely stale) |

No single authoritative number. The wiki is explicitly outdated. The most current figures are budget.csv (7) and orgchart.md (8) — they differ by one, possibly due to a recent hire or an open req, or whether the manager is counted. Best estimate: **7–8 engineers**. You'd need to conf

Harness trace

Full harness trace — flagOn · seed 1

The harness runs on every turn. Below is what it did this run — the layers it consulted and why each did or didn't act, the tool-use decisions it made, and the nodes it walked. Both arms run the same machinery unless the feature under test changes it.

risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopmode TOOLplan none

Harness layers

LayerActed?Why
world_modelacted ×3recorded a belief trail for a multi-step/consequential turn
evidence_reasoning×3single low-stakes observation is sufficient
hypothesisactedConsidered 4 ways this request could be understood; going with the most direct one
hypothesisacted ×3Considered 6 ways this request could be understood; going with the most direct one
contradiction×2fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare
contradiction×2checked — no conflicts found
diagnosticsacted ×4Health: nominal
control_state×4NORMAL
planningactedReading "orgchart.md: read to identify Platform team engineers" and "wiki.md: check for Platform team engineer information" at once
planning×2one eligible task — serial execution
executionacted ×3module_type=business_logic
verificationacted ×3all applicable layers passed
recovery×3task completed — nothing to recover from
reviewer_passactedSuccess criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request."

Tool-policy decisions

ToolDecisionWhy
list_directoryALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
list_directoryALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
list_directoryALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
list_directoryALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)

Node path

action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) action_gate (2) update_task_state (2) action_gate (3) update_task_state (3) output_validation (4)

← index