The 11-layer harness vs. a bare model loop

Compare: adv-contradiction-mt-indirect

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

Note that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz.
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, reviewer_pass, verification, world_model
Graded outcomeboth pass
Impact
This taskThe candidate behaved differently but the graded outcome was the same.
Shown seedcost +243% · latency +114% · tokens -58% (candidate vs control, seed 1)

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

bare — control
flagOn — candidate
Final reply
Quick flag: this conflicts with what you told me earlier — that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz. Now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb, who runs the payments team. How would you like me to reconcile this? Options: - Marcus Webb replaces Dana Ruiz as owner (updated info) - Dana Ruiz stays as owner; Marcus Webb is noted separately (e.g., payments team lead / escalation) - Both are owners Current notes for the billing service: - Owner: Dana Ruiz ← conflicting - Written in Go - D
Noted — though flagging a conflict: you earlier said the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz, and now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb. Which should I treat as current? Or is one of them (e.g. Dana) more of a technical/day-to-day owner while the other has overall responsibility?
Tool calls

no tool calls

no tool calls

Grader checks
CheckVerdict
regex /conflict|contradict|inconsist|does ?n[o']t match|differ|earlier|previously|before you|you (said|mentioned|noted|told|stated)|Dana|two (different )?(owners|people)/ipass

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

CheckVerdict
regex /conflict|contradict|inconsist|does ?n[o']t match|differ|earlier|previously|before you|you (said|mentioned|noted|told|stated)|Dana|two (different )?(owners|people)/ipass

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

Metrics
latency15374 ms
cost$0.0163
tokens3537
supervisor consults
latency32831 ms
cost$0.0560
tokens1489
supervisor consults0

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0158 · 14.0 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0166 · 14.9 s

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0554 · 32.6 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0560 · 32.8 s

Read the full turn

Conversation — bare (control) · seed 1
user
Note that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz.
model
I don't see a question or task yet. Let me know what you'd like help with, and I can dig into the workspace or run commands as needed.
turn 2
model
Got it — billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz and written in Go. Let me know what you'd like me to do with that.
turn 3
model
Noted. So far for the billing service:

- Owned by Dana Ruiz
- Written in Go
- Deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday

Let me know what you'd like me to do with this.
turn 4
model
Quick flag: this conflicts with what you told me earlier — that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz. Now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb, who runs the payments team.

How would you like me to reconcile this? Options:

- Marcus Webb replaces Dana Ruiz as owner (updated info)
- Dana Ruiz stays as owner; Marcus Webb is noted separately (e.g., payments team lead / escalation)
- Both are owners

Current notes for the billing service:

- Owner: Dana Ruiz  ← conflicting
- Written in Go
- Deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday
- Marcus Webb runs the payments team
final reply
Quick flag: this conflicts with what you told me earlier — that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz. Now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb, who runs the payments team.

How would you like me to reconcile this? Options:

- Marcus Webb replaces Dana Ruiz as owner (updated info)
- Dana Ruiz stays as owner; Marcus Webb is noted separately (e.g., payments team lead / escalation)
- Both are owners

Current notes for the billing service:

- Owner: Dana Ruiz  ← conflicting
- Written in Go
- D
Conversation — flagOn (candidate) · seed 1
user
Note that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz.
risk LOW
model
Got it — noted that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz. Let me know if you need anything with it.
turn 2
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
The billing service is written in Go.
risk LOW
model
Got it — billing service is written in Go, owned by Dana Ruiz.
turn 3
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
It deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday.
risk LOW
model
Got it — billing service (Go, owned by Dana Ruiz) deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday.
turn 4
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
Add that the person who runs the payments team, Marcus Webb, is the billing service owner.
risk LOW
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
final reply
Noted — though flagging a conflict: you earlier said the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz, and now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb. Which should I treat as current? Or is one of them (e.g. Dana) more of a technical/day-to-day owner while the other has overall responsibility?

Harness trace

Full harness trace — bare · 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.

Other trace events

{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 2,
  "prompt": "The billing service is written in Go."
}
{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 3,
  "prompt": "It deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday."
}
{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 4,
  "prompt": "Add that the person who runs the payments team, Marcus Webb, is the billing service owner."
}
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 posthocmode TOOLplan none

Harness layers

LayerActed?Why
world_modelactedRemembered: Note that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz.
world_modelactedRemembered: The billing service is written in Go.
world_modelactedRemembered: It deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday.
world_modelactedRemembered: Add that the person who runs the payments team, Marcus Webb, is the billing service owner.
evidence_reasoning×4single low-stakes observation is sufficient
hypothesis×8single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing
contradiction×5fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare
contradiction×3checked — no conflicts found
diagnosticsacted ×8Health: nominal
control_state×8NORMAL
planning×4one eligible task — serial execution
executionacted ×4module_type=business_logic
verificationacted ×4all applicable layers passed
recovery×4task completed — nothing to recover from
reviewer_passacted ×4Success criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request."

Node path

action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2) action_gate (1) update_task_state (1) output_validation (2)

Other trace events

{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 2,
  "prompt": "The billing service is written in Go."
}
{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 3,
  "prompt": "It deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday."
}
{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 4,
  "prompt": "Add that the person who runs the payments team, Marcus Webb, is the billing service owner."
}

← index