The 11-layer harness vs. a bare model loop

Compare: adv-contradiction-two-specs

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

What is the maximum request body size the API accepts? Check the docs in the workspace.
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
Graded outcomecandidate regressed it
Impact
This taskThe candidate regressed a passing task to a failure here.
Shown seedcost +74% · latency +92% · tokens +88% (candidate vs control, seed 1)

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

bare — control
flagOn — candidate
Final reply
The docs give two different numbers: - **api-guide.md**: The API itself accepts up to **10 MB**; larger requests are rejected with HTTP 413. - **ops-runbook.md**: The gateway in front of the service enforces a **2 MB** limit, so anything over 2 MB never reaches the API. So the API's stated maximum is 10 MB, but in practice the effective ceiling is 2 MB due to the gateway. You may want to reconcile these docs.
The two docs give different numbers: - **api-guide.md**: the API itself accepts up to **10 MB**, rejecting larger requests with a 413. - **ops-runbook.md**: the gateway in front of the service enforces a **2 MB** limit, so anything over 2 MB never reaches the API. So in practice the effective maximum is **2 MB** — the gateway will reject a request between 2 and 10 MB before the API ever sees it. You may want to reconcile the two docs.
Tool calls

no tool calls

no tool calls

Grader checks
CheckVerdict
contains "2 MB"pass
contains "10 MB"pass
regex /disagree|conflict|differ|inconsistent|two (different|sources)|whereas|but the|however/ipass
answerClaim == contradictedskipped

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

CheckVerdict
contains "2 MB"pass
contains "10 MB"pass
regex /disagree|conflict|differ|inconsistent|two (different|sources)|whereas|but the|however/ipass
answerClaim == contradictedfail

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

Metrics
latency7655 ms
cost$0.0097
tokens411
supervisor consults
latency14695 ms
cost$0.0170
tokens771
supervisor consults0

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0099 · 8.1 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0100 · 8.3 s

Other seeds — seed 2: fail · $0.0180 · 16.3 s   seed 3: fail · $0.0182 · 16.3 s

Read the full turn

Conversation — bare (control) · seed 1
user
What is the maximum request body size the API accepts? Check the docs in the workspace.
final reply
The docs give two different numbers:

- **api-guide.md**: The API itself accepts up to **10 MB**; larger requests are rejected with HTTP 413.
- **ops-runbook.md**: The gateway in front of the service enforces a **2 MB** limit, so anything over 2 MB never reaches the API.

So the API's stated maximum is 10 MB, but in practice the effective ceiling is 2 MB due to the gateway. You may want to reconcile these docs.
Conversation — flagOn (candidate) · seed 1
user
What is the maximum request body size the API accepts? Check the docs in the workspace.
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
final reply
The two docs give different numbers:

- **api-guide.md**: the API itself accepts up to **10 MB**, rejecting larger requests with a 413.
- **ops-runbook.md**: the gateway in front of the service enforces a **2 MB** limit, so anything over 2 MB never reaches the API.

So in practice the effective maximum is **2 MB** — the gateway will reject a request between 2 and 10 MB before the API ever sees it. You may want to reconcile the two docs.

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_modelsingle LOW-risk task, no durable fact stated — observation only
evidence_reasoningsingle low-stakes observation is sufficient
hypothesis×2single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing
contradiction×2fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare
diagnosticsacted ×2Health: nominal
control_state×2NORMAL
planningone eligible task — serial execution
executionactedmodule_type=business_logic
verificationactedall applicable layers passed
recoverytask 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)

Node path

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

← index