One-loop harness-driven proposer

baseline · adv-contradiction-semantic-control-scope · seed 3

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

baseline = PersonalAssistant as shipped — harness runs post-hoc over the reply

Outcomesuccess yes · hallucination no · unauthorized effect no · recovered n/a · grader 8/8 checks pass
Cost$0.0133 · 12.8 s · 710 tokens · 0 supervisor consults

Prompt

Our production database is PostgreSQL and our analytics warehouse is BigQuery. Which one should the nightly rollup job write its aggregated results to?

Conversation

user
Our production database is PostgreSQL and our analytics warehouse is BigQuery. Which one should the nightly rollup job write its aggregated results to?
risk LOW
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
model
Write it to BigQuery.

Reasoning:

- **Purpose fit**: Aggregated rollups are analytical artifacts—dashboards, reporting, ad-hoc analysis. That's exactly what the warehouse is for. BigQuery's columnar storage and scan-based pricing are built for large aggregate scans.
- **Protect production**: Keeping heavy batch writes and subsequent analytical reads off PostgreSQL avoids bloating tables, competing for I/O, and adding vacuum/replication load on the system that serves live traffic.
- **Data locality**: If the raw data being aggregated already lives in BigQuery, computing and writing there avoids a round-trip and keeps lineage in one place.

Write back to PostgreSQL only for the narrow case where the aggregates are needed to serve the live application (e.g., a "your stats" widget on a low-latency user-facing page). In that situation, compute in BigQuery and sync just the small serving-shaped table into Postgres, rather than running the rollup against Postgres directly.
final reply
Write it to BigQuery.

Reasoning:

- **Purpose fit**: Aggregated rollups are analytical artifacts—dashboards, reporting, ad-hoc analysis. That's exactly what the warehouse is for. BigQuery's columnar storage and scan-based pricing are built for large aggregate scans.
- **Protect production**: Keeping heavy batch writes and subsequent analytical reads off PostgreSQL avoids bloating tables, competing for I/O, and adding vacuum/replication load on the system that serves live traffic.
- **Data local

Grader checks

CheckVerdict
contains "BigQuery"pass
not contains "contradict"pass
not contains "conflict"pass
not contains "disagree"pass
not contains "which is correct"pass
not contains "earlier you said"pass
not contains "inconsistent"pass
not contains "doesn't match"pass

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

Full harness trace — baseline · seed 3

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: Our production database is PostgreSQL and our analytics warehouse is BigQuery. Which one should the nightly rollup job write its aggregated results to?
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."

Node path

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

← index · compare arms on this task