One-loop harness-driven proposer

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
Armsbaseline PersonalAssistant as shipped — harness runs post-hoc over the reply  vs  flagOn PersonalAssistant with the one-loop harness-driven proposer
The differencethe candidate lets the harness drive tool calls in-loop instead of reviewing an already-finished reply
Did behaviour change?
Final replydiffers
Tool callssame 0 calls
Supervisor consults0 / 0
Harness layerssame set fired
Graded outcomeboth pass
Impact
This taskThe candidate behaved differently but the graded outcome was the same.
Shown seedcost +109% · latency +176% · tokens +148% (candidate vs control, seed 1)

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

baseline — control
flagOn — candidate
Final reply
The three sources disagree: | Source | Count | Note | |--------|-------|------| | orgchart.md | 8 engineers | Manager R. Osei listed separately | | budget.csv | 7 | "headcount" — may or may not include the manager | | wiki.md | 6 | explicitly "last updated Q1", likely stale | There's no single consistent answer. The most current-looking figure is **8** (orgchart.md); budget.csv's 7 is close and could differ over whether the manager counts as headcount. The wiki's 6 is flagged as outdated. If y
The three sources disagree: | Source | Platform team engineers | |--------|------------------------| | orgchart.md | 8 engineers (Manager: R. Osei) | | wiki.md | 6 engineers ("last updated Q1") | | budget.csv | 7 (headcount, may include manager/non-engineers) | There's no consistent answer. The wiki explicitly notes it's stale (Q1), so it's likely outdated. The orgchart and budget are closest (8 vs. 7), and the difference could be whether the manager is counted. Best estimate: **7–8 engineers*
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
latency16508 ms
cost$0.0203
tokens1062
supervisor consults0
latency45574 ms
cost$0.0425
tokens2629
supervisor consults0

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0160 · 16.2 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0189 · 15.8 s

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0445 · 41.8 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0435 · 41.3 s

Read the full turn

Conversation — baseline (control) · seed 1
user
How many engineers are on the Platform team? Check orgchart.md, wiki.md, and budget.csv.
risk LOW
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
model
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Count | Note |
|--------|-------|------|
| orgchart.md | 8 engineers | Manager R. Osei listed separately |
| budget.csv | 7 | "headcount" — may or may not include the manager |
| wiki.md | 6 | explicitly "last updated Q1", likely stale |

There's no single consistent answer. The most current-looking figure is **8** (orgchart.md); budget.csv's 7 is close and could differ over whether the manager counts as headcount. The wiki's 6 is flagged as outdated. If you need a precise number, it's worth confirming with R. Osei.
final reply
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Count | Note |
|--------|-------|------|
| orgchart.md | 8 engineers | Manager R. Osei listed separately |
| budget.csv | 7 | "headcount" — may or may not include the manager |
| wiki.md | 6 | explicitly "last updated Q1", likely stale |

There's no single consistent answer. The most current-looking figure is **8** (orgchart.md); budget.csv's 7 is close and could differ over whether the manager counts as headcount. The wiki's 6 is flagged as outdated. If y
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 |
| budget.csv | 7 |
| wiki.md | 6 (noted "last updated Q1") |

There's no single confirmed number. The orgchart is usually the most current for headcount (8, under manager R. Osei), and the budget's 7 is close. The wiki's 6 is explicitly stale. If you need an authoritative figure, I'd confirm with R. Osei, but the best estimate is 7–8.
model
The three sources disagree:

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

No single authoritative answer. The wiki figure is explicitly stale (Q1). The most likely current number is **7–8** — budget.csv (7) and orgchart.md (8) are the more current sources, with the discrepancy possibly being an open req or a very recent hire. You may want to confirm with R. Osei.
model
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Figure |
|---|---|
| orgchart.md | 8 engineers (Manager: R. Osei) |
| wiki.md | 6 engineers (noted "last updated Q1" — likely stale) |
| budget.csv | 7 (headcount for "platform" — may include non-engineers) |

There's no single consistent answer. The orgchart says **8**, which is the most explicitly "engineers" and likely most current; the wiki's 6 is self-described as outdated, and the budget's 7 is a headcount that may not be engineers-only. If you need a definitive number, confirm with R. Osei.
model
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform team engineers |
|--------|------------------------|
| orgchart.md | 8 engineers (Manager: R. Osei) |
| wiki.md | 6 engineers ("last updated Q1") |
| budget.csv | 7 (headcount, may include manager/non-engineers) |

There's no consistent answer. The wiki explicitly notes it's stale (Q1), so it's likely outdated. The orgchart and budget are closest (8 vs. 7), and the difference could be whether the manager is counted. Best estimate: **7–8 engineers**, but you may want to confirm with R. Osei since the records don't agree.
final reply
The three sources disagree:

| Source | Platform team engineers |
|--------|------------------------|
| orgchart.md | 8 engineers (Manager: R. Osei) |
| wiki.md | 6 engineers ("last updated Q1") |
| budget.csv | 7 (headcount, may include manager/non-engineers) |

There's no consistent answer. The wiki explicitly notes it's stale (Q1), so it's likely outdated. The orgchart and budget are closest (8 vs. 7), and the difference could be whether the manager is counted. Best estimate: **7–8 engineers*

Harness trace

Full harness trace — baseline · 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_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: check for Platform team engineer listings" 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)

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)

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: check for Platform team engineer count" and "wiki.md: check for Platform team engineer count" 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