One-loop harness-driven proposer

Compare: adv-contradiction-semantic-control-scope

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

Our production database is PostgreSQL and our analytics warehouse is BigQuery. Which one should the nightly rollup job write its aggregated results to?
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 -37% · latency -15% · tokens -23% (candidate vs control, seed 1)

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

baseline — control
flagOn — candidate
Final reply
Write the aggregated results to **BigQuery**, your analytics warehouse. Reasoning: - **Fit for purpose.** Rollups are analytical artifacts consumed by dashboards, reports, and ad hoc analysis. BigQuery's columnar storage and MPP execution are built for scanning and aggregating large tables; Postgres is optimized for transactional row-level access. - **Isolation.** A heavy nightly batch writing into your production OLTP database competes for I/O, cache, locks, and vacuum resources with live app
Write the aggregated results to **BigQuery**. Reasoning: - **Purpose fit.** Rollups are analytical artifacts — pre-aggregated metrics meant for reporting, dashboards, and ad-hoc analysis. That's exactly what the warehouse is for. - **Keep OLTP lean.** Your PostgreSQL production database should stay focused on transactional workloads. Adding aggregate tables invites bloat, extra vacuum pressure, contention, and storage growth that competes with live traffic. - **Query patterns.** BigQuery's col
Tool calls

no tool calls

no tool calls

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

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

Metrics
latency15404 ms
cost$0.0151
tokens896
supervisor consults0
latency13074 ms
cost$0.0096
tokens688
supervisor consults0

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0104 · 14.5 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0133 · 12.8 s

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0116 · 16.3 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0093 · 13.2 s

Read the full turn

Conversation — baseline (control) · seed 1
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 the aggregated results to **BigQuery**, your analytics warehouse.

Reasoning:

- **Fit for purpose.** Rollups are analytical artifacts consumed by dashboards, reports, and ad hoc analysis. BigQuery's columnar storage and MPP execution are built for scanning and aggregating large tables; Postgres is optimized for transactional row-level access.
- **Isolation.** A heavy nightly batch writing into your production OLTP database competes for I/O, cache, locks, and vacuum resources with live application traffic. Keeping it in BigQuery protects production latency.
- **Source data locality.** If the raw event/analytics data already lives in BigQuery, doing the aggregation there avoids extracting large volumes out and back in. You can compute the rollup with a scheduled query or `INSERT ... SELECT` into a rollup table/materialized view.
- **Cost/scaling.** Storage and compute scale independently in BigQuery, and rollup tables shrink scan costs for downstream queries.

When it *would* make sense to also write (a slice) back to PostgreSQL:

- The production application itself needs to read these aggregates at low latency to serve user-facing features (e.g. showing a account-level usage counter in the app UI).
- In that case, compute in BigQuery, then sync only the small, needed subset back to Postgres.

Default: BigQuery for the rollup output; mirror to Postgres only for specific operational read paths.
final reply
Write the aggregated results to **BigQuery**, your analytics warehouse.

Reasoning:

- **Fit for purpose.** Rollups are analytical artifacts consumed by dashboards, reports, and ad hoc analysis. BigQuery's columnar storage and MPP execution are built for scanning and aggregating large tables; Postgres is optimized for transactional row-level access.
- **Isolation.** A heavy nightly batch writing into your production OLTP database competes for I/O, cache, locks, and vacuum resources with live app
Conversation — flagOn (candidate) · seed 1
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 the aggregated results to **BigQuery**.

Reasoning:

- **Purpose fit.** Rollups are analytical artifacts — pre-aggregated metrics meant for reporting, dashboards, and ad-hoc analysis. That's exactly what the warehouse is for.
- **Keep OLTP lean.** Your PostgreSQL production database should stay focused on transactional workloads. Adding aggregate tables invites bloat, extra vacuum pressure, contention, and storage growth that competes with live traffic.
- **Query patterns.** BigQuery's columnar, scan-heavy engine is built for aggregation queries over large ranges; Postgres is optimized for selective indexed row lookups.
- **Source of truth.** If the rollup reads from raw data that already lands in BigQuery, keeping the pipeline within one system simplifies lineage, backfills, and reprocessing.

Exception: if a specific rollup exists to serve the *application itself* in real time (e.g., a user-facing "your stats" widget that needs low-latency point reads), write that particular result back to Postgres — or to a cache/serving store. But the default for a nightly analytics rollup is BigQuery.
final reply
Write the aggregated results to **BigQuery**.

Reasoning:

- **Purpose fit.** Rollups are analytical artifacts — pre-aggregated metrics meant for reporting, dashboards, and ad-hoc analysis. That's exactly what the warehouse is for.
- **Keep OLTP lean.** Your PostgreSQL production database should stay focused on transactional workloads. Adding aggregate tables invites bloat, extra vacuum pressure, contention, and storage growth that competes with live traffic.
- **Query patterns.** BigQuery's col

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_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)

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: 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