Semantic contradiction check

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
ArmscontradictionOff PersonalAssistant with the semantic contradiction check disabled (lexical pass only)  vs  flagOn PersonalAssistant with the one-loop harness-driven proposer
The differencecontrol contradictionOff vs candidate flagOn
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 +55% · latency -7% · tokens -12% (candidate vs control, seed 1)

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

contradictionOff — control
flagOn — candidate
Final reply
Noted — though flagging a conflict: earlier you told me the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz, and now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb (who runs the payments team). Which should I treat as the current owner, or is one of them a different role (e.g. Dana as day-to-day maintainer, Marcus as the team lead)?
That conflicts with what you told me earlier — you said the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz. Now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb, who runs the payments team. Which should I record as the owner? Or is one of them the owner and the other something else (e.g. team lead vs. service owner)?
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
latency33091 ms
cost$0.0348
tokens1597
supervisor consults0
latency30767 ms
cost$0.0541
tokens1404
supervisor consults0

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0341 · 31.3 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0332 · 30.7 s

Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0349 · 35.0 s   seed 3: pass · $0.0412 · 31.6 s

Read the full turn

Conversation — contradictionOff (control) · seed 1
user
Note that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz.
risk LOW
model
Noted — the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz. What would you like me to help with?
turn 2
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
The billing service is written in Go.
risk LOW
model
Noted — the billing service is written in Go, and it's owned by Dana Ruiz. Let me know what you'd like to do with this.
turn 3
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
It deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday.
risk LOW
model
Noted — 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 to do with this.
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: earlier you told me the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz, and now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb (who runs the payments team). Which should I treat as the current owner, or is one of them a different role (e.g. Dana as day-to-day maintainer, Marcus as the team lead)?
Conversation — flagOn (candidate) · seed 1
user
Note that the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz.
risk LOW
model
Noted — the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz. Let me know if you'd like me to do anything with that.
turn 2
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
The billing service is written in Go.
risk LOW
model
Noted — the billing service is written in Go, and it's owned by Dana Ruiz.
turn 3
proposer posthocnon-trivialmode TOOL
user
It deploys via the release-train pipeline every Thursday.
risk LOW
model
Noted — the billing service (owned by Dana Ruiz, written in Go) 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
That conflicts with what you told me earlier — you said the billing service is owned by Dana Ruiz. Now you're saying the owner is Marcus Webb, who runs the payments team.

Which should I record as the owner? Or is one of them the owner and the other something else (e.g. team lead vs. service owner)?

Harness trace

Full harness trace — contradictionOff · 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."
}
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