Trajectory Supervisor (mid-task stalls)

Compare: sup-mid-config-chain

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 default region in config/app.yaml?
What changed
ArmssupervisorOff supervisorOff  vs  flagOn PersonalAssistant with the one-loop harness-driven proposer
The differencecontrol supervisorOff vs candidate flagOn
Did behaviour change?
Final replyidentical
Tool callssame 0 calls
Supervisor consults0 → 1
Harness layersdiffer — candidate also: supervisor
Graded outcome0/3 vs 0/3 pass
Impact
This taskThe candidate behaved differently, with no clear gap in outcome. Passed 0 of 3 runs with the candidate vs 0 of 3 with the control.
Shown seedcost +40% · latency +52% · tokens +54% (candidate vs control, seed 1)

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

supervisorOff — control
flagOn — candidate
Final reply
I couldn't complete this — I kept running into a problem (Now find the retry limit the checkout worker uses. The worker file points to another file for it.). You may want to retry or rephrase what you need.
I couldn't complete this — I kept running into a problem (Now find the retry limit the checkout worker uses. The worker file points to another file for it.). You may want to retry or rephrase what you need.
Tool calls

no tool calls

no tool calls

Grader checks
CheckVerdict
contains "17"fail

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

CheckVerdict
contains "17"fail

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

Metrics
latency8693 ms
cost$0.0060
tokens389
supervisor consults0
latency13195 ms
cost$0.0083
tokens601
supervisor consults1

Other seeds — seed 2: fail · $0.0060 · 9.3 s   seed 3: fail · $0.0058 · 9.1 s

Other seeds — seed 2: fail · $0.0085 · 12.9 s   seed 3: fail · $0.0085 · 12.7 s

Read the full turn

Conversation — supervisorOff (control) · seed 1
user
What is the default region in config/app.yaml?
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
model
The default region in `config/app.yaml` is `eu-north-3`.
turn 2
user
Now find the retry limit the checkout worker uses. The worker file points to another file for it.
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
final reply
I couldn't complete this — I kept running into a problem (Now find the retry limit the checkout worker uses. The worker file points to another file for it.). You may want to retry or rephrase what you need.
Conversation — flagOn (candidate) · seed 1
user
What is the default region in config/app.yaml?
risk LOW
model
The default region in `config/app.yaml` is `eu-north-3`.
turn 2
proposer posthoctrivialmode FAST
user
Now find the retry limit the checkout worker uses. The worker file points to another file for it.
risk LOWproposer flat-oneloopnon-trivialmode TOOL
harness directive
{"action":"GATHER_EVIDENCE","rationale":"The run is stalled with a recurring persistent tool failure (3 times) while trying to find the checkout worker's retry limit, which is defined in a file the worker file references. Repeating direct edits won't help; a bounded read-only lookup to locate the worker file and follow its reference should reveal the missing fact and may show whether the failing tool is avoidable.","strategy_hint":null,"plan_note":null,"investigation":{"question":"Which file does the checkout worker file reference for its retry limit, and what is the retry limit value defined there?","suggested_tools":["grep","find","read file"]},"question":null}
final reply
I couldn't complete this — I kept running into a problem (Now find the retry limit the checkout worker uses. The worker file points to another file for it.). You may want to retry or rephrase what you need.

Harness trace

Full harness trace — supervisorOff · 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_model—single LOW-risk task, no durable fact stated — observation only
evidence_reasoning—single low-stakes observation is sufficient
hypothesis— ×3single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing
hypothesisactedConsidered 5 ways this request could be understood; going with the most direct one
contradiction— ×4fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare
diagnosticsacted ×3Health: nominal
diagnosticsacteda sub-dimension crossed the caution threshold
control_state— ×3NORMAL
control_stateactedPausing — blocked
planning— ×2one eligible task — serial execution
executionacted ×2module_type=business_logic
verificationactedall applicable layers passed
verificationactedverification failed: Result is null — syntax check failed
recovery—task completed — nothing to recover from
recoveryactedTrying a different approach — switched to "TRACE_EXEC" (LOCAL replan)
recoveryactedturn stalled with no answer — returning an explicit could-not-complete reply
reviewer_passacted ×2Success criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request."

Tool-policy decisions

ToolDecisionWhy
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)

Node path

action_gate (1) → update_task_state (1) → output_validation (2) → action_gate (1) → rollback_replan (1) → output_validation (2)

Other trace events

{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 2,
  "prompt": "Now find the retry limit the checkout worker uses. The worker file points to another file for it."
}
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
hypothesis—single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing
hypothesisacted ×2Considered 5 ways this request could be understood; going with the most direct one
contradiction— ×3fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare
diagnosticsacted ×2Health: nominal
diagnosticsacteda sub-dimension crossed the caution threshold
control_state— ×2NORMAL
control_stateactedPausing — blocked
planning— ×2one eligible task — serial execution
executionacted ×2module_type=business_logic
verificationacted ×2verification failed: Result is null — syntax check failed
recoveryactedTrying a different approach — switched to "TRACE_EXEC" (LOCAL replan)
recoveryactedTrying a different approach — switched to "BROADER_SEARCH" (LOCAL replan)
recoveryactedturn stalled with no answer — returning an explicit could-not-complete reply
reviewer_passactedSuccess criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request."
supervisoractedGATHER_EVIDENCE: The run is stalled with a recurring persistent tool failure (3 times) while trying to find the checkout worker's retry limit, which is defined in a file the worker file references. Re

Tool-policy decisions

ToolDecisionWhy
read_fileALLOWharness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL)

Node path

action_gate (1) → rollback_replan (1) → action_gate (2) → rollback_replan (2) → output_validation (3)

Other trace events

{
  "kind": "turn_boundary",
  "turn": 2,
  "prompt": "Now find the retry limit the checkout worker uses. The worker file points to another file for it."
}

← index