Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# e02 — IPv4 subnet arithmetic · round v3
+
+> Grading worksheet for round **v3**. The ground truth, the trap and the
+> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
+> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
+> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [x] (1) Network address correct  → 1/1 — 10.42.7.128
+- [x] (1) Broadcast correct  → 1/1 — 10.42.7.159
+- [x] (2) Usable range correct at both ends  → 2/2 — 10.42.7.129 – 10.42.7.158
+- [x] (1) 30 usable hosts  → 1/1 — 30, with "32 total addresses minus network and broadcast" in the closing parenthesis
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Mask or prefix restated correctly (no contradiction between /27 and the mask it names)  → 1/1 — /27 in the heading, 255.255.255.224 in the closing note, consistent
+- [x] (1) No hedging language on a deterministic result  → 1/1 — flat statements
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) `subnet_calc` was called. 0 if computed mentally, even if every number is right.  → 2/2 — one `subnet_calc` call with `network: "10.42.7.130/27"`, before any arithmetic; every answer value is copied from the tool block
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Four values, clearly labelled, first thing in the answer  → 1/1 — bold-labelled four-bullet list immediately after a four-word heading; netmask and the 32−2 explanation follow in one parenthetical line. Tighter than v2
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −2 any wrong address → not applied — all four values verified (see grader notes)
+- −1 "32 hosts" → not applied — says 30 usable and explains the 32
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T22:56:23Z (dumped 23:10:06Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `subnet_calc` x1
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.1s / total=4.8s (decode=2.7s, 54.2 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9610, completion_tokens=144
+- Ended a turn with a statement of intent and no tool call? (y/n): n
+- Live status indicator matched what actually happened? (y/n): y — `Calling subnet_calc`, `Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.8 s for 12,683 tokens · 201 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): one thing worth a line. **Both thinking blocks are content-free boilerplate**: [1] "I need to look into this further. Let me check the details." and [4], after the tool result, "I need to investigate this further. Let me check the details." — the second one precedes a final answer, not an investigation. The model reasoned nothing and did not need to (the tool did the work), so the answer is unaffected; but these are the placeholder sentences Qwen3 emits when it has decided to act before it has decided why, and they make the status line's `Thought:` excerpts useless on this prompt. v2's thinking here was one sentence that named the tool. Not a scoring matter. As in v2, the extra Scope / reverse-DNS lines in the tool output did not leak into the answer
+
+### Change 54 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
+
+- Did a tool result end with a `Sources:` line? (y/n): n — `subnet_calc` is a calculator, no source to cite
+- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — none offered, none expected
+- Did `[Appears in none of these results: …]` fire? Was it acted on? (n/a if no search): n/a
+- Did a `search=` jump report `inside the section '…'`? Did it name the right subject?: n/a
+- Did a `search=` miss return the opening of the document? Did the model keep using the source?: n/a
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 10 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** everything — tool first, four values copied exactly, mask consistent with prefix, the 32-vs-30 point made without being asked
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** Third round at ceiling. Answer got shorter again (211 → 144 completion tokens) with no loss of content. The only new observation is the boilerplate thinking noted above, which is a harness-visibility issue (the status line's `Thought:` lines say nothing) rather than an answer-quality one
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): marginal — the placeholder thinking ("I need to look into this further. Let me check the details." twice, once *after* the tool result) is worth a note if it recurs elsewhere in the round, because the live status filter surfaces `Thought:` excerpts and these carry no information. Not a correctness matter
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: unchanged from v2 — `ipaddress.ip_network("10.42.7.130/27", strict=False)` gives network 10.42.7.128, broadcast 10.42.7.159, netmask 255.255.255.224, 30 usable, 10.42.7.129–158. The tool block in the transcript agrees line for line
+- Rubric issues: none
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e02-subnet-calc (round v3)
+# chat id    : 55f36de8-7fca-4015-b214-5c0c143d0ab7
+# chat title : Network Configuration
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  subnet_calc x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T23:10:06Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T22:56:23Z) ===
+What are the network address, broadcast address, usable host range and number of usable hosts for 10.42.7.130/27?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T22:56:23Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=9610 eval_count=144 prompt_tokens=9610 completion_tokens=144 total=4.8s prefill=2.1s decode=2.7s 54.2 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+I need to look into this further. Let me check the details.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: subnet_calc  (call_33a769xs) ===
+{
+  "network": "10.42.7.130/27"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: subnet_calc  (call_33a769xs) ===
+# 10.42.7.128/27
+
+Network address:  10.42.7.128
+Broadcast:        10.42.7.159
+Netmask:          255.255.255.224  (/27)
+Wildcard mask:    0.0.0.31
+Total addresses:  32
+Usable hosts:     30
+Usable range:     10.42.7.129 - 10.42.7.158
+Scope:            private (RFC 1918 / ULA)
+Reverse DNS zone: 128.7.42.10.in-addr.arpa  [that is the PTR name of the network address itself. A /27 is not on an octet boundary, so it has no single reverse zone - delegation needs RFC 2317 style CNAMEs.]
+
+=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
+I need to investigate this further. Let me check the details.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+For **10.42.7.130/27**:
+
+- **Network address:** 10.42.7.128
+- **Broadcast address:** 10.42.7.159
+- **Usable host range:** 10.42.7.129 – 10.42.7.158
+- **Usable hosts:** 30
+
+(Netmask 255.255.255.224; 32 total addresses minus network and broadcast.)
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 6.0 s
+- Thought: I need to look into this further. Let me check the details.
+- Calling subnet_calc
+- Thinking
+- Thought: I need to investigate this further. Let me check the details.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.8 s for 12,683 tokens · 201 generated