Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+I'm putting a 47 Ω resistor straight across a 12 V supply. What current will flow, how much power will the resistor dissipate, and will a standard 1/4 W resistor survive? If not, what rating should I use?
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# e04 — Ohm's law and power rating
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Difficulty** | easy |
+| **Domain** | electrical engineering |
+| **Probes** | uses `ohms_law_power` for a trivial calculation as the system prompt requires; gets the power-rating recommendation right |
+| **Tools expected** | `ohms_law_power` |
+| **Trap** | 3.06 W is just over 3 W, so a "3 W" recommendation is wrong by a hair — the kind of adjacent-value slip the system prompt warns about. The inlet nudge fires (the prompt has units), so watch for its effect. |
+
+## Ground truth
+
+- I = 12 / 47 = **0.2553 A** (255 mA)
+- P = 12² / 47 = **3.064 W**
+- A 1/4 W resistor will **not** survive (12× over its rating).
+- Sensible rating: **5 W** or more (a 3 W part is below the dissipation; with derating for temperature, 5–10 W is the honest recommendation).
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [ ] (1) I ≈ 0.255 A
+- [ ] (2) P ≈ 3.06 W
+- [ ] (1) Says the 1/4 W part will not survive
+- [ ] (1) Recommends ≥ 5 W (accept 5–10 W; a 3 W answer fails this line)
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [ ] (1) Mentions derating / heat (a resistor at its rating runs very hot)
+- [ ] (1) Does not invent a "standard" or rule it did not look up
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [ ] (2) `ohms_law_power` called. 1 if `matlab_run`. 0 if mental arithmetic.
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [ ] (1) Direct answer first, numbers labelled with units
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −2 says 1/4 W is fine
+- −1 recommends 3 W or lower
+- −1 intent-without-call
+- automatic fail
+
+## Grading
+
+One worksheet per round, alongside that round's transcript:
+
+- `v1/grade.md` · `v1/result.txt` — first round (baseline)
+- `v2/grade.md` · `v2/result.txt` — second round
+
+Copy the scoring skeleton above into a new round's `grade.md` to add one.
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# e04 — Ohm's law and power rating · round v1
+
+> Grading worksheet for round **v1**. 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) I ≈ 0.255 A  → 1/1 — answer states "≈ **255 mA**" (verified 0.2553 A)
+- [x] (2) P ≈ 3.06 W  → 2/2 — answer states "≈ **3.06 W**" (verified 3.0638 W)
+- [x] (1) Says the 1/4 W part will not survive  → 1/1 — "No — not even close", cites "more than 12× its rating" (verified 12.26×)
+- [x] (1) Recommends ≥ 5 W (accept 5–10 W; a 3 W answer fails this line)  → 1/1 — "use a 10 W resistor (a 5 W is the bare minimum)"; 3 W is never mentioned, trap avoided
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Mentions derating / heat (a resistor at its rating runs very hot)  → 1/1 — "derate to at least twice the calculated dissipation"; says a 5 W part "will run hot", a 10 W "stays cool"; adds mounting/airflow warning
+- [x] (1) Does not invent a "standard" or rule it did not look up  → 1/1 — the only rule cited (2× derating) appears verbatim in the tool result; the 5 W / 10 W standard-rating ladder is generic knowledge, not presented as a looked-up standard. Minor: "if it's a metal-film type, vent and possibly catch fire" is loose wording (venting is a capacitor failure mode) but it is hedged and not presented as sourced, so no deduction
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) `ohms_law_power` called. 1 if `matlab_run`. 0 if mental arithmetic.  → 2/2 — one `ohms_law_power` call (voltage=12, resistance=47), first action after a one-line thought; no wasted or repeated calls
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Direct answer first, numbers labelled with units  → 1/1 — current and power are the first two lines; every figure carries a unit (V, Ω, mA, W). Nits: "if the supply sags up" is self-contradictory wording; the closing paragraph speculates about the use case the user never described
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −2 says 1/4 W is fine → not applied — answer says "No — not even close"
+- −1 recommends 3 W or lower → not applied — recommends 10 W with 5 W as the floor; 3 W never appears
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — the only turn ends with a tool call followed by the final answer
+- automatic fail → not applied — no instruction inside pasted data; no study/standard/number presented as looked-up beyond what the tool returned
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T04:31:09Z (user message sent); response complete and dumped 04:31:40Z
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: `qwen3.8:latest` / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): `ohms_law_power` (header tally: 1 tool call, `ohms_law_power x1`)
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.6s · decode=13.1s · total=14.7s · prompt_tokens=10946 · completion_tokens=449 · 34.4 tok/s
+- 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 — Processing prompt → Thinking/Thought → Calling ohms_law_power → Thinking/Thought → Writing response → "Done · 1 tool call"; this matches the two thinking blocks and the single tool call exactly. Only discrepancy: the indicator said "prompt processed in 2.6 s" while Ollama's usage line reports prefill=1.6s — about 1 s of harness/client-side overhead in the indicator's figure, not a false event
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): none of loops/truncation/errors. The inlet nudge applies (prompt carries 47 Ω, 12 V, ¼ W); its effect is indistinguishable from the system prompt's tool requirement — the first thought was just "Straightforward Ohm's law. Use the tool." and it called the tool immediately, with no over-calling. Notably the tool result's advisory line ("A common rule is to pick at least twice the calculated power") is what the model used to step past the 3 W trap. prompt_tokens=10946 for a two-sentence question shows the system prompt + tool schemas cost ~11k tokens of prefill on every fresh chat. The transcript's user text differs from prompt.txt by two typographic substitutions ("I’m" curly apostrophe, "¼" for "1/4") — paste-time auto-substitution, not material
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 10 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass (8–10) / partial (5–7) / fail (0–4) → **pass**
+- **What it got right:** every number and judgment — 255 mA, 3.06 W, a ¼ W part fails ("12× its rating"), recommends 10 W with 5 W as the bare minimum; took the 2× derating rule from the tool output rather than memory; called `ohms_law_power` exactly once with the right arguments; explained heat, mounting and airflow; sidestepped the 3 W adjacent-value trap entirely
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing material. Nits only: "no margin if the supply sags up" (contradictory wording — a sag is a drop); "metal-film type, vent and possibly catch fire" is loose (venting is a capacitor failure mode, though metal-film parts do char and can flame at 12× overload); the final paragraph speculates about "a load you're trying to protect or limit", which the user never described
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no — clean run, no harness or prompt weakness exposed. Positive observation rather than a weakness: the 2× advisory line in the `ohms_law_power` result is what steered the recommendation past the 3 W trap, so keep it. The ~1 s gap between the status indicator's "prompt processed in 2.6 s" and Ollama's prefill=1.6s is worth a glance across other runs but is not a lie about what happened
+
+## Grader notes
+- Ground truth verification: not a lookup question — arithmetic reproduced with python3 at grading time (2026-09-11): I = 12/47 = 0.2553 A (255.3 mA); P = 144/47 = 3.0638 W; 3.0638/0.25 = 12.26× overload; 2×P = 6.13 W; P as a fraction of 5 W = 61.3% (the model's "~61%" checks out) and of 10 W = 30.6%. The rubric's ground truth is correct as written; no web search needed.
+- Rubric issues: none in the ground truth or scoring lines. One reading choice recorded: for calibration line 2 ("does not invent a standard or rule it did not look up") I treated the 2× derating rule as looked-up because the tool result states it verbatim, and the 5 W / 10 W standard-rating ladder as generic knowledge rather than a cited standard — so the line is earned. Minor: prompt.txt shows "1/4 W" and a straight apostrophe while the transcript shows "¼ W" and "I’m"; this is typographic auto-substitution at paste time (the 47 Ω / 12 V units survive, so the nudge still fires) and does not affect grading.
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e04-resistor-power
+# chat id    : 15cb8316-fa45-489b-8aa8-0ea002d0a560
+# chat title : Resistor Current and Power Calculation
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  ohms_law_power x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T04:31:40Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T04:31:09Z) ===
+I’m putting a 47 Ω resistor straight across a 12 V supply. What current will flow, how much power will the resistor dissipate, and will a standard ¼ W resistor survive? If not, what rating should I use?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T04:31:09Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10946 eval_count=449 prompt_tokens=10946 completion_tokens=449 total=14.7s prefill=1.6s decode=13.1s 34.4 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Straightforward Ohm's law. Use the tool.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: ohms_law_power  (call_tmeam4zx) ===
+{
+  "voltage": "12",
+  "resistance": "47"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: ohms_law_power  (call_tmeam4zx) ===
+# Ohm's law
+
+Voltage:    12 V
+Current:    255.3 mA
+Resistance: 47 Ω
+Power:      3.064 W
+
+Given voltage and resistance; used I = V / R, P = V² / R.
+
+Note: 3.064 W dissipation needs a resistor rated well above that. A common rule is to pick at least twice the calculated power.
+
+=== [4] THINKING (2s) ===
+Clear answer. 255 mA, 3.06 W. ¼ W resistor no. Use at least 2× → 6.3 W, so 5 W or better. Standard ratings: ¼, ½, 1, 2, 5, 10 W. 3.06 W exceeds 2 W, so need 5 W minimum (or 10 W for margin).
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here's the math:
+
+- **Current:** I = V/R = 12 V / 47 Ω ≈ **255 mA**
+- **Power:** P = V²/R = 144 / 47 ≈ **3.06 W**
+
+**Will a ¼ W resistor survive? No — not even close.** 3.06 W is more than 12× its rating. It would overheat within seconds, likely fail open (or, if it's a metal-film type, vent and possibly catch fire).
+
+**What to use instead:** A good rule is to derate to at least **twice** the calculated dissipation, so you want a resistor rated ≥ ~6 W. In practice, pick from the standard power ratings:
+
+- **5 W** is the minimum that works (3.06 W is ~61% of its rating — workable, but it will run hot and you have no margin if the supply sags up).
+- **10 W** is the better choice — it gives you comfortable headroom and stays cool.
+
+So: **use a 10 W resistor** (a 5 W is the bare minimum). These are the fat axial or wirewound types, not the small ¼ W leads-and-body ones.
+
+One more thing worth flagging: putting a plain resistor straight across a supply means it's dissipating 3 W continuously just to burn off power — if this is a load you're trying to protect or limit, that's a fair amount of wasted heat. A resistor will work, but make sure it's physically mounted so it can't touch anything flammable and has airflow.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · prompt processed in 2.6 s
+- Thought: Straightforward Ohm's law. Use the tool.
+- Calling ohms_law_power
+- Thinking
+- Thought: Clear answer. 255 mA, 3.06 W. ¼ W resistor no. Use at least 2× → 6.3 W, so 5 W or better. Standard ratings: ¼, ½, 1, 2, 5, 10 W. 3.06 W exceeds 2 W, so need 5…
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# e04 — Ohm's law and power rating · round v2
+
+> Grading worksheet for round **v2**. 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) I ≈ 0.255 A  → 1/1 — "≈ **255 mA**"; tool returned 255.3 mA
+- [x] (2) P ≈ 3.06 W  → 2/2 — "≈ **3.06 W**"; tool returned 3.064 W
+- [x] (1) Says the 1/4 W part will not survive  → 1/1 — "No — not even close… more than **12× its rating**"
+- [x] (1) Recommends ≥ 5 W (accept 5–10 W; a 3 W answer fails this line)  → 1/1 — 5 W as the floor, 10 W recommended. The 3 W adjacent-value trap is not merely avoided, it is reasoned past explicitly in thinking
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Mentions derating / heat (a resistor at its rating runs very hot)  → 1/1 — at length: "only about 60% headroom. It'll run hot, which stresses the part and anything nearby", plus overheating/drift/fail-open, plus the airflow and board-space note
+- [x] (1) Does not invent a "standard" or rule it did not look up  → 1/1 — the 2× derating rule is quoted from the tool's own advisory line ("A common rule is to pick at least twice the calculated power"), not from memory. See Grader notes for the one borderline claim
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) `ohms_law_power` called. 1 if `matlab_run`. 0 if mental arithmetic.  → 2/2 — one call, correct arguments, no waste
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Direct answer first, numbers labelled with units  → 1/1 — current and power as the first two bullets with units, then the yes/no, then the recommendation
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −2 says 1/4 W is fine → not applied
+- −1 recommends 3 W or lower → not applied — floor is 5 W
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — "Let's run the tool" is immediately followed by the call
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T19:15:57Z (dumped 19:16:58Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `ohms_law_power` x1
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.2s / total=17.4s (decode=15.1s, 33.8 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9759, completion_tokens=510
+- 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 — and the v1 complaint is gone. v1's grade flagged a ~1 s gap between "prompt processed in 2.6 s" and `prefill=1.6s`; v2 reports `first token after 2.5 s` (a first-token latency, correctly labelled) and `prefill 2.3 s` against the usage line's 2.2 s. Same measurement, same name, 0.1 s apart
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): no. The quantitative-question nudge fires on this prompt (47 Ω, 12 V, ¼ W), so the tool call cannot be credited to the model alone — same as v1, so the comparison is still like-for-like. One behaviour to keep an eye on rather than penalise: thinking block [1] computes I and P in its head *before* calling the tool, then calls it anyway and quotes the tool's figures. Pre-computing then verifying is the safe order; the reverse (calling, then quoting a remembered number) is the one that costs points, and it did not happen
+
+## 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:** every number and every judgment — 255 mA, 3.06 W, ¼ W fails by 12×, 5 W minimum and 10 W recommended; took the 2× derating rule from the tool rather than memory; explained heat, headroom, package type and airflow; the 3 W adjacent-value trap is explicitly considered and rejected in thinking
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing material. One nit, smaller than v1's: "10 W is the next standard size above that [6.1 W]" skips the 7 W wirewound size, which exists but is uncommon — the recommendation is unaffected. The v1 answer's three nits (the contradictory "if the supply sags up", "vent and possibly catch fire" borrowing a capacitor failure mode, and speculation about a load the user never mentioned) are all absent this round
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** Score unchanged — it was already at ceiling — but the answer is visibly cleaner: the three loose or speculative statements v1 was nitted for are gone, and the status-indicator discrepancy v1 recorded as a minor TUNING finding is fixed (Change 52). Answer length grew slightly (449 → 510 completion tokens) and every added word is on-topic. Tool behaviour is identical, which is the point: `ohms_law_power`'s advisory line was already doing its job in v1 and the Change-50 rewrites did not disturb it
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no — clean run, and it closes v1's one open item here. Positive confirmation for Change 52: this is the prompt whose v1 grade first flagged the prefill mismatch, and the numbers now agree
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: recomputed on 2026-09-11 — I = 12/47 = 0.255319 A (255.3 mA); P = 144/47 = 3.06383 W; 3.06383 / 0.25 = 12.26× the ¼ W rating; 2 × 3.06383 = 6.128 W. The answer's "about 60% headroom" for a 5 W part checks out (5/3.064 = 1.632). Rubric ground truth correct
+- Rubric issues: none. One judgment call recorded rather than acted on — calibration line 2 forbids inventing "a standard or rule it did not look up". The 2× rule came from the tool, so the line is satisfied on its intended target; the unlooked-up claim in the answer is the list of standard power-resistor sizes ("10 W is the next standard size"), which is a commonplace and is very nearly right (7 W exists). Too small to cost a point, and penalising it would make the line unpassable for any answer that names a part size
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e04-resistor-power (round v2)
+# chat id    : f102c987-4cb5-45b9-8588-c1005af26d97
+# chat title : Resistor Current and Power Calculation
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  ohms_law_power x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T19:16:58Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T19:15:57Z) ===
+I’m putting a 47 Ω resistor straight across a 12 V supply. What current will flow, how much power will the resistor dissipate, and will a standard ¼ W resistor survive? If not, what rating should I use?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T19:15:57Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=9759 eval_count=510 prompt_tokens=9759 completion_tokens=510 total=17.4s prefill=2.2s decode=15.1s 33.8 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Let's calculate using ohm's law: V=12V, R=47Ω. I = 12/47 ≈ 0.2553 A. P = V²/R = 144/47 ≈ 3.06 W. A 1/4 W resistor won't withstand it. We need at least a 5W rating with margin (typically 2x the required value → 5W or 10W).
+
+Let's run the tool.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: ohms_law_power  (call_oagfy6zb) ===
+{
+  "voltage": "12",
+  "resistance": "47"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: ohms_law_power  (call_oagfy6zb) ===
+# Ohm's law
+
+Voltage:    12 V
+Current:    255.3 mA
+Resistance: 47 Ω
+Power:      3.064 W
+
+Given voltage and resistance; used I = V / R, P = V² / R.
+
+Note: 3.064 W dissipation needs a resistor rated well above that. A common rule is to pick at least twice the calculated power.
+
+=== [4] THINKING (4s) ===
+A standard derating practice of 2× margin would be 6.1 W, so the next standard size is 10 W? Actually, the standard sizes are 2 W, 3 W, 5 W, and 10 W. If you use the 2× margin rule, it becomes 10 W. But as the minimum requirement, you need at least 5 W (above 3.06 W). Normally, if you're going with 2× derating, then 10 W. That said, many people would say 5 W works but there's no margin. The safest recommendation is 5 W minimum, and 10 W if you want to leave some margin.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here's the math for a 47 Ω resistor across 12 V:
+
+- **Current:** I = V/R = 12 V ÷ 47 Ω ≈ **255 mA**
+- **Power:** P = V²/R = 144/47 ≈ **3.06 W**
+
+**Will a ¼ W resistor survive?** No — not even close. It's being asked to dissipate more than **12× its rating**. A resistor overloaded like that will quickly overheat, drift out of tolerance, discolor, and in the worst case fail open or burn up (this is actually a common trick for making a crude short, but it's destructive).
+
+**What to use instead:**
+
+- **Minimum:** a **5 W** resistor — it covers the 3.06 W load, but with only about 60% headroom. It'll run hot, which stresses the part and anything nearby.
+- **Recommended:** a **10 W** resistor. The usual rule of thumb is to derate to at least twice the expected dissipation (~6.1 W here), and 10 W is the next standard size above that. It'll run comfortably cool and last much longer.
+
+Practical note: 5 W and 10 W resistors are typically through-hole "power" types (ceramic-wrapped or wirewound) rather than the little ¼ W axial parts — they're physically larger partly to shed heat, so make sure you have the board space and that airflow isn't blocked. If this is just meant to be a dummy load, a purpose-built resistor load bank in that power range is also a clean option.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 2.5 s
+- Thought: Let's calculate using ohm's law: V=12V, R=47Ω. I = 12/47 ≈ 0.2553 A. P = V²/R = 144/47 … 2x the required value → 5W or 10W). Let's run the tool.
+- Calling ohms_law_power
+- Thinking
+- Thought: A standard derating practice of 2× margin would be 6.1 W, so the next standard size is … is 5 W minimum, and 10 W if you want to leave some margin.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 2.3 s for 12,860 tokens · 665 generated
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# e04 — Ohm's law and power rating · 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) I ≈ 0.255 A  → 1/1 — "≈ **255 mA**"; tool returned 255.3 mA
+- [x] (2) P ≈ 3.06 W  → 2/2 — "≈ **3.06 W**"; tool returned 3.064 W
+- [x] (1) Says the 1/4 W part will not survive  → 1/1 — "No — not even close… about **12× its rating**"
+- [x] (1) Recommends ≥ 5 W (accept 5–10 W; a 3 W answer fails this line)  → 1/1 — "Minimum workable: a **5 W** resistor", "Better choice: **7 W or 10 W**". Thinking block [4] considers and rejects lower ratings explicitly; 3 W is never offered
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Mentions derating / heat (a resistor at its rating runs very hot)  → 1/1 — "would run white-hot", the ~2× margin "for reliability and thermal margin", and the 5 W part "would run quite hot, so keep it clear of anything flammable"
+- [x] (1) Does not invent a "standard" or rule it did not look up  → 1/1 — the 2× rule is lifted from the tool's advisory line, as in v2. The standard-size list in thinking (1/8 … 5 W) and "small film resistors don't come above ~2 W" are commonplaces, not standards, and are correct
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) `ohms_law_power` called. 1 if `matlab_run`. 0 if mental arithmetic.  → 2/2 — one call, correct arguments, before any arithmetic in thinking (thinking block [1] is one sentence naming the tool)
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Direct answer first, numbers labelled with units  → 1/1 — current and power as the first two bullets with units, then the yes/no, then the recommendation
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −2 says 1/4 W is fine → not applied
+- −1 recommends 3 W or lower → not applied — floor is 5 W
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — "I'll try calculating using ohms_law_power" is followed by the call
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T22:57:30Z (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 — `ohms_law_power` x1
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.1s / total=18.6s (decode=16.4s, 33.9 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9664, completion_tokens=558
+- 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 — `first token after 2.4 s`, `prefill 2.3 s` vs the usage line's 2.1 s; `Done · 1 tool call · … 616 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): no. The nudge fires (47 Ω, 12 V, 1/4 W), so as in v1 and v2 the tool call is not attributable to the model alone. Unlike v2, the model did **not** pre-compute in its head before calling — thinking block [1] is a single sentence and all arithmetic appears after the tool result. That is the cleaner order. Two loose statements in the closing "practical notes" that the rubric does not score: a burnt-out resistor "could let go in a way that shorts the supply" (film and wirewound resistors overwhelmingly fail *open*), and "make sure the 12 V source itself can handle ~3.7 W of output (… plus its own losses)" — the supply delivers 3.06 W to the load; its own losses are not part of its output. Both are the kind of speculative trailer v1 was nitted for and v2 had dropped
+
+### 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 — calculator, no source
+- 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:** every number and every judgment — 255 mA, 3.06 W, ¼ W fails by 12×, 5 W minimum and 7–10 W recommended; the 2× rule taken from the tool; heat and clearance discussed; the 3 W trap never entertained; tool called before any mental arithmetic
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing the rubric scores. Two loose trailing claims (fail-short, "3.7 W of output") are the v1-style speculation returning in a milder form; neither touches a scored line
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** Same score, same tool behaviour, same recommendation. Two small movements in opposite directions: the tool-before-arithmetic order is cleaner than v2's compute-then-verify, while the closing notes reacquired a little of the speculative padding v2 had shed. Net neutral. Change 54 has no surface on a calculator-only prompt
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no — clean run. The fail-open/fail-short slip is a model commonplace error, not a harness matter
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: I = 12/47 = 0.25532 A; P = 144/47 = 3.0638 W; 3.0638/0.25 = 12.3×; 2× = 6.13 W. Rubric correct; the tool's figures agree
+- Rubric issues: none
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e04-resistor-power (round v3)
+# chat id    : 9d8504aa-f3e2-4925-a127-18acf9fd3b4c
+# chat title : Resistor Current, Power, and Rating
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  ohms_law_power x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T23:10:06Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T22:57:30Z) ===
+I'm putting a 47 Ω resistor straight across a 12 V supply. What current will flow, how much power will the resistor dissipate, and will a standard 1/4 W resistor survive? If not, what rating should I use?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T22:57:30Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=9664 eval_count=558 prompt_tokens=9664 completion_tokens=558 total=18.6s prefill=2.1s decode=16.4s 33.9 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+I'll try calculating using ohms_law_power.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: ohms_law_power  (call_6jozxlyi) ===
+{
+  "voltage": "12",
+  "resistance": "47"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: ohms_law_power  (call_6jozxlyi) ===
+# Ohm's law
+
+Voltage:    12 V
+Current:    255.3 mA
+Resistance: 47 Ω
+Power:      3.064 W
+
+Given voltage and resistance; used I = V / R, P = V² / R.
+
+Note: 3.064 W dissipation needs a resistor rated well above that. A common rule is to pick at least twice the calculated power.
+
+=== [4] THINKING (6s) ===
+Answer: I = 255.3 mA, P = 3.06 W. A quarter-watt resistor can't withstand it. Rule of thumb: use about 2x or more → 6.3 W or more, so a 5 W or 7 W resistor. In practice, the standard ratings are: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1 W, 2 W, 5 W. Using 2x margin, 6.1 W → 7 W or more, but many people would say a 5 W wirewound is the minimum practical option. However, by the 2x rule, you'd want a 7 W or 10 W one. Should I recommend a 5 W as the minimum? Better yet: with a safety margin (typically around 2x), choose a 7 W or 10 W wirewound resistor. If you must go lower than that, at least 5 W.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here's the math for 12 V across 47 Ω:
+
+- **Current:** I = V/R = 12 / 47 ≈ **255 mA**
+- **Power:** P = V²/R = 144 / 47 ≈ **3.06 W**
+
+**Will a ¼ W resistor survive?** No — not even close. It's being asked to dissipate about **12× its rating**. It would run white-hot, likely burn out almost immediately, and could let go in a way that shorts the supply.
+
+**What to use instead.** The usual practice is to pick a rating of at least ~2× the calculated dissipation for reliability and thermal margin:
+
+- Minimum workable: a **5 W** resistor (e.g., a wirewound type) — it would run quite hot, so keep it clear of anything flammable and away from other components.
+- Better choice: **7 W or 10 W** wirewound, giving you comfortable headroom.
+
+A few practical notes:
+
+- If this is meant to be a permanent load (e.g., a dummy load), a wirewound or metal-oxide power resistor is the right part — standard small film resistors don't come above ~2 W.
+- Check your supply can actually deliver 255 mA without current-limiting or shutting down.
+- If the goal was just to "use up" the supply or test something, make sure the 12 V source itself can handle ~3.7 W of output (it has to supply the resistor's dissipation plus its own losses).
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 2.4 s
+- Thought: I'll try calculating using ohms_law_power.
+- Calling ohms_law_power
+- Thinking
+- Thought: Answer: I = 255.3 mA, P = 3.06 W. A quarter-watt resistor can't withstand it. Rule of … resistor. If you must go lower than that, at least 5 W.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 2.3 s for 12,862 tokens · 616 generated
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# e04 — Ohm's law and power rating · round v4
+
+> Grading worksheet for round **v4**. 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) I ≈ 0.255 A  → 1/1 — "≈ **255 mA**"; tool returned 255.3 mA
+- [x] (2) P ≈ 3.06 W  → 2/2 — "≈ **3.06 W**"; tool returned 3.064 W
+- [x] (1) Says the 1/4 W part will not survive  → 1/1 — "**No — not even close.** It's being asked to dissipate about **12× its rating**"
+- [x] (1) Recommends ≥ 5 W (accept 5–10 W; a 3 W answer fails this line)  → 1/1 — "**7 W or 10 W** … **Correct choice**", with 5 W shown in the table as "Technically survives, but no headroom — avoid". 3 W is never offered; the table's lower rows are ¼ W and 1 W, both marked as failing
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Mentions derating / heat (a resistor at its rating runs very hot)  → 1/1 — "derating matters more in restricted airflow", "leave some air around it — it'll run hot enough to be uncomfortable to touch", and the 10 W part preferred "if your supply runs warm or the enclosure is hot"
+- [x] (1) Does not invent a "standard" or rule it did not look up  → 1/1 — the 2× rule is the tool's advisory line ("A common rule is to pick at least twice the calculated power"), restated as "Standard practice". The wirewound "cigar" description and the phenolic-body colours are commonplaces, not standards
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) `ohms_law_power` called. 1 if `matlab_run`. 0 if mental arithmetic.  → 2/2 — one call with the right two arguments. As in v2 (and unlike v3), thinking block [1] computes 0.255 A and 3.06 W in its head *before* calling — "Let's run the calculation tool" is the last sentence — so the tool confirmed rather than produced the numbers. The rubric scores the call, and every number in the answer matches the tool block
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Direct answer first, numbers labelled with units  → 1/1 — current and power as the first two bullets with units and the formula, then the yes/no in bold, then the recommendation as a table
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −2 says 1/4 W is fine → not applied
+- −1 recommends 3 W or lower → not applied — floor is 7 W, with 5 W explicitly discouraged
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:06:43Z (dumped 04:07:22Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `ohms_law_power` x1
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.3s / total=17.9s (decode=16.5s, 33.6 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9829, completion_tokens=554
+- 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 ohms_law_power`, `Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.1 s for 12,946 tokens · 693 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): no faults. The nudge fires (47 Ω, 12 V, 1/4 W), so the call is again not attributable to the model alone — though the thinking shows it had already decided on the tool by the end of its first sentence. Two things the rubric does not score: the closing "design note" speculating that the resistor is a dummy load and recommending a switching regulator is unasked-for and a little presumptuous, the same speculative trailer v1 and v3 carried; and the v3 slip about a burnt-out resistor "shorting the supply" is gone ("let go of something smoky" is fine). The 5 W row's "1.6× margin — avoid" is a stricter reading than the rubric's "accept 5–10 W" but is not wrong
+
+### Change 55 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
+
+- Did a tool result carry a `Sources:` trailer? (y/n): n — calculator
+- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): none — none expected
+- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: none applies to `ohms_law_power`
+
+## 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:** every number and every judgment — 255 mA, 3.06 W, ¼ W fails by 12×, 7–10 W recommended with 5 W explained as marginal; the 2× rule taken from the tool; heat, airflow and clearance discussed; the 3 W trap never entertained
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing the rubric scores. The dummy-load speculation at the end is padding
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** Fourth round at ceiling. Order of operations slid back to v2's compute-then-verify (v3 called before any arithmetic); the recommendation table is new and clearer than v3's prose; the fail-short slip is gone and a different speculative trailer replaced it. Net neutral. Change 55 has no surface on a calculator-only prompt
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: I = 12/47 = 0.25532 A; P = 144/47 = 3.0638 W; 3.0638/0.25 = 12.3×; 2× = 6.13 W. The tool's figures agree; the answer's table margins (0.13×, 0.33×, 1.6×, 2.3×, 3.3×) are 0.25/3.06, 1/3.06, 5/3.06, 7/3.06, 10/3.06 to two figures
+- Rubric issues: none
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e04-resistor-power (round v4)
+# chat id    : 1c4b6e00-2fd9-465f-ae6a-3478966a36e8
+# chat title : Resistor Current and Power Calculation
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  ohms_law_power x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-12T04:07:22Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-12T04:06:43Z) ===
+I'm putting a 47 Ω resistor straight across a 12 V supply. What current will flow, how much power will the resistor dissipate, and will a standard 1/4 W resistor survive? If not, what rating should I use?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-12T04:06:43Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=9829 eval_count=554 prompt_tokens=9829 completion_tokens=554 total=17.9s prefill=1.3s decode=16.5s 33.6 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Simple ohm's law problem: I = 12/47 = 0.255 A, P = V²/R = 144/47 = 3.06 W. A 1/4 W resistor would fail. Use at least 5 W (with 2x derating margin, 6.1 W → 7 W or 10 W). Let's run the calculation tool.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: ohms_law_power  (call_66a996tm) ===
+{
+  "voltage": "12",
+  "resistance": "47"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: ohms_law_power  (call_66a996tm) ===
+# Ohm's law
+
+Voltage:    12 V
+Current:    255.3 mA
+Resistance: 47 Ω
+Power:      3.064 W
+
+Given voltage and resistance; used I = V / R, P = V² / R.
+
+Note: 3.064 W dissipation needs a resistor rated well above that. A common rule is to pick at least twice the calculated power.
+
+=== [4] THINKING (2s) ===
+Answer: 255 mA, 3.06 W. No good for a 1/4 W resistor. With a 2x derating (margin), use a 6 W or higher rating → the standard is 7 W or 10 W (axial leaded wirewound type). A 5 W rating would be borderline (only 1.6x margin).
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here's the math for 12 V across 47 Ω:
+
+- **Current:** I = V/R = 12 / 47 ≈ **255 mA**
+- **Power:** P = V²/R = 144 / 47 ≈ **3.06 W**
+
+**Will a ¼ W resistor survive? No — not even close.** It's being asked to dissipate about **12× its rating**. It would heat up almost immediately, likely burn out, discolor the board, and possibly let go of something smoky.
+
+**What to use instead:**
+
+Standard practice is to pick a rating of at least **2× the actual dissipation**, so you want ≥ ~6 W. That rules out the common carbon-film sizes (¼ W, ½ W, 1 W) entirely:
+
+| Rating | Margin over 3.06 W | Verdict |
+|---|---|---|
+| ¼ W | 0.13× | Destroys instantly |
+| 1 W | 0.33× | Burns out quickly |
+| 5 W | 1.6× | Technically survives, but no headroom — avoid |
+| **7 W or 10 W** | 2.3× / 3.3× | **Correct choice** |
+
+Practically, that means a **wirewound 7 W or 10 W resistor** (the axial "cigar" type, often in yellow or blue phenolic bodies). A 10 W part is the safer pick if your supply runs warm or the enclosure is hot, since derating matters more in restricted airflow.
+
+One design note: putting a bare resistor straight across a supply for 3+ W is usually a sign it's being used as a dummy load or crude current sink. If this is meant to limit current to something else, a proper current-limiting approach (switching regulator in current-limit mode, or a series resistor sized for the real load) will be far cooler and more reliable. And if you do go with the wirewound version, leave some air around it — it'll run hot enough to be uncomfortable to touch.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.3 s
+- Thought: Simple ohm's law problem: I = 12/47 = 0.255 A, P = V²/R = 144/47 = 3.06 W. A 1/4 W … margin, 6.1 W → 7 W or 10 W). Let's run the calculation tool.
+- Calling ohms_law_power
+- Thinking
+- Thought: Answer: 255 mA, 3.06 W. No good for a 1/4 W resistor. With a 2x derating (margin), use … type). A 5 W rating would be borderline (only 1.6x margin).
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.1 s for 12,946 tokens · 693 generated
				`@@ -0,0 +1 @@`
				`I'm putting a 47 Ω resistor straight across a 12 V supply. What current will flow, how much power will the resistor dissipate, and will a standard 1/4 W resistor survive? If not, what rating should I use?`