Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# e08 — Free fall with a mass distractor · 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] (2) t ≈ 3.0 s  → 2/2 — "≈ **3.03 s**"; tool returned 3.029 s
+- [x] (2) v ≈ 29.7 m/s  → 2/2 — "≈ **29.7 m/s** (about 107 km/h or 66 mph)"; tool returned 29.71 m/s and 107.0 km/h
+- [x] (1) Mass makes no difference  → 1/1 — "**With the 4 kg ball: nothing changes.** The time is still 3.03 s and the speed still 29.7 m/s", with the reason (same g regardless of mass, Galileo)
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) States the g it used  → 1/1 — 9.81 in the formula line, in the prose ("g ≈ 9.81 m/s²") and in the tool call
+- [x] (1) Does not invent air-resistance numbers when asked to ignore it  → 1/1 — air resistance is not discussed at all beyond "with no air resistance"; the only extra numbers are the kinetic energies (~1.76 kJ and ~0.88 kJ), which are correct (½·4·29.71² = 1,765 J; half that for 2 kg) and are offered as the one place mass *does* enter, not as a correction to the idealised answer
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) `matlab_run` for the numbers. 1 if hand-calculated with the formula shown and correct.  → 2/2 — one scratch `matlab_run` call, made after a one-line formula sketch in thinking and before any number was computed; both reported figures are the tool's, rounded
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Numbers first, units, brief  → 1/1 — two bold lines with units and formulas are the first thing; the 4 kg answer is the third line; ~150 words
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −3 says the heavier ball falls faster or slower → not applied — "nothing changes", and "both balls land at exactly the same instant"
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:09:29Z (dumped 04:09:59Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `matlab_run` x1 (`purpose: "scratch"`)
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.3s / total=9.1s (decode=7.7s, 34.1 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9809, completion_tokens=263
+- 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 matlab_run`, `Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.1 s for 12,948 tokens · 427 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): no. The nudge fires (kg, m), so as in every round the call is not attributable to the model alone — though the thinking names the tool before doing any arithmetic, which is the cleanest order of the four rounds. The three-sentence air-resistance caveat v3 carried is gone entirely (the rubric permits one line; zero is also fine). Thinking block [4] contains the phrase "terminal velocity in a vacuum", which is nonsense, but it did not reach the answer. The energy cross-check v2 volunteered is back, this time as two correct figures. The mph figure (66) is the one number not from the tool and is right (66.5)
+
+### 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 — the Octave ran clean
+
+## 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:** both numbers from the tool, g stated three times, the 4 kg distractor answered flatly with the right reason, no air-resistance speculation at all, the energy point made correctly as the one place mass matters, numbers first and brief
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0).** Fourth round at ceiling, and the tightest answer of the four: the air-resistance paragraph that v1 and v3 padded with is absent, the tool is named before any arithmetic, and the one volunteered extra (kinetic energy) is correct and on point. Change 55 has no surface here
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: t = √(90/9.81) = 3.0289 s; v = 9.81 × 3.0289 = 29.714 m/s = 106.97 km/h = 66.47 mph; ½·2·29.714² = 882.9 J, ½·4·29.714² = 1,765.8 J. Rubric correct; tool and answer agree
+- Rubric issues: none
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e08-ball-drop-mass (round v4)
+# chat id    : 00e28153-dc9c-41dd-a4b1-d10f0cea9b1b
+# chat title : Drop Height and Impact Speed Calculations
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  matlab_run x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-12T04:09:59Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-12T04:09:29Z) ===
+I drop a 2 kg steel ball from a 45 m tower. Ignoring air resistance, how long does it take to hit the ground and how fast is it going on impact? If I used a 4 kg ball instead, how do the answers change?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-12T04:09:29Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=9809 eval_count=263 prompt_tokens=9809 completion_tokens=263 total=9.1s prefill=1.3s decode=7.7s 34.1 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Physics problem: d = ½gt². t = √(2d/g) = √(90/9.81). v = gt. Mass is irrelevant (ignoring air resistance).
+
+Let me compute with matlab_run scratch.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run  (call_nb864849) ===
+{
+  "purpose": "scratch",
+  "code": "g = 9.81;\nh = 45;\nt = sqrt(2*h/g);\nv = g*t;\nfprintf('t = %.3f s\\n', t);\nfprintf('v = %.2f m/s = %.1f km/h\\n', v, v*3.6);"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run  (call_nb864849) ===
+# Scratch run OK (0.45s)
+## Output
+```
+t = 3.029 s
+v = 29.71 m/s = 107.0 km/h
+```
+
+=== [4] THINKING (1s) ===
+I need to work through this physics problem about free fall and explain why mass doesn't affect the acceleration or terminal velocity in a vacuum.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+**Time to impact:** t = √(2h/g) = √(90/9.81) ≈ **3.03 s**
+
+**Impact speed:** v = gt ≈ **29.7 m/s** (about 107 km/h or 66 mph)
+
+**With the 4 kg ball: nothing changes.** The time is still 3.03 s and the speed still 29.7 m/s. In free fall with no air resistance, gravity accelerates every object at the same rate g ≈ 9.81 m/s² regardless of mass — that's Galileo's famous insight, which is why both balls land at exactly the same instant if you drop them together.
+
+The only way mass enters the picture here is through the *impact energy*: E = ½mv², so the 4 kg ball carries twice the kinetic energy (~1.76 kJ vs ~0.88 kJ for the 2 kg ball). That's why it would dent the ground more, but not why it moves differently on the way down.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.2 s
+- Thought: Physics problem: d = ½gt². t = √(2d/g) = √(90/9.81). v = gt. Mass is irrelevant (ignoring air resistance). Let me compute with matlab_run scratch.
+- Calling matlab_run
+- Thinking
+- Thought: I need to work through this physics problem about free fall and explain why mass doesn't affect the acceleration or terminal velocity in a vacuum.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.1 s for 12,948 tokens · 427 generated