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 @@
+# e11 — Bat and ball, altered total · 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] (5) $0.15  → 5/5 — "**The ball costs $0.15.**", first line; bat $1.15
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Shows the check (both conditions satisfied)  → 1/1 — "ball $0.15 + bat $1.15 = $1.30 ✓, and $1.15 − $0.15 = $1.00 ✓"
+- [x] (1) No web search for a two-line algebra problem  → 1/1 — no tool of any kind
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) No tool, or a single arithmetic check. 0 if it searched the web for "bat and ball".  → 2/2 — no tool, which the rubric allows
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Answer first  → 1/1 — answer first, four-line derivation, check, one parenthetical on the tempting wrong answer
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 answers $0.05 or $0.30 → not applied — neither appears in the answer except as the correctly-labelled famous-version answer
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — "I could verify with a quick calc… I'll just solve it directly" is a decision not to call, followed by solving it; the set-wide rule is about announcing a call and not making it
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:05:36Z (dumped 23:10:25Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 0 (none)
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=5.9s / total=16.9s (decode=10.9s, 41.8 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=12843, completion_tokens=455
+- 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 — `Done · prefill 5.9 s for 12,843 tokens · 455 generated`, matching the usage line
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the first line of thinking is a wrong instinct — and a *different* wrong instinct from the famous one: "Ball = $0.10, bat = $1.20" (which sums to $1.30 but has the wrong difference). It is caught two lines later by writing the algebra out, and the answer names it as "the tempting '$0.10' answer" and shows why it fails. Prompt tokens are 12,843 rather than the bare 12,689 because the nudge fires on the dollar amounts (the widened currency pattern) and appends its note; the model chose not to act on it with a tool this time
+
+### 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/a — no tool
+- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — 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:** solved the problem asked; both conditions checked; answer first; the wrong instinct named and refuted in the answer
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 10 (0)** on score; the route reverted to v1's. v2's grade made a point of the fact that v2 committed to $0.05 in thinking, called `matlab_run` anyway, and was corrected *by the tool* — the safety margin the arithmetic changes were for. v3 does what v1 did: a wrong first instinct caught by its own algebra, no tool. Same correct output, thinner margin. Across three rounds this prompt has now gone unaided → tool-corrected → unaided, so the scratch-call habit is not yet reliable on problems the model classes as "trivial enough". Nothing in Change 54 touches it
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): only as a counter-example to the v2 note — the "reach for the calculator on a trivial problem" behaviour that v2 cited as Change 50/51 evidence did not recur here despite the nudge firing. One data point, no action
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: 2x + 1.00 = 1.30 → x = 0.15; bat 1.15; both conditions hold. The model's rejected $0.10 gives bat $1.20 (difference $1.10, wrong) — the answer says it "would make the total $1.20", which is the *other* way of being wrong (ball 0.10 + bat 1.10 = 1.20); the thinking block has both versions. Either way $0.10 fails, and the answer's statement is true for the bat-$1.10 reading. Not charged
+- Rubric issues: none
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e11-bat-and-ball-variant (round v3)
+# chat id    : f17b9b20-97c1-4d68-b5b4-76b4d581ffbb
+# chat title : Bat and ball cost
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 0  (none)
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T23:10:25Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T23:05:36Z) ===
+A bat and a ball cost $1.30 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T23:05:36Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=12843 eval_count=455 prompt_tokens=12843 completion_tokens=455 total=16.9s prefill=5.9s decode=10.9s 41.8 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING (7s) ===
+Classic puzzle. Ball = $0.10, bat = $1.20. Simple algebra, no tools needed — it's a riddle, not a factual lookup. But I could verify with a quick calc for good measure. It's trivial enough; I'll just solve it directly.
+
+Let x = ball. x + (x+1) = 1.30 → 2x = 0.30 → x = 0.15.
+
+Wait! Let me redo: x + x + 1.00 = 1.30 → 2x = 0.30 → x = $0.15. Bat = $1.15. Check: 1.15 - 0.15 = 1.00 ✓, sum = 1.30 ✓.
+
+The famous trap answer is $0.10, which would make the bat $1.10, difference $1.00... wait 1.10-0.10=1.00, sum=1.20 ≠ 1.30. So $0.10 is wrong. Correct is $0.15.
+
+Hmm wait, the classic puzzle says "costs $1 more" and total $1.10, answer $0.05. Here it's modified: total $1.30, so ball = $0.15. Yes.
+
+=== [2] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+**The ball costs $0.15.**
+
+Let the ball be *x*. Then the bat is *x* + $1.00:
+
+*x* + (*x* + 1.00) = 1.30
+2*x* = 0.30
+*x* = **$0.15**
+
+Check: ball $0.15 + bat $1.15 = $1.30 ✓, and $1.15 − $0.15 = $1.00 ✓.
+
+(The tempting "ball = $0.10" answer fails — that would make the total $1.20.)
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 6.1 s
+- Thought: Classic puzzle. Ball = $0.10, bat = $1.20. Simple algebra, no tools needed — it's a … $0.05. Here it's modified: total $1.30, so ball = $0.15. Yes.
+- Writing response
+- Done · prefill 5.9 s for 12,843 tokens · 455 generated