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 cooking at 2,000 m altitude. Does water boil hotter or cooler than at sea level, roughly what temperature, and does that make my pasta cook faster or slower?
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# e17 — Boiling point at altitude
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Difficulty** | easy |
+| **Domain** | cooking / physics |
+| **Probes** | a common misconception (many people guess "hotter"); a number that should be looked up or computed, not recalled |
+| **Tools expected** | `web_search` or `matlab_run` (barometric formula + Clausius–Clapeyron) |
+| **Trap** | "Hotter" / "faster". Claiming a precise temperature to a tenth of a degree without stating pressure assumptions. The inlet nudge fires (2,000 m). |
+
+## Ground truth
+
+- **Cooler.** Roughly −1 °C per 300 m. Standard atmosphere at 2,000 m ≈ 79.5 kPa → boiling point **≈ 93 °C** (93.3–93.5 °C; varies with weather).
+- Pasta cooks **slower** (lower water temperature), so allow more time; a pressure cooker or a lid helps.
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [ ] (2) Lower / cooler
+- [ ] (2) 92–94 °C
+- [ ] (1) Slower
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [ ] (1) Does not claim precision beyond about ±1 °C
+- [ ] (1) Notes that weather / actual pressure shifts it
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [ ] (1) A tool was used for the number (search or computed)
+- [ ] (1) Formula or source shown
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [ ] (1) Three short answers
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 "hotter" or "faster"
+- −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 +1,53 @@
+# e17 — Boiling point at altitude · 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] (2) Lower / cooler  → 2/2 — says water "reaches its boiling point about 7 °C earlier" (93 vs 100 °C) and "it feels like it should be just as hot, but it isn't"; never uses the word "cooler" outright, but the answer is unambiguous
+- [x] (2) 92–94 °C  → 2/2 — "roughly 93 °C (199 °F)"; grader verification gives 93.2–93.6 °C (ISA 79.50 kPa + Clausius–Clapeyron / Antoine), 93.4 °C @ 1,905 m (Wikipedia), 93.05 °C interpolated from the ETB rows in the tool output
+- [x] (1) Slower  → 1/1 — "Pasta: it cooks slower, not faster"
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Does not claim precision beyond about ±1 °C  → 1/1 — "roughly 93 °C", "about 7 °C earlier"; pressure assumption stated ("roughly 80 kPa"); the tenths (93.1 / 92.9 °C) are quoted as the table's bracketing rows, not claimed as its own precision
+- [ ] (1) Notes that weather / actual pressure shifts it  → 0/1 — never says the boiling point moves with weather / the day's actual barometric pressure; "roughly 80 kPa" hedges the number but does not say why it varies (only variation mentioned is salt, +"a fraction of a degree")
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (1) A tool was used for the number (search or computed)  → 1/1 — number taken from the Engineering ToolBox table fetched with fetch_page, not from memory (thinking had already recalled ~93 °C but the model verified anyway)
+- [x] (1) Formula or source shown  → 1/1 — names the Engineering ToolBox table and the two bracketing rows (93.1 °C @ 1,981 m, 92.9 °C @ 2,057 m), both present verbatim in the tool output; no URL in the answer and no formula, but "source shown" is met
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [~] (1) Three short answers  → 0.5/1 — direct bolded answers come first ("roughly 93 °C", "cooks slower, not faster"), but the reply is ~235 words with an unrequested "Practical tips" block, the hotter/cooler question is answered only implicitly inside the temperature section, and the source has no URL
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 "hotter" or "faster" → not applied — answer says 93 °C (< 100 °C) and "slower, not faster"
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — every "let me check" in thinking was followed by a tool call; the turn ended with the full answer
+- automatic fail → not applied — every quoted number (93.1 / 92.9 °C, 1,981 / 2,057 m) appears verbatim in the fetch_page output; the "20–30 % more cooking time" figure is given as cooking advice, not presented as looked-up
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T04:44:19Z (user turn); dumped 2026-09-11T04:45:08Z
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 3 — `web_search` (category "science") → `web_search` (category "general") → `fetch_page` (engineeringtoolbox.com, max_chars 4000)
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: call 1 was wasted — `category: "science"` returned only scholarly hits (arXiv accelerator-physics, Taiwan volcano geostatistics, a 1957 GSA paper), none about boiling point; call 2 (general) found the ETB/Wikipedia/Spruce Eats pages but its result carried "[Note: brave, yahoo did not respond…]"; call 3 succeeded (4,000 of 4,539 chars, needed rows in range). No tool errors, no repeats of the same query.
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=5.1s / decode=15.8s / total=21.0s; prompt_tokens=16008, completion_tokens=642, 40.6 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 — three "Calling web_search / web_search / fetch_page" entries match the three calls, four "Thought:" snippets match thinking blocks [1]/[4]/[7]/[10], "Done · 3 tool calls" matches the header. One wrinkle: status said "prompt processed in 2.1 s" while the usage line says prefill=5.1s.
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): (a) Inlet nudge applies ("2,000 m" = number + unit); first thinking block already had the right answer (~93 °C, ~80 kPa, −1 °C/285 m) but said "Let me verify the numbers with a tool rather than relying on memory" — consistent with the nudge firing, and the model followed through. (b) The `science` search category appears to route to an academic index, so an everyday-physics query got junk; the harness's auto-appended "Next: call fetch_page on the most promising URL…" hint was attached to that junk result too — the model correctly ignored it and re-searched instead. (c) fetch_page's "[MORE AVAILABLE: 539 characters…]" notice was correctly ignored (rows for 1,981 m / 2,057 m were inside the first 4,000 chars). (d) 16,008 prompt tokens for a one-sentence easy question → 5.1 s prefill. (e) No loops, no truncation of the answer.
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 8.5 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 0.5/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** All three substantive answers — boiling point is lower (~7 °C below sea level), "roughly 93 °C (199 °F)" (verified 93.2–93.6 °C), pasta cooks slower. Avoided the "hotter/faster" trap explicitly ("slower, not faster"; "you can't make up the difference by turning the heat up — the temperature is capped at 93 °C"). Stated its pressure assumption (~80 kPa), used a tool for the number, and cited the bracketing table rows it actually read. Hedged appropriately ("roughly", "about").
+- **What it got wrong:** Nothing materially wrong. Misses: never notes that weather / the day's actual barometric pressure shifts the boiling point (calibration −1). The "add roughly **20–30 % more cooking time**" figure is an unsourced heuristic stated more confidently than the rest of the answer. Source named ("Engineering ToolBox table") but no URL. Longer than "three short answers" — an unrequested Practical-tips section — and the word "cooler"/"lower" is never said outright, only implied.
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): yes — `web_search` with `category: "science"` returned only academic/arXiv/journal abstracts for a plain everyday-physics query, wasting a call; the category's schema description should make clear it targets scholarly papers (or the model should be steered to "general" first). Minor: live status "prompt processed in 2.1 s" disagreed with usage prefill=5.1s; the "Next: call fetch_page on the most promising URL" footer is appended even when no result is relevant.
+
+## Grader notes
+- Ground truth verification: checked 2026-09-11 ~05:50 UTC. python3: ISA barometric formula gives 79.50 kPa at 2,000 m (78.5 % of sea level); boiling point from Clausius–Clapeyron (ΔHvap 40.65 kJ/mol) = 93.22 °C, Antoine (mmHg, 1–100 °C constants) = 93.36 °C, Antoine (NIST/Stull, bar) = 93.61 °C, −1 °C/300 m rule = 93.3 °C; linear interpolation of the Engineering ToolBox rows in the model's own tool output (93.1 °C @ 1,981 m, 92.9 °C @ 2,057 m) = 93.05 °C. Web: Wikipedia "Boiling point" (WebFetch) gives 93.4 °C (200.1 °F) at 1,905 m / 6,250 ft. engineeringtoolbox.com returned HTTP 403 to WebFetch, so the ETB rows were taken from the transcript's fetch_page output (they are consistent with the other sources). Rubric's 79.5 kPa / ≈93 °C stands. "Pasta cooks slower" needs no lookup (lower water temperature → slower starch gelatinisation).
+- Rubric issues: none material. Ground truth was correct. Judgment calls: (1) "Lower / cooler" awarded in full although the model never says the word — "about 7 °C earlier" and "it isn't [as hot]" are unambiguous. (2) "Formula or source shown" awarded in full for a named source with the exact rows quoted, even though no URL was given; the missing URL is charged under Communication instead, not twice. (3) Communication scored 0.5/1 (the only way to mark a 1-point line as partial) — direct answers first, but too long and no URL; this yields a fractional 8.5. (4) The "20–30 % more cooking time" number is not a set-wide auto-fail: it is presented as advice, not as a looked-up figure.
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e17-boiling-at-altitude
+# chat id    : fdec545c-b8ff-4842-8a17-612ebbb23111
+# chat title : Altitude Cooking & Pasta
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 3  web_search x2, fetch_page x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T04:45:08Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T04:44:19Z) ===
+I’m cooking at 2,000 m altitude. Does water boil hotter or cooler than at sea level, roughly what temperature, and does that make my pasta cook faster or slower?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T04:44:19Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=16008 eval_count=642 prompt_tokens=16008 completion_tokens=642 total=21.0s prefill=5.1s decode=15.8s 40.6 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+The user is asking about boiling point at 2000m altitude. This is a physics question — the boiling point drops with altitude because atmospheric pressure is lower. Let me verify the numbers with a tool rather than relying on memory.
+
+At sea level, water boils at 100°C (1 atm = 101.3 kPa).
+At 2000m, atmospheric pressure is roughly 80 kPa (about 80% of sea level).
+
+The boiling point at 80 kPa is roughly 93°C. Let me verify this.
+
+Actually, the standard approximation: pressure drops about 12% per 1000m, so at 2000m it's about 80% of sea level. The boiling point drops roughly 1°C per 285m of altitude, so at 2000m that's about 7°C lower, giving ~93°C.
+
+Let me check this with a tool to be sure.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: web_search  (call_ldtgkbr5) ===
+{
+  "query": "boiling point of water at 2000 meters altitude temperature",
+  "category": "science"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: web_search  (call_ldtgkbr5) ===
+Search results for: boiling point of water at 2000 meters altitude temperature
+
+1. **Melting ice and boiling water in the mountains: a history and physics essay** (2017-01-01)
+   https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.wem.2017.08.003
+   … resultant liquid water from its freezing/melting point to its boiling point for that altitude. The … unappetizing about a frozen sardine in gelatinous oil at 25,700 feet [7833 meters].” p 602) …
+2. **Highlights of AAC 2000 Workshop** (2000-09-05)
+   http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009022v1
+   The Advanced Accelerator Concepts 2000 (AAC2K) Workshop was held in Santa Fe in June, 2000, and included a wide array of conceptual and theoretical advances at the frontier of accelerator physics. This paper reviews the highlights of the…
+3. **Geostatistical analysis of VLF-MT resistivity data at the Tatun Volcano Group, Taiwan** (2015-05-01)
+   https://confit.atlas.jp/guide/event-img/jpgu2015/00764/public/pdf?type=in
+   Tatun Volcano Group (TVG) is composed of over twenty volcanoes, which were formed within faults at the northern tip of Taiwan. Its active heat discharge from fumaroles and springs also suggests a large amount of volcanic ﬂuids released…
+4. **Thermal waters of volcanic origin** (1957-01-01)
+   https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-abstract/68/12/1637/4876
+   … Emanations at high temperature and relatively low pressure … For a column of water that is everywhere at its boiling point, … water rises as a liquid phase to depths of 2000-1500 feet …
+5. **Proposal for a Very Forward Proton Spectrometer in H1 after 2000** (2000-06-15)
+   http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0006167v1
+   A new, very forward proton spectrometer (VFPS) with large acceptance is proposed to be installed in the proton beam of the H1 experiment after the luminosity upgrade in the year 2000. The spectrometer, located at 220 m downstream of the…
+6. **Geostatistical analysis of VLF-MT resistivity data at the Tatun Volcano Group, Taiwan**
+   https://www2.jpgu.org/meeting/2015/PDF2015/S-VC49_all_e.pdf
+   Tatun Volcano Group (TVG) is composed of over twenty volcanoes, which were formed within faults at the northern tip of Taiwan. Its active heat discharge from fumaroles and springs also suggests a large amount of volcanic ﬂuids released…
+
+Next: call fetch_page on the most promising URL to read it properly before answering.
+
+=== [4] THINKING ===
+The search results aren't great. Let me try a more specific search or look for a reference table.
+
+=== [5] TOOL CALL: web_search  (call_vofgn2dz) ===
+{
+  "category": "general",
+  "query": "boiling point water altitude 2000m 93 degrees Celsius table"
+}
+
+=== [6] TOOL RESULT: web_search  (call_vofgn2dz) ===
+Search results for: boiling point water altitude 2000m 93 degrees Celsius table
+
+1. **Water - Boiling Points vs. Altitude - The Engineering ToolBox**
+   https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-points-water-altitude-d_1344.html
+   Example - Boiling Point of Water at the top of Mount Everest The height of Mount Everest in Nepal is 8848 m. According the table above the boiling point of water is aprox. 72 oC (161.5 oF).
+2. **The Boiling Point of Water at Various Altitudes - The Spruce Eats**
+   https://www.thespruceeats.com/boiling-points-of-water-1328760
+   Aug 29, 2019 · Check your altitude against this chart … oC 2000 ft. (610 m.) 93 oC 7000 ft. Temperatures have been rounded to the half degree.Missing: 2000m | Show results with: 2000m
+3. **Since water boils at lower temperatures at high altitudes ... - Reddit**
+   https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/125nly5/since_water_boils_at_lower_temperatures_at_high/
+   Mar 29, 2023 ... ... boiling point of water at your altitude, you have a problem. At sea ... Using feet for altitude but Celsius degrees for temperature — what are you ...
+4. **Boiling point - Wikipedia**
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point
+   Water boiling at 99.3 °C (210.8 °F) water boils at 100 °C, rounded from scientific precision of 99.97 °C (211.95 … at 93.4 °C (200.1 °F) at 1,905 metres (6,250 ...Missing: 2000m 93
+5. **How Long Does Water Take to Boil? Boiling Time, Factors & Safety ...**
+   https://www.frizzlife.com/blogs/guide/how-long-does-water-take-to-boil-boiling-time-factors-safety-tips
+   Feb 7, 2026 · A simple rule many cooks use is that the boiling point drops by about 1°C for every 300 meters (about 1°F for every 500 feet). It's an estimate, ...
+6. **Boiling - Wikipedia**
+   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling
+   Boiling occurs when a liquid is heated to its boiling point, so that the vapour pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on …
+
+[Note: brave, yahoo did not respond, so coverage is narrower than usual. Consider a second search if these results look thin.]
+
+Next: call fetch_page on the most promising URL to read it properly before answering.
+
+=== [7] THINKING ===
+Let me check the Engineering ToolBox page for the exact boiling point at 2000m altitude.
+
+=== [8] TOOL CALL: fetch_page  (call_7dwxv9bb) ===
+{
+  "url": "https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-points-water-altitude-d_1344.html",
+  "max_chars": 4000
+}
+
+=== [9] TOOL RESULT: fetch_page  (call_7dwxv9bb) ===
+# Source: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-points-water-altitude-d_1344.html
+(web page, 4,539 characters)
+
+[characters 0-4,000 of 4,539]
+The boiling point of water decreases with altitude:
+
+| Water - Boiling Points vs. Altitude | | | | 
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Altitude - compared to Sea Level | | Boiling Point | | 
+|---|---|---|---|
+| *(ft)* | *(m)* | *(<sup>o</sup>F)* | *(<sup>o</sup>C)* | 
+| -1000 | -305 | 213.9 | 101.1 | 
+| -750 | -229 | 213.5 | 100.8 | 
+| -500 | -152 | 213.0 | 100.5 | 
+| -250 | -76 | 212.5 | 100.3 | 
+| 0 | 0 | 212.0 | 100.0 | 
+| 250 | 76 | 211.5 | 99.7 | 
+| 500 | 152 | 211.0 | 99.5 | 
+| 750 | 229 | 210.5 | 99.2 | 
+| 1000 | 305 | 210.1 | 98.9 | 
+| 1250 | 381 | 209.6 | 98.6 | 
+| 1500 | 457 | 209.1 | 98.4 | 
+| 1750 | 533 | 208.6 | 98.1 | 
+| 2000 | 610 | 208.1 | 97.8 | 
+| 2250 | 686 | 207.6 | 97.6 | 
+| 2500 | 762 | 207.2 | 97.3 | 
+| 2750 | 838 | 206.7 | 97.1 | 
+| 3000 | 914 | 206.2 | 96.8 | 
+| 3250 | 991 | 205.7 | 96.5 | 
+| 3500 | 1067 | 205.3 | 96.3 | 
+| 3750 | 1143 | 204.8 | 96.0 | 
+| 4000 | 1219 | 204.3 | 95.7 | 
+| 4250 | 1295 | 203.8 | 95.5 | 
+| 4500 | 1372 | 203.4 | 95.2 | 
+| 4750 | 1448 | 202.9 | 94.9 | 
+| 5000 | 1524 | 202.4 | 94.7 | 
+| 5250 | 1600 | 202.0 | 94.4 | 
+| 5500 | 1676 | 201.5 | 94.2 | 
+| 5750 | 1753 | 201.0 | 93.9 | 
+| 6000 | 1829 | 200.6 | 93.6 | 
+| 6250 | 1905 | 200.1 | 93.4 | 
+| 6500 | 1981 | 199.6 | 93.1 | 
+| 6750 | 2057 | 199.2 | 92.9 | 
+| 7000 | 2134 | 198.7 | 92.6 | 
+| 7250 | 2210 | 198.2 | 92.4 | 
+| 7500 | 2286 | 197.8 | 92.1 | 
+| 7750 | 2362 | 197.3 | 91.8 | 
+| 8000 | 2438 | 196.9 | 91.6 | 
+| 8250 | 2515 | 196.4 | 91.3 | 
+| 8500 | 2591 | 196.0 | 91.1 | 
+| 8750 | 2667 | 195.5 | 90.8 | 
+| 9000 | 2743 | 195.0 | 90.6 | 
+| 9250 | 2819 | 194.6 | 90.3 | 
+| 9500 | 2896 | 194.1 | 90.1 | 
+| 9750 | 2972 | 193.7 | 89.8 | 
+| 10000 | 3048 | 193.2 | 89.6 | 
+| 10250 | 3124 | 192.8 | 89.3 | 
+| 10500 | 3200 | 192.3 | 89.1 | 
+| 10750 | 3277 | 191.9 | 88.8 | 
+| 11000 | 3353 | 191.4 | 88.6 | 
+| 11250 | 3429 | 191.0 | 88.3 | 
+| 11500 | 3505 | 190.5 | 88.1 | 
+| 11750 | 3581 | 190.1 | 87.8 | 
+| 12000 | 3658 | 189.7 | 87.6 | 
+| 12250 | 3734 | 189.2 | 87.3 | 
+| 12500 | 3810 | 188.8 | 87.1 | 
+| 12750 | 3886 | 188.3 | 86.8 | 
+| 13000 | 3962 | 187.9 | 86.6 | 
+| 13250 | 4037 | 187.4 | 86.4 | 
+| 13500 | 4115 | 187.0 | 86.1 | 
+| 13750 | 4191 | 186.6 | 85.9 | 
+| 14000 | 4267 | 186.1 | 85.6 | 
+| 14250 | 4343 | 185.7 | 85.4 | 
+| 14500 | 4420 | 185.3 | 85.1 | 
+| 14750 | 4496 | 184.8 | 84.9 | 
+| 15000 | 4572 | 184.4 | 84.7 | 
+| 15250 | 4648 | 184.0 | 84.4 | 
+| 15500 | 4724 | 183.5 | 84.2 | 
+| 15750 | 4801 | 183.1 | 83.9 | 
+| 16000 | 4877 | 182.7 | 83.7 | 
+| 16250 | 4953 | 182.2 | 83.5 | 
+| 16500 | 5029 | 181.8 | 83.2 | 
+| 16750 | 5105 | 181.4 | 83.0 | 
+| 17000 | 5182 | 180.9 | 82.7 | 
+| 17250 | 5258 | 180.5 | 82.5 | 
+| 17500 | 5334 | 180.1 | 82.3 | 
+| 17750 | 5410 | 179.7 | 82.0 | 
+| 18000 | 5486 | 179.2 | 81.8 | 
+| 18250 | 5563 | 178.8 | 81.6 | 
+| 18500 | 5639 | 178.4 | 81.3 | 
+| 18750 | 5715 | 178.0 | 81.1 | 
+| 19000 | 5791 | 177.6 | 80.9 | 
+| 19250 | 5867 | 177.1 | 80.6 | 
+| 19500 | 5944 | 176.7 | 80.4 | 
+| 19750 | 6020 | 176.3 | 80.2 | 
+| 20000 | 6096 | 175.9 | 79.9 | 
+| 20250 | 6172 | 175.5 | 79.7 | 
+| 20500 | 6248 | 175.1 | 79.5 | 
+| 20750 | 6325 | 174.7 | 79.3 | 
+| 21000 | 6401 | 174.2 | 79.0 | 
+| 21250 | 6477 | 173.8 | 78.8 | 
+| 21500 | 6553 | 173.4 | 78.6 | 
+| 21750 | 6629 | 173.0 | 78.3 | 
+| 22000 | 6706 | 172.6 | 78.1 | 
+| 22250 | 6782 | 172.2 | 77.9 | 
+| 22500 | 6858 | 171.8 | 77.7 | 
+| 22750 | 6934 | 171.4 | 77.4 | 
+| 23000 | 7010 | 171.0 | 77.2 | 
+| 23250 | 7087 | 170.6 | 77.0 | 
+| 23500 | 7163 | 170.2 | 76.8 | 
+| 23750 | 7239 | 169.8 | 76.5 | 
+| 24000 | 7315 | 169.4 | 76.3 | 
+| 24250 | 7391 | 169.0 | 76.1 | 
+| 24500 | 7468 | 168.6 | 75.9 | 
+| 24750 | 7544 | 168.2 | 75.6 | 
+| 25000 | 7620 | 167.8 | 75.4 | 
+| 25250 | 7696 | 167.4 | 75.2 | 
+| 25500 | 7772 | 167.0 | 75.0 | 
+| 25750 | 7849 | 166.6 | 74.8 | 
+| 26000 | 7925 | 166.2 | 74.5 | 
+| 26250 | 8001 | 165.8 | 74.3 | 
+| 26500 | 8077 | 165.4 | 74.1 | 
+| 26750 | 8153 | 165.0 | 73.9 | 
+| 27000 | 8230 | 164.6 | 73.7 | 
+| 27250 | 8306 | 164.2 | 73.5 | 
+| 27500 | 8382 | 163.8 | 73.2 | 
+| 27750 | 845
+
+[MORE AVAILABLE: 539 characters (~168 tokens) remain. To continue, call fetch_page again with url='https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-points-water-altitude-d_1344.html' and offset=4000. Only do so if this section did not answer the question.]
+
+=== [10] THINKING (4s) ===
+The table shows boiling point vs altitude. At 2000 m (which is 6562 ft), the boiling point is about 93.1°C (from the 6500 ft / 1981 m row showing 93.1°C). Let me look more carefully:
+
+- 6250 ft (1905 m): 93.4°C
+- 6500 ft (1981 m): 93.1°C
+- 6750 ft (2057 m): 92.9°C
+
+So at exactly 2000 m, it's approximately 93°C.
+
+Now for the pasta question: since the water is cooler (93°C vs 100°C), the pasta cooks slower. The starch gelatinization and protein denaturation processes are temperature-dependent, so lower temperature means slower cooking. This is well-established cooking science.
+
+Let me give a clear, complete answer.
+
+=== [11] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here's what's happening at 2,000 m:
+
+**Boiling point: roughly 93 °C (199 °F)**
+
+At sea level water boils at 100 °C because the atmospheric pressure is about 101 kPa. At 2,000 m the pressure drops to roughly 80 kPa, so water reaches its boiling point about 7 °C earlier. (The Engineering ToolBox table gives 93.1 °C at 1,981 m and 92.9 °C at 2,057 m, so 93 °C is a solid figure for 2,000 m.)
+
+**Pasta: it cooks slower, not faster**
+
+This is the part that trips people up — the water is *still* boiling, so it feels like it should be just as hot, but it isn't. Starch gelatinisation and the protein network that makes pasta "al dente" are both temperature-dependent. At 93 °C those reactions proceed more slowly than they would at 100 °C, so:
+
+- Expect to add roughly **20–30 % more cooking time** than the package says.
+- The pasta will also absorb a bit more water as it sits in the cooler bath longer, so don't over-soak it.
+- You can't make up the difference by turning the heat up — once it's at a rolling boil the temperature is capped at 93 °C no matter how hard the burner works.
+
+**Practical tips for high-altitude pasta:**
+- Use a little more water so the temperature stays stable when you drop the pasta in.
+- Salt the water generously (it still helps flavour and raises the boiling point by a fraction of a degree).
+- Taste a minute or two before the adjusted time — "al dente" at 93 °C feels slightly different from al dente at 100 °C.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · prompt processed in 2.1 s
+- Thought: The user is asking about boiling point at 2000m altitude. This is a physics question — the boiling point drops with altitude because atmospheric pressure is…
+- Calling web_search
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The search results aren't great. Let me try a more specific search or look for a reference table.
+- Calling web_search
+- Thinking
+- Thought: Let me check the Engineering ToolBox page for the exact boiling point at 2000m altitude.
+- Calling fetch_page
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The table shows boiling point vs altitude. At 2000 m (which is 6562 ft), the boiling point is about 93.1°C (from the 6500 ft / 1981 m row showing 93.1°C). Let…
+- Writing response
+- Done · 3 tool calls
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# e17 — Boiling point at altitude · 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] (2) Lower / cooler  → 2/2 — the first word of the answer is "**Cooler**", and it is repeated against the sea-level figure. v1 never said it outright
+- [x] (2) 92–94 °C  → 2/2 — "around 93–94 °C", computed as ≈93.5 °C. Independently reproduced: 93.36 °C from the ISA pressure at 2,000 m (79.50 kPa) and 93.51 °C from the exponential approximation the model used (79.94 kPa) — both inside the rubric's window and inside its stated 93.3–93.5 range
+- [x] (1) Slower  → 1/1 — "**Pasta consequence: slower, not faster**", with the correct reason (the boil is the ceiling, not the setting)
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Does not claim precision beyond about ±1 °C  → 1/1 — headline is a range ("93–94 °C"); the computed 93.5 °C is immediately qualified as wobbling "a degree or two"
+- [x] (1) Notes that weather / actual pressure shifts it  → 1/1 — "(Exact value wobbles a degree or two with the day's weather — high-pressure days push it up, low-pressure systems pull it down.)" This is the point v1 lost
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (1) A tool was used for the number  → 1/1 — two `matlab_run` calls, both `purpose: "scratch"`; the number in the answer is the tool's output
+- [x] (1) Formula or source shown  → 1/1 — both formulas named and the intermediate stated: "the barometric formula plus the Antoine equation for water's vapor pressure", "at 2,000 m the atmospheric pressure drops to roughly **80 kPa** (about 0.79 atm)", and the physical principle ("water boils when its vapor pressure equals the ambient pressure")
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Three short answers  → 1/1 — bolded direct answer, three bullets of derivation, a parenthetical caveat, then the pasta answer with three practical bullets. About 300 words, shorter than v1 (485 vs 642 completion tokens) and every section is responsive to something the user asked
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 "hotter" or "faster" → not applied — says the opposite of both, explicitly
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — the interim message "I spotted a unit slip in my conversion (kPa→mmHg); re-running:" is followed immediately by the second `matlab_run`
+- automatic fail → not applied — every number in the answer is either tool output or independently correct (see Grader notes)
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T19:33:14Z (dumped 19:34:28Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 2 — `matlab_run` x2, both `purpose: "scratch"`
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: the second call is a **repeat, and a justified one** — the first carried a unit-conversion bug and the second is its correction. Not waste
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.6s / total=16.3s (decode=14.7s, 33.1 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=11004, completion_tokens=485
+- 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 it shows the two `Writing response` phases correctly, one for the interim correction note and one for the answer. `Done · 2 tool calls · prefill 6.1 s for 12,848 tokens · 1,863 generated`. v1's grade flagged "prompt processed in 2.1 s" against `prefill=5.1s`; resolved
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): **no fault — and the best self-correction in the round, worth reading in full.** The first `matlab_run` converted kPa to mmHg with 0.00750062 instead of 7.50062 and returned `Boiling point at 2000 m: -24.8 C` alongside `Boiling point at sea level: 100.0 C`. The model had put the sea-level case in the same script as a sanity anchor, so the absurdity was visible immediately; thinking block [4] re-derives the arithmetic by hand, finds the exact error ("1 kPa = 7.50062 mmHg, not 0.0075!"), **tells the user about it in an interim message**, and re-runs. Three things went right that had to go right: the script included a known-answer check, the model read its own tool output instead of pattern-matching an expected number onto it, and it disclosed the correction rather than quietly re-running. This is the concrete form of "executes code and reports what actually happened". Separately, v1's TUNING finding for this prompt — `category: "science"` returning arXiv abstracts for an everyday-physics query — cannot recur here because the model made **no web search at all**; it recognised the question as computable and computed it, which is the `matlab_run`-as-calculator behaviour from Change 50/51 applied to physics rather than arithmetic. The quantitative nudge fires (2,000 m)
+
+## 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:** all three answers, the number computed rather than recalled, both formulas named, the pressure assumption stated, the weather caveat present, and the "hotter/faster" misconception rejected in as many words. It also caught and disclosed its own unit error mid-turn. The three practical tips are all correct — including the salt one, where "a full teaspoon per litre adds only ~0.1 °C" is exactly right (0.105 °C by boiling-point elevation)
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing that costs a point. Two observations: the barometric approximation it used (`101.325·exp(−h/8435)`) gives 79.9 kPa where the standard atmosphere gives 79.50, worth about 0.15 °C — immaterial, and swamped by the weather variation it correctly flags. And "5–10% longer cook time" is an unsourced heuristic, though a far more defensible one than v1's "20–30%"
+- **Change from the previous round:** **8.5 → 10 (+1.5).** Both of v1's lost half-points are recovered and the mechanism is clear in each case. Calibration: v1 never mentioned that the day's barometric pressure moves the number; v2 leads the caveat with it. Communication: v1 never said "cooler" or "lower" outright and ran long; v2 opens with the word and is 25% shorter. The unsourced heuristic also came down from "20–30%" to "5–10%", which is much closer to reality. Tool behaviour changed shape entirely — v1 searched (and burned a call on arXiv abstracts via `category: "science"`) and read a table; v2 computed from first principles in Octave, which is both cheaper and more defensible, and is the behaviour the `matlab_run` docstring rewrite invites
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): v1's finding is **closed** — the science-category waste cannot arise because no search was needed, and the category guide is separately confirmed on e13. Worth recording as **positive evidence**, and specifically as the best demonstration in the round of why `purpose: "scratch"` earns its place: the model wrote a script that included a known-answer check, the check caught a real bug in its own code, and the user got a corrected answer plus an honest note about the correction — all inside one turn and 16 seconds. If a single transcript is wanted to justify Change 50's `matlab_run` work, this is it
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: recomputed independently on 2026-09-11 with the same Antoine constants (A = 8.07131, B = 1730.63, C = 233.426; mmHg and °C, valid 1–100 °C). Sea level (101.325 kPa) → 100.00 °C, which validates the constants. ISA pressure at 2,000 m = 101.325·(1 − 2.25577e−5·2000)^5.25588 = **79.50 kPa** → **93.36 °C**; the model's exponential approximation gives 79.94 kPa → **93.51 °C**. The rubric's ground truth (≈79.5 kPa, 93.3–93.5 °C) is confirmed exactly, and the model's answer sits inside it. The erroneous first run was reproduced too: with the 0.0075 factor the formula returns −24.76 °C, matching the tool output, so the model's diagnosis of its own bug is correct. Salt claim checked: 1 tsp ≈ 6 g NaCl in 1 L → 0.103 molal × 2 ions × 0.512 °C/molal = **0.105 °C**, so "~0.1 °C" is right
+- Rubric issues: none
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e17-boiling-at-altitude (round v2)
+# chat id    : 6c855e82-4572-42a1-8ff7-3dbf73678f2c
+# chat title : Altitude Cooking and Pasta
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 2  matlab_run x2
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T19:34:28Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T19:33:14Z) ===
+I’m cooking at 2,000 m altitude. Does water boil hotter or cooler than at sea level, roughly what temperature, and does that make my pasta cook faster or slower?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T19:33:14Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=11004 eval_count=485 prompt_tokens=11004 completion_tokens=485 total=16.3s prefill=1.6s decode=14.7s 33.1 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Question: At an altitude of 2,000 meters, what is the boiling point of water, and how does it affect the cooking time for pasta?
+
+The boiling point at 2,000 meters is about 93.3°C. Let's verify this by calculation. Using Antoine's equation or the barometric formula. Atmospheric pressure at 2,000 meters ≈ 79.5 kPa (standard atmosphere: P = 101.325 × exp(-h/8435) ≈ 101.325 × exp(-0.2372) ≈ 101.325 × 0.7889 ≈ 79.9 kPa). The boiling point at 79.5 kPa is about 93.3°C.
+
+Let's verify with matlab_run using Antoine's equation.
+
+Pasta: Since the maximum temperature is lower, it cooks more slowly. Also, starch gelatinization is... In reality, pasta takes longer to cook at high altitudes. Common advice: add about 5–10% more time.
+
+Let's do a quick calculation in MATLAB using Antoine's constants: log10(P_mmHg) = 8.07131 - 1730.63/(233.426 + T), valid range 1–100°C.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run  (call_rvmnhm35) ===
+{
+  "purpose": "scratch",
+  "code": "% Pressure at 2000 m using the standard-atmosphere barometric formula\nh = 2000;\nP_kPa = 101.325 * exp(-h/8435);\nfprintf('Approx pressure at 2000 m: %.1f kPa\\n', P_kPa);\n\n% Invert Antoine equation (NIST, 1-100 C): log10(P_mmHg) = A - B/(C+T)\nA = 8.07131; B = 1730.63; C = 233.426;\nP_mmHg = P_kPa * 0.00750062;\nTb = B/(A - log10(P_mmHg)) - C;\nfprintf('Boiling point at 2000 m: %.1f C\\n', Tb);\n\n% Compare with sea level\nTb_sl = B/(A - log10(760)) - C;\nfprintf('Boiling point at sea level: %.1f C\\n', Tb_sl);\nfprintf('Difference: %.1f C\\n', Tb_sl - Tb);\n"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run  (call_rvmnhm35) ===
+# Scratch run OK (0.51s)
+## Output
+```
+Approx pressure at 2000 m: 79.9 kPa
+Boiling point at 2000 m: -24.8 C
+Boiling point at sea level: 100.0 C
+Difference: 124.7 C
+```
+
+=== [4] THINKING (12s) ===
+I need to investigate this further. Let me check the details.
+
+The Antoine equation I used must have the wrong constants — the NIST Antoine equation for water is: log10(P/bar) = 5.40221 - 1838.675/(T-31.737), valid range 273–303 K… no wait, actually it's a different set of constants. The one I used, A=8.07131, B=1730.63, C=233.426, is for mmHg and °C, and should give 100°C at 760 mmHg. But at 760 it gave 100.0, and at 599 mmHg it gave -24.8? That's weird. Let me check: log10(599)=2.777. A - log10 = 8.07131-2.777=5.294. B/5.294=326.9. Subtracting C=233.4 → 93.5. That should be right! So why did MATLAB return -24.8?
+
+Hmm, maybe there was an issue with the calculation in Octave. Wait — P_mmHg = 79.9 * 0.00750062 = 0.599 kPa→mmHg? No wait! 1 kPa = 7.50062 mmHg, not 0.0075! I made a conversion error: 79.9 kPa × 7.50062 = 599 mmHg. I used 0.0075, so I got 0.599 mmHg → T = B/(A-log10(0.599)) - C = 1730.63/(8.07131+0.222) - 233.426 = 1730.63/8.294 - 233.4 = 208.7-233.4 = -24.7. Yeah, that's my mistake. I'll rerun it with 7.50062.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+I spotted a unit slip in my conversion (kPa→mmHg); re-running:
+
+=== [6] TOOL CALL: matlab_run  (call_8d1okurr) ===
+{
+  "purpose": "scratch",
+  "code": "h = 2000;\nP_kPa = 101.325 * exp(-h/8435);\nfprintf('Approx pressure at 2000 m: %.1f kPa\\n', P_kPa);\n\n% Antoine (mmHg, C): log10(P) = A - B/(C+T)\nA = 8.07131; B = 1730.63; C = 233.426;\nP_mmHg = P_kPa * 7.50062;   % 1 kPa = 7.50062 mmHg\nTb = B/(A - log10(P_mmHg)) - C;\nfprintf('Boiling point at 2000 m: %.1f C\\n', Tb);\n"
+}
+
+=== [7] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run  (call_8d1okurr) ===
+# Scratch run OK (0.52s)
+## Output
+```
+Approx pressure at 2000 m: 79.9 kPa
+Boiling point at 2000 m: 93.5 C
+```
+
+=== [8] THINKING (3s) ===
+At an altitude of about 2000 meters, the boiling point of water is approximately 93–94 degrees Celsius, which is about 6–7 degrees lower than at sea level. As for cooking pasta, since the maximum temperature that water can reach becomes lower, the starch gelatinization and hydration processes proceed more slowly, so it takes longer to cook. General advice is to add roughly 5–10% more time. In practice, the difference in cooking time for pasta is small, but it does get a bit slower. You should also keep in mind that salt affects the boiling point only very slightly.
+
+=== [9] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+**Cooler — around 93–94 °C, not 100 °C.**
+
+I worked it out from the barometric formula plus the Antoine equation for water's vapor pressure:
+
+- At 2,000 m the atmospheric pressure drops to roughly **80 kPa** (about 0.79 atm)
+- Water boils when its vapor pressure equals the ambient pressure, so at that pressure it boils at **≈93.5 °C**
+- That's about **6–7 °C cooler** than the 100 °C you get at sea level
+
+(Exact value wobbles a degree or two with the day's weather — high-pressure days push it up, low-pressure systems pull it down.)
+
+**Pasta consequence: slower, not faster.** Boiling is the *maximum* temperature your pot can reach, so every cooking step below 100 °C — starch gelatinization, hydration of the pasta core — runs a bit more slowly. In practice the difference is modest: expect roughly **5–10% longer cook time** than the box says, i.e. a minute or two extra on a typical 10-minute pasta. A couple of practical tips:
+
+- Test a piece a minute before the package time and give it a few extra minutes rather than overcooking.
+- Don't try to "compensate" by cooking off the boil — a rolling boil at 93.5 °C is exactly as hot as water gets there.
+- Salt barely raises the boiling point (a full teaspoon per liter adds only ~0.1 °C), so it won't help speed things up.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 8.5 s
+- Thought: Question: At an altitude of 2,000 meters, what is the boiling point of water, and how … = 8.07131 - 1730.63/(233.426 + T), valid range 1–100°C.
+- Calling matlab_run
+- Thinking
+- Thought: I need to investigate this further. Let me check the details. The Antoine equation I … = -24.7. Yeah, that's my mistake. I'll rerun it with 7.50062.
+- Writing response
+- Calling matlab_run
+- Thinking
+- Thought: At an altitude of about 2000 meters, the boiling point of water is approximately 93–94 … in mind that salt affects the boiling point only very slightly.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 2 tool calls · prefill 6.1 s for 12,848 tokens · 1,863 generated
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# e17 — Boiling point at altitude · 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] (2) Lower / cooler  → 2/2 — "water boils **cooler** — roughly **93 °C** instead of 100 °C", first sentence
+- [x] (2) 92–94 °C  → 2/2 — "roughly 93 °C"; the tool computed 93.4 °C from the ISA pressure (79.5 kPa) and the Antoine equation, and the sea-level check in the same script returned 100.0 °C
+- [x] (1) Slower  → 1/1 — "it cooks **slower**, not faster", with the right reason
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Does not claim precision beyond about ±1 °C  → 1/1 — "roughly 93 °C", "~93 °C"; the 93.4 from the tool is rounded in the answer
+- [~] (1) Notes that weather / actual pressure shifts it  → **0.5/1** — the assumption is stated ("I ran the numbers with the standard-atmosphere pressure"), and there is a pressure caveat, but it is about a sealed or heavily lidded pot raising the pressure, not about the day's barometric pressure moving the number either way. v2 led its caveat with the weather; v3 does not mention weather at all. Half credit: the pressure dependence is acknowledged, the variation a cook actually meets is not
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (1) A tool was used for the number (search or computed)  → 1/1 — one scratch `matlab_run`; the answer's figures are the tool's
+- [x] (1) Formula or source shown  → 1/1 — "the standard-atmosphere pressure and the Antoine equation", with the pressure stated (~79.5 kPa vs 101.3)
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Three short answers  → 1/1 — the three answers in the first two sentences and the first line of the pasta paragraph; three practical tips; one caveat. About 200 words, the shortest of the three rounds
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 "hotter" or "faster" → not applied — says the opposite of both
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — "I'll verify with a tool" is followed by the call
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:12:38Z (dumped 23:13:34Z)
+- 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 — and where v2 needed two runs (a unit slip caught by its own sea-level check), v3's script was right first time and included the same sea-level check
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.6s / total=11.3s (decode=8.7s, 31.8 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10184, completion_tokens=275
+- 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 · 1 tool call · prefill 6.0 s for 12,848 tokens · 885 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the nudge fires (2,000 m). Thinking block [1] works the Antoine equation by hand to 93.37 °C *before* calling the tool, then calls it "to be strict" — compute-then-verify, the safe order. One unsourced heuristic in the answer: cooking times "increase by about 10–25% around this altitude" (v1 said 20–30%, v2 said 5–10%; none of the three cited anything). The "gelatinizing… starches take longer to absorb water" explanation is correct
+
+### 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
+- 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:** 9.5 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1.5/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** all three answers, the number computed from first principles with the formulas named and the pressure assumption stated, the misconception rejected in as many words, and the most concise answer of the three rounds
+- **What it got wrong:** it dropped the weather caveat v2 had, keeping only a lid/pressure-cooker aside; and the cook-time heuristic is unsourced and has drifted between rounds (20–30% → 5–10% → 10–25%)
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 9.5 (−0.5).** Same tool path (Octave, Antoine, ISA pressure), cleaner execution (one run instead of two), shorter answer — and the one caveat v1 lost a point for and v2 restored has slipped out again. Nothing in Change 54 touches a calculator-only prompt; this is variance in which secondary caveats the model chooses to include
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: as in v2 — ISA at 2,000 m = 79.50 kPa → 93.36 °C by Antoine (A = 8.07131, B = 1730.63, C = 233.426); the model's script uses the ISA formula directly this time and gets 79.5 kPa / 93.4 °C, matching. Sea-level check 100.0 °C validates the constants
+- Rubric issues: calibration line 2 pairs "weather / actual pressure"; an answer that mentions pressure only in the lid sense sits between the two readings, hence the half point. Recorded so a later grader can see the call
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e17-boiling-at-altitude (round v3)
+# chat id    : bc6f9690-8c1f-43e9-b830-4bf2bbfdc9d9
+# chat title : Cooking Altitude & Pasta
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  matlab_run x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T23:13:34Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T23:12:38Z) ===
+I'm cooking at 2,000 m altitude. Does water boil hotter or cooler than at sea level, roughly what temperature, and does that make my pasta cook faster or slower?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T23:12:38Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10184 eval_count=275 prompt_tokens=10184 completion_tokens=275 total=11.3s prefill=2.6s decode=8.7s 31.8 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Question: At an elevation of 2000 meters, at what temperature does water boil? Using the Antoine equation, the boiling point of water at 2000 m elevation is approximately 93.3°C. Since the boiling point drops, the cooking time becomes longer.
+
+Calculation: Atmospheric pressure at 2000 m ≈ 79.5 kPa. Antoine equation: log10(P) = A − B/(T+C), with P in mmHg, A=8.07131, B=1730.63, C=233.426 (for the range 1–100°C). P = 79.5 kPa = 596.4 mmHg. log10(596.4) = 2.7756. B/(T+C) = 8.07131 − 2.7756 = 5.2957. T+C = 1730.63/5.2957 = 326.80. T = 326.80 − 233.426 = 93.37°C. In other words, about 93°C.
+
+To be strict, I'll verify with a tool.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run  (call_qockopde) ===
+{
+  "code": "% Boiling point of water at 2000 m elevation\n% 1) Atmospheric pressure at altitude (standard atmosphere approximation)\nh = 2000;                          % m\nP_kPa = 101.325 * (1 - 2.25577e-5*h)^(5.2559);\nP_mmHg = P_kPa / 101.325 * 760;\n\n% 2) Antoine equation for water (valid 1-100 C): log10(P_mmHg) = A - B/(C + T_C)\nA = 8.07131; B = 1730.63; C = 233.426;\nT_boil = B/(A - log10(P_mmHg)) - C;\n\nfprintf('Pressure at 2000 m: %.1f kPa (%.1f mmHg)\\n', P_kPa, P_mmHg);\nfprintf('Boiling point there: %.1f C\\n', T_boil);\nfprintf('Sea level (101.325 kPa): %.1f C\\n', B/(A - log10(760)) - C);\n",
+  "purpose": "scratch"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run  (call_qockopde) ===
+# Scratch run OK (0.42s)
+## Output
+```
+Pressure at 2000 m: 79.5 kPa (596.3 mmHg)
+Boiling point there: 93.4 C
+Sea level (101.325 kPa): 100.0 C
+```
+
+=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
+Answer: Cooler, about 93°C, pasta takes longer to cook. Keep it concise.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+At 2,000 m the air pressure is lower (~79.5 kPa vs 101.3 at sea level), so water boils **cooler** — roughly **93 °C** instead of 100 °C (I ran the numbers with the standard-atmosphere pressure and the Antoine equation).
+
+For your pasta: it cooks **slower**, not faster. Pasta cooks by gelatinizing in hot water, and a few degrees less means the starches take longer to absorb water. As a rough rule of thumb, cooking times for pasta (and rice, beans, etc.) increase by about 10–25% around this altitude. Practical tips:
+
+- Add a little extra water so it doesn't evaporate as it simmers longer.
+- Don't rely on the package time — taste-test a minute or two past it.
+- The lid helps it return to a boil faster between additions of pasta.
+
+One caveat: if your pot is under a heavy lid or has a pressure-cooker-style seal, the pressure rises slightly and the boiling point goes back up — but for an open pot, ~93 °C is what you're working with.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 6.2 s
+- Thought: Question: At an elevation of 2000 meters, at what temperature does water boil? Using … other words, about 93°C. To be strict, I'll verify with a tool.
+- Calling matlab_run
+- Thinking
+- Thought: Answer: Cooler, about 93°C, pasta takes longer to cook. Keep it concise.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 6.0 s for 12,848 tokens · 885 generated
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# e17 — Boiling point at altitude · 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) Lower / cooler  → 2/2 — "**Cooler, not hotter.**", first words
+- [x] (2) 92–94 °C  → 2/2 — "**Roughly 93 °C** (about 200 °F)"; the tool computed 93.4 °C from ISA pressure and the Antoine equation
+- [x] (1) Slower  → 1/1 — "**Your pasta cooks slower.**", with the right reason (the water cannot exceed its local boiling point; gelatinisation and hydration are slower at 93 °C)
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Does not claim precision beyond about ±1 °C  → 1/1 — "Roughly 93 °C"; the tool's 93.4 is rounded
+- [ ] (1) Notes that weather / actual pressure shifts it  → **0/1** — absent. The answer states the ISA pressure (~79.5 kPa) as a fixed fact and never says the day's barometric pressure moves the number; the lid/pressure-cooker aside that earned v3 a half-point is not here either. Scored as v1 was (0/1 for the same omission)
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (1) A tool was used for the number (search or computed)  → 1/1 — one scratch `matlab_run`; the answer's figures are the tool's
+- [ ] (1) Formula or source shown  → **0.5/1** — the answer shows the intermediate ("air pressure there is ~79.5 kPa instead of 101 kPa") and the physical principle ("Water boils at whatever temperature its vapor pressure matches the surrounding air pressure"), but names neither a formula nor a source. v2 and v3 both named the Antoine equation and the standard atmosphere in the answer and scored 1/1; v1 named a table and its rows. Half credit for the intermediate and the principle
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Three short answers  → 1/1 — the three answers are the first three bold sentences. What follows (two numbered mechanisms, four tips, a rule of thumb) is the longest tail of the four rounds (663 completion tokens against v3's 275) and is not what the line scores
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 "hotter" or "faster" → not applied — says the opposite of both
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied — "Let me run the calculation" is followed by the call
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:18:58Z (dumped 04:20:10Z)
+- 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 — right first time, with the sea-level sanity line
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.5s / total=22.8s (decode=20.2s, 32.9 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10904, completion_tokens=663
+- 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 · 1 tool call · prefill 5.1 s for 12,932 tokens · 1,905 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the nudge fires (2,000 m). Thinking block [1] works the ISA formula and the Antoine equation by hand to 93.35 °C before calling the tool "to avoid decimal slip, per the instructions" — compute-then-verify, as v3. The formulas are named and worked in thinking and then left out of the answer, which is where the half-point went. Two unscored loose claims in the tail: "it reaches a boil *earlier*" (true in temperature, confusing in time — a pot at altitude does not boil sooner on the clock in any useful sense), and the cook-time heuristic has drifted again (v1 20–30%, v2 5–10%, v3 10–25%, v4 15–25%; none sourced). The salt remark (a few tenths of a degree) is correct
+
+### 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:** 8.5 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1/2 · tool use 1.5/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** all three answers, the number computed from first principles and verified in the tool, the misconception rejected in the first two words, three short answers up front
+- **What it got wrong:** no weather/actual-pressure caveat at all (v3 had half of one); the formula and source that the thinking used are not named in the answer; and the tail is twice the length it needs, with a drifting unsourced cook-time percentage
+- **Change from the previous round:** **9.5 → 8.5 (−1).** Same tool path, same number, same correctness; the losses are both in what the answer chose to say. v3's grade called the missing weather caveat "variance in which secondary caveats the model chooses to include", and v4 confirms that: the caveat has now been present (v2), half-present (v3) and absent (v1, v4) with no harness change that touches it. The formula-naming loss is new — the answer grew in tips and shrank in method. 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 — model-side variance on secondary content. The one thing worth a line is the pattern across the round of answers growing longer tails (e04, e13, e17) with the extra material unsourced
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: ISA at 2,000 m = 79.50 kPa → 93.36 °C by Antoine (A = 8.07131, B = 1730.63, C = 233.426); the model's script computes both from the same constants and prints 79.5 kPa / 93.4 °C / 200.1 °F. Correct. Salt: 10 g/L NaCl raises the boiling point by ~0.17 °C — "a few tenths" is right
+- Rubric issues: calibration line 2 pairs "weather / actual pressure"; v3 sat between the readings and got half, v4 has neither and gets none. The tool-use line "formula or source shown" was read as requiring one of the two to be *named* in the answer; an intermediate value alone is half. Recorded so a later grader can see both calls
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e17-boiling-at-altitude (round v4)
+# chat id    : 56ce08b3-9481-40bd-8d28-db7f1839a68f
+# chat title : Altitude Cooking & Pasta
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  matlab_run x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-12T04:20:10Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-12T04:18:58Z) ===
+I'm cooking at 2,000 m altitude. Does water boil hotter or cooler than at sea level, roughly what temperature, and does that make my pasta cook faster or slower?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-12T04:18:58Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10904 eval_count=663 prompt_tokens=10904 completion_tokens=663 total=22.8s prefill=2.5s decode=20.2s 32.9 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+The user is asking about boiling point at 2000m altitude. This is a physics question I can calculate. The boiling point of water depends on atmospheric pressure. At 2000m, pressure is lower, so water boils at a lower temperature.
+
+Let me think about this properly. The standard atmosphere model gives pressure as a function of altitude. Then I use the Clausius-Clapeyron relation or Antoine equation to find the boiling point.
+
+Standard atmosphere: at 2000m, pressure is roughly 79.5 kPa (about 784 mmHg). Let me compute more precisely.
+
+Using the international standard atmosphere (below 11km):
+P = P0 * (1 - L*h/(T0))^5.2561
+where P0 = 101325 Pa, L = 0.0065 K/m, T0 = 288.15 K, h = 2000 m
+
+1 - L*h/T0 = 1 - 0.0065*2000/288.15 = 1 - 13/288.15 = 1 - 0.045115 = 0.954885
+0.954885^5.2561 = ?
+
+ln(0.954885) = -0.04617
+* 5.2561 = -0.24268
+exp(-0.24268) = 0.7845
+
+So P = 101325 * 0.7845 = 79,490 Pa ≈ 79.5 kPa
+
+Now the boiling point. Use Antoine equation for water:
+log10(P_mmHg) = A - B/(C + T_C)
+A = 8.07131, B = 1730.63, C = 233.426 (valid 1-100°C)
+
+P in mmHg = 79490 / 133.322 = 596.2 mmHg
+log10(596.2) = 2.7754
+2.7754 = 8.07131 - 1730.63/(233.426 + T)
+1730.63/(233.426 + T) = 8.07131 - 2.7754 = 5.2959
+233.426 + T = 1730.63/5.2959 = 326.78
+T = 326.78 - 233.426 = 93.35°C
+
+So roughly 93°C at 2000m.
+
+Let me verify with a tool. I should use matlab_run scratch to be precise, and maybe do a quick web check on the standard value. Actually, this is well-established physics. Let me just compute it carefully with matlab_run scratch.
+
+Actually the rule of thumb: boiling point drops about 1°C per ~285-300 m of altitude near sea level, but that's not linear. A common figure: at 2000m (about 6500 ft), water boils at about 93°C (199°F). That matches my calc.
+
+Pasta cooks slower because lower temperature means slower cooking (starch gelatinization and protein denaturation happen faster at higher temps). The pasta still floats when done, so the float test works, but it takes longer.
+
+Let me run the calculation to be precise and cite it. I'll do a matlab scratch run.
+
+I don't strictly need web search — this is textbook physics. But let me verify the number with a tool to avoid decimal slip, per the instructions.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run  (call_ayhowvb3) ===
+{
+  "purpose": "scratch",
+  "code": "% Boiling point of water at 2000 m altitude\n% 1) International Standard Atmosphere pressure (valid below 11 km)\nP0 = 101325;          % Pa\nL  = 0.0065;          % K/m\nT0 = 288.15;          % K\nh  = 2000;            % m\nP  = P0*(1 - L*h/T0)^5.2561;\nfprintf('Pressure at 2000 m: %.1f kPa (%.1f mmHg)\\n', P/1000, P/133.322);\n\n% 2) Antoine equation for water (1-100 C): log10(P_mmHg)=A-B/(C+T)\nA=8.07131; B=1730.63; C=233.426;\nPmm = P/133.322;\nTb  = B/(A - log10(Pmm)) - C;\nfprintf('Boiling point at 2000 m: %.1f C (%.1f F)\\n', Tb, Tb*9/5+32);\n\n% For reference, sea level\nfprintf('Sea-level boiling point: ~100 C\\n');"
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run  (call_ayhowvb3) ===
+# Scratch run OK (0.43s)
+## Output
+```
+Pressure at 2000 m: 79.5 kPa (596.3 mmHg)
+Boiling point at 2000 m: 93.4 C (200.1 F)
+Sea-level boiling point: ~100 C
+```
+
+=== [4] THINKING (5s) ===
+The calculation confirms ~93°C. Now let me answer clearly and concisely.
+
+Key points:
+- Water boils COOLER at altitude, not hotter. Lower pressure → lower boiling point.
+- At 2000m: about 93°C (roughly 93–94°C).
+- Pasta cooks SLOWER, because the water is cooler during cooking, and the cooking reactions (starch gelatinization, hydration) proceed more slowly at lower temperature.
+- Practical tips: allow extra cook time, don't add salt to raise boiling point (it barely changes it), use the package time as a starting point and taste-test.
+
+One nuance people get wrong: adding salt doesn't meaningfully raise the boiling point (only by a fraction of a degree). I'll mention that briefly since it's a common misconception tied to this exact situation.
+
+Let me write a clean answer.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+**Cooler, not hotter.** Water boils at whatever temperature its vapor pressure matches the surrounding air pressure — and air pressure drops with altitude. So at 2,000 m it reaches a boil *earlier* (at a lower temperature), not later.
+
+**Roughly 93 °C** (about 200 °F) at 2,000 m, versus 100 °C at sea level. That works out because the air pressure there is ~79.5 kPa instead of 101 kPa. The drop isn't linear, but "≈1 °C per 285 m" is a decent rule of thumb in this range.
+
+**Your pasta cooks slower.** Two things are both working against you:
+
+1. **Lower cooking temperature.** Once boiling, the water can't get any hotter than its local boiling point, so your pasta is being cooked at ~93 °C instead of 100 °C. Starch gelatinization and hydration run more slowly at that temperature.
+2. **The "extra time" effect compounds.** Because the whole pot sits a few degrees cooler the entire time, the difference is a real percentage of cook time, not a rounding error — expect to add a few minutes over the package's sea-level time.
+
+Practical tips for altitude cooking:
+
+- **Start from the package time and taste-test** rather than trusting it — it's written for sea level.
+- **Don't rely on salt to fix it.** Adding a normal amount of salt raises the boiling point by only a fraction of a degree (a few tenths), far too little to matter. It seasons the pasta; it doesn't speed it up.
+- **Use more water / a bigger pot** if you can — it helps the water return to a boil faster between additions, which matters more the bigger the batch.
+- The **"it floats when it's done"** trick still works — buoyancy isn't temperature-dependent — but it'll take longer to get there.
+
+Rule of thumb: add roughly 15–25% extra time to your usual pasta cook time at 2,000 m, and check a minute or two before the package says.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 6.8 s
+- Thought: The user is asking about boiling point at 2000m altitude. This is a physics question I … number with a tool to avoid decimal slip, per the instructions.
+- Calling matlab_run
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The calculation confirms ~93°C. Now let me answer clearly and concisely. Key points: - … tied to this exact situation. Let me write a clean answer.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.1 s for 12,932 tokens · 1,905 generated
				`@@ -0,0 +1 @@`
				`I'm cooking at 2,000 m altitude. Does water boil hotter or cooler than at sea level, roughly what temperature, and does that make my pasta cook faster or slower?`