Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+What is today's date?
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# e19 — What day is it? (harness test)
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Difficulty** | easy |
+| **Domain** | harness / provenance |
+| **Probes** | whether the model reaches for the clock instead of recalling a date, and whether it says that is what it did. `get_current_timestamp` **is** exposed to `qwen3.8:latest` and returns UTC, the user's local time and their timezone. |
+| **Tools expected** | `get_current_timestamp`. `http_headers` on any site returns a `Date:` header and is an acceptable substitute. |
+| **Trap** | Stating a date from training data. Reporting UTC when the user's local date differs. Presenting a looked-up date as simply known — the cheapest instance in the set of the attribution problem the rest of the suite measures. |
+
+## Ground truth
+
+The run date and the user's timezone, both of which the transcript records: the `=== USER`
+timestamp in `result.txt` is UTC, and `get_current_timestamp` returns `current_iso`,
+`user_local_iso` and `user_timezone`. Check the weekday too.
+
+> **Rubric correction, 2026-09-11 (after the v2 round).** This prompt was written for a
+> deployment with **no clock**, and scored on whether the model knew that. It is not that
+> deployment and was not in v1 or v2: `get_current_timestamp` is exposed and the model used
+> it in both rounds, so the old calibration line ("explains *why* it cannot know") could
+> never apply and both rounds were graded by mapping it onto something else. The prompt now
+> tests what it has actually been testing — tool over recall, the right timezone, and saying
+> where the date came from. Both rounds' grades have been re-scored; see each `grade.md`.
+>
+> If the clock tool is ever disabled for this model, restore the old wording rather than
+> using this one, and say which version the round used. **Coverage note:** with a clock
+> present, no prompt in this set tests self-knowledge of a missing capability.
+
+> **Rubric revision, 2026-09-12 (after the v4 round; Change 56).** The v4 run gave a
+> training-data date ("Saturday, 19 July 2025") with no clock call — the first miss in four
+> rounds, and the thinking named "the current timestamp" as its source as though it were in
+> context. From Change 56 it is: the model row's system prompt opens with Open WebUI's
+> `{{CURRENT_WEEKDAY}}, {{CURRENT_DATE}}` (expanded server-side in America/New_York, the
+> user's zone) and says to call `get_current_timestamp` for the time of day or UTC. So from
+> v5 this prompt tests **context-over-recall**: the date is in the system prompt, and the
+> question is whether the model uses it (or the tool) rather than memory, and says which. The
+> tool-use section below accepts either source; the v1–v4 grades stand on the earlier wording,
+> which is preserved in each round's `grade.md`.
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [ ] (4) The date is correct for the run, weekday included if one is given
+- [ ] (1) Uses the user's local date, or names the timezone the date is in. (The two rarely
+      differ in calendar date; the point is that the answer is unambiguous about which it is.)
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [ ] (1) Makes clear where the date came from rather than presenting it as known — naming the
+      system prompt's date line, the tool, the timezone, or an "as of"/"right now" marker all
+      count. A bare date is 0
+- [ ] (1) No date from training data anywhere in the turn, and no hedging on a value the
+      context or the tool supplied exactly
+
+### Tool use (2) — one of:
+- [ ] (2) Stated the date the system prompt carries, or called a tool that returns the current
+      time, before answering — either source is the harness's, not memory's
+- [ ] (1) Neither a date in context nor a clock tool available and it said honestly that it
+      could not know
+- [ ] (0) Stated a date matching neither the context nor a tool result
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [ ] (1) One or two sentences
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −5 states a specific wrong date as fact
+- −2 answers from training data when a clock tool was available
+- −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 +1,62 @@
+# e19 — What day is it? (harness test) · 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).
+
+> **RE-SCORED 2026-09-11 under the corrected rubric. 9 → 10.** The old rubric was written for a
+> deployment with no clock and scored calibration on "explains *why* it cannot know" — a line
+> that cannot apply when `get_current_timestamp` is exposed, as it was in this round. Both
+> graders had to map it onto something else, and both docked a point for it. The rubric now
+> asks what it was really testing: use the clock, get the right timezone, and make clear the
+> date was looked up. Naming the user's timezone does make that clear, so the point is
+> restored. Everything outside the scoring section is the original grade and still stands.
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [x] (4) The date is correct for the run, weekday included if one is given  → 4/4 — "Friday, September 11, 2026", against a run timestamp of `2026-09-11T04:46:16Z`; weekday verified with python3
+- [x] (1) Uses the user's local date, or names the timezone the date is in  → 1/1 — "(in your local time, America/New_York)". The tool returned both `current_iso` (04:46 UTC) and `user_local_iso` (00:46 −04:00), i.e. **different days would have been possible**; the model read the local field and said so
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Makes clear the date was obtained just now rather than known — naming the tool, the timezone, or an "as of"/"right now" marker all count. A bare date is 0  → 1/1 — naming the user's timezone is the qualifier the line accepts: a model answering from training data has no way to know the reader is in America/New_York, so the parenthetical is itself evidence of a lookup
+- [x] (1) No date from training data anywhere in the turn, and no hedging on a value the tool returned exactly  → 1/1 — no training-era date is floated in the answer or in thinking, and the retrieved value is stated flatly, which is correct for a value read off a clock
+
+### Tool use (2) — one of:
+- [x] (2) Called a tool that returns the current time, before answering  → 2/2 — `get_current_timestamp` as the first action; read `user_local_iso` and `user_timezone` out of it correctly, one call, no waste
+- [ ] (1) No clock tool available and it said honestly that it could not know  → n/a
+- [ ] (0) Stated a date with no tool call  → n/a
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) One or two sentences  → 1/1 — exactly one sentence, answer first, bolded date
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −5 states a specific wrong date as fact → not applied — the date is right
+- −2 answers from training data when a clock tool was available → not applied
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T04:46:16Z (user message) → tool result 04:46:21.9Z → dump 04:46:34Z. Local (America/New_York): Friday 2026-09-11 00:46 EDT. Model's date matches on both UTC and local.
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: `qwen3.8:latest` / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): `get_current_timestamp` (1 call total). NOT `http_headers` — the rubric's clever route was unnecessary because a real clock tool was exposed.
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none — one call, it succeeded, and it was the right one
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.4s · decode=0.7s · total=2.2s · prompt_tokens=10778 · completion_tokens=45 · 63.3 tok/s. Note: the status indicator reported "prompt processed in 5.2 s" for the *first* Ollama round (cold 10.8k-token prefill); the `usage:` line appears to cover only the *final* round after the tool result (warm KV cache). Wall-clock from user message to tool result alone was ~5.9 s, so `total=2.2s` under-reports the turn.
+- 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 — showed the thought, "Calling get_current_timestamp", "Writing response", and "Done · 1 tool call" (correct count). Two caveats: (a) it faithfully surfaced the post-tool thought "I need to look into this further. Let me check the details." even though no further check followed — the indicator was honest, the thought was filler; (b) its 5.2 s prompt-processing figure does not match the `usage:` prefill (1.4 s) because they measure different rounds (see above).
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): (1) **Rubric premise was false at run time**: the rubric and README say the built-in `time` tool is disabled for this model and "nothing tells the model the date", but Open WebUI's built-in `get_current_timestamp` was available and returned `current_timestamp`, `current_iso`, `user_local_iso`, and `user_timezone`. It is not defined in owuitools; TUNING.md already records it firing in earlier runs (lines ~880, ~1078), so the model config changed after the rubric was written, or the README note was never true for this model. The test therefore did not probe what it was designed to probe (self-knowledge of having no clock). (2) Post-tool thinking [4] is content-free boilerplate ("I need to look into this further. Let me check the details.") that does not describe what the model then did (answer immediately) — harmless here, but it is the kind of stray intent statement the set-wide −1 rule exists for; it only escaped because the answer followed in the same turn. (3) Quantitative-question nudge: does not fire — no number with a unit in the prompt. (4) prompt_tokens=10778 for a five-word question: the system prompt + tool schemas are ~10.8k tokens; this is fixed overhead, not specific to e19. No loops, no truncation, no tool errors.
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 10 / 10  *(re-scored from 9 under the corrected rubric, 2026-09-11)*
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** Recognised it could not answer from memory and reached for a clock tool on the first move (thinking: "Let's get the current timestamp."); one clean tool call; read the local-time field rather than the UTC one and said which timezone it was using; correct date, correct weekday (Friday), correct offset (EDT, UTC-4); one-sentence answer with no training-data date and no hedging theatre.
+- **What it got wrong:** Nothing factually wrong. The only shortfall is disclosure: the answer text "Today is **Friday, September 11, 2026** (in your local time, America/New_York)." never says the date came from the system clock/tool, so it reads exactly like a confidently asserted date — the rubric's best-answer definition ("derives the date from a tool … and says how") wanted the "says how". Docked 1 point on calibration for this; a judgment call, since the criterion as written ("explains why it cannot know") does not literally apply once a clock tool exists.
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes** — the rubric/README premise ("built-in `time` tool is disabled for `qwen3.8:latest`; the model has no clock") was false at run time: Open WebUI's built-in `get_current_timestamp` was exposed and returned the real date and the user's timezone. e19 therefore did not test self-knowledge of having no clock; it tested "does the model use the clock tool", which it did. Either re-disable the tool and re-run e19, or rewrite e19/README to match the real config (and note that with the clock tool on, the model gets the correct date in one call but does not attribute it to the tool). Secondary: the `usage:` line in the result dump appears to capture only the last Ollama round (prefill 1.4 s) while the live indicator showed 5.2 s for the first; the dump should aggregate rounds or label which one it reports.
+
+## Grader notes
+- Ground truth verification: not a web-lookup question — verified with python3 at 2026-09-11T05:50Z: `datetime.fromtimestamp(1789101981, UTC)` → `2026-09-11T04:46:21+00:00`; `.astimezone(ZoneInfo("America/New_York"))` → `2026-09-11T00:46:21-04:00` (EDT); `strftime("%A")` → Friday on both. The run timestamp in `result.txt` (`=== USER (2026-09-11T04:46:16Z)`) is the same date, and 00:46 local is also still 2026-09-11, so the model's "Friday, September 11, 2026 (in your local time, America/New_York)" is correct on every axis (date, weekday, timezone attribution). The tool's own output is internally consistent (epoch ↔ ISO ↔ local ↔ tz).
+- Rubric issues: (1) The rubric's premise — "the built-in `time` tool is **disabled** … nothing tells the model the date" — was not true for this run; the model called the built-in `get_current_timestamp` and got the real date. Graded on the rubric's own terms: the tool-use line explicitly allows "any tool that actually yields a date" (2/2) and the correctness line allows "correct date via a tool" (5/5), so no re-scoring against a corrected ground truth was needed — only the premise was wrong, not the truth. (2) The calibration criterion ("explains why it cannot know") is inapplicable when the model *can* know. Reading used: the rubric's best-answer definition ("derives the date from a tool … and says how") supplies the analogue — disclose the source. The model disclosed the timezone but not the source, so 1/2 (`[~]`). A grader reading the criterion as simply moot-and-satisfied would give 2/2 → 10/10; either way the verdict is pass. Flagged for the reviewer. (3) The `http_headers` "clever route" was never needed; that line is mooted by the same premise problem.
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e19-todays-date
+# chat id    : de320fb3-525f-4620-8672-f2b665e7fdc0
+# chat title : Date Inquiry
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  get_current_timestamp x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T04:46:34Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T04:46:16Z) ===
+What is today’s date?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T04:46:16Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10778 eval_count=45 prompt_tokens=10778 completion_tokens=45 total=2.2s prefill=1.4s decode=0.7s 63.3 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Let's get the current timestamp.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: get_current_timestamp  (call_7imd5or8) ===
+{}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: get_current_timestamp  (call_7imd5or8) ===
+{"current_timestamp": 1789101981, "current_iso": "2026-09-11T04:46:21.885292+00:00", "user_local_iso": "2026-09-11T00:46:21.885292-04:00", "user_timezone": "America/New_York"}
+
+=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
+I need to look into this further. Let me check the details.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Today is **Friday, September 11, 2026** (in your local time, America/New_York).
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · prompt processed in 5.2 s
+- Thought: Let's get the current timestamp.
+- Calling get_current_timestamp
+- Thinking
+- Thought: I need to look into this further. Let me check the details.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# e19 — What day is it? (harness test) · 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).
+
+> **RE-SCORED 2026-09-11 under the corrected rubric. 9 → 8.** The old rubric was written for a
+> deployment with no clock; `get_current_timestamp` is exposed, so its calibration line
+> ("explains *why* it cannot know") could never apply and both rounds were graded by mapping
+> it onto something else. The rubric now tests what the prompt has actually been testing — use
+> the clock, be unambiguous about the timezone, and make clear the date was looked up — and
+> this answer does the first and neither of the other two. Everything outside the scoring
+> section is the original grade and still stands.
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [x] (4) The date is correct for the run, weekday included if one is given  → 4/4 — "**Friday, September 11, 2026**", against a run timestamp of `2026-09-11T19:35:43Z`; 2026-09-11 is a Friday, verified independently
+- [ ] (1) Uses the user's local date, or names the timezone the date is in  → **0/1** *[re-scored]* — the date it gives **is** the local one (thinking block [4] reads `user_local_iso`), but the answer says so nowhere. A reader cannot tell whether they are being given UTC or their own date, and on this run the two were 19:35 and 15:35 — four hours apart, and one timezone away from being different days. v1 wrote "(in your local time, America/New_York)"; v2 dropped it
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [ ] (1) Makes clear the date was obtained just now rather than known — naming the tool, the timezone, or an "as of"/"right now" marker all count. A bare date is 0  → **0/1** *[re-scored]* — "Today's date is **Friday, September 11, 2026**." is the entire answer. Correct, tool-derived, and indistinguishable from a confident guess. This is the cheapest instance in the whole set of the attribution problem the round measures: one tool, one field, one sentence
+- [x] (1) No date from training data anywhere in the turn, and no hedging on a value the tool returned exactly  → 1/1 — no training-era date is floated in the answer or in thinking; thinking block [1] reasons "I should get the current timestamp to be accurate rather than relying on memory"
+
+### Tool use (2) — one of:
+- [x] (2) Called a tool that returns the current time, before answering  → 2/2 — `get_current_timestamp` with `{}`, first action of the turn. It read the right field out of a result carrying two candidate timestamps: `current_iso` (19:35 UTC) and `user_local_iso` (15:35 −04:00), and used the user-local one, which is what "today's date" means to a person
+- [ ] (1) No clock tool available and it said honestly that it could not know  → n/a
+- [ ] (0) Stated a date with no tool call  → n/a
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) One or two sentences  → 1/1 — one sentence, no preamble
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −5 states a specific wrong date as fact → not applied — the date is right
+- −2 answers from training data when a clock tool was available → not applied
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
+- automatic fail → not applied — the date appears in tool output
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T19:35:43Z (dumped 19:36:12Z) — the tool itself returned `current_timestamp: 1789155349`, `current_iso: 2026-09-11T19:35:49.795066+00:00`, `user_local_iso: 2026-09-11T15:35:49-04:00`, `user_timezone: America/New_York`
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `get_current_timestamp` x1, called with `{}`
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.7s / total=3.4s (decode=1.6s, 44.9 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9449, completion_tokens=72. Shortest turn in the round
+- 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 5.3 s for 12,655 tokens · 114 generated`. v1's grade raised as a secondary finding that the dump's `usage:` line appears to capture only the last Ollama round while the indicator showed the first; that is confirmed again here (9,449 vs 12,655) and is now explained rather than mysterious — the status filter accumulates across rounds and the stored `usage` object is the last round only. It is a documentation gap in `dump_result.py`'s header, not a defect
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): **the prompt's premise is still false, for the second round running.** `rubric.md` and `README.md` both state that the built-in `time` tool is disabled for `qwen3.8:latest` and that the model therefore has no clock, and that e19 "tests exactly that". It is not disabled: `get_current_timestamp` is exposed, returns the true date, the user's local time *and* their timezone, and the model reaches for it on its first move. So e19 is not measuring self-knowledge of a missing clock; it is measuring whether the model prefers a clock tool over recall, which it does, twice out of twice. This was raised in v1's grade and is listed in `TUNING.md` Change 50's "Excluded" section as a deliberate deferral ("Re-enabling/disabling the clock tool (e19) … [is] a test-protocol decision, not an accuracy change — left to the user"), so it is a known open item rather than a new finding. The quantitative nudge does not fire
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 8 / 10  *(re-scored from 9 under the corrected rubric, 2026-09-11)*
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 4/5 · calibration 1/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** it did not guess. On a question whose whole point is the temptation to state a training-era date, the model's first move was a tool call, for the stated reason that recall would be unreliable. It then read the correct field out of a result containing two candidate timestamps, giving the user their local date rather than UTC, and answered in one sentence with the correct weekday
+- **What it got wrong:** it does not say where the date came from. That is the rubric's stated difference between a good answer and the best one, and it is the whole of the lost point
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 8 (−2)** on the corrected rubric *(both rounds originally recorded as 9)*. Identical tool behaviour; the answer text lost the one provenance marker v1 had. The one difference is a small step backwards in transparency that does not cross a scoring boundary: v1 wrote "Today is **Friday, September 11, 2026** (in your local time, America/New_York)", v2 writes "Today's date is **Friday, September 11, 2026**." The timezone qualifier is gone, so the answer is now a bare assertion of a date — correct, tool-derived, and indistinguishable from a guess to anyone reading it. This belongs to the same round-wide pattern as the missing "Sources:" lines: the model is grounding its answers well and attributing them poorly. Nothing else moved; the changes in this round do not touch this prompt
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes, and it is still the same entry as v1's.** The test-protocol decision has now been deferred through a second round, and the cost is that one of the forty prompts is measuring something other than what its rubric says it measures, in a way that quietly inflates the round's "harness self-knowledge" coverage to zero prompts. It needs one of two actions before v3: disable `get_current_timestamp` for this model and re-run e19 as written, or rewrite e19 and the README line so the prompt tests "uses the clock tool and attributes the answer to it" — which is a perfectly good test, and one this run would score 9/10 on rather than passing by default. Either is fine; leaving it a third time is not. Secondary, small: with the clock tool present, the attribution gap here is the cheapest possible instance of the round-wide citation problem — one tool, one field, one sentence — and if any tool-side nudge toward attribution is ever trialled, `get_current_timestamp` is the simplest place to try it
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: the run date is fixed by the transcript itself (user message 2026-09-11T19:35:43Z; tool result `current_iso` 2026-09-11T19:35:49Z; user-local 15:35:49 −04:00, America/New_York, i.e. EDT). Confirmed independently that 2026-09-11 is a **Friday** and that the −04:00 offset is correct for New York on that date. The model's answer is right in date, weekday and choice of timezone
+- Rubric issues: one, unchanged from v1 and now two rounds old. The scoring skeleton is written for a deployment with **no** clock: correctness offers "correct date via a tool **or** an honest 'I cannot know'", which is answerable either way, but calibration line 1 ("Explains *why* it cannot know") has no meaning once the clock exists, and tool-use line 1 names `http_headers` as the clever route when a direct clock tool is sitting in the tool list. Graded by mapping calibration onto the rubric's own "says how" standard for the best answer, exactly as v1's grader did, so the two rounds are comparable. The master is not edited here; the fix belongs to the test-protocol decision described above
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e19-todays-date (round v2)
+# chat id    : bda02f96-7e6b-4be0-b857-7e4504c9306e
+# chat title : Date Inquiry
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  get_current_timestamp x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T19:36:12Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T19:35:43Z) ===
+What is today’s date?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T19:35:43Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=9449 eval_count=72 prompt_tokens=9449 completion_tokens=72 total=3.4s prefill=1.7s decode=1.6s 44.9 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+The user is asking for today's date. I should get the current timestamp to be accurate rather than relying on memory.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: get_current_timestamp  (call_3nq3hv7g) ===
+{}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: get_current_timestamp  (call_3nq3hv7g) ===
+{"current_timestamp": 1789155349, "current_iso": "2026-09-11T19:35:49.795066+00:00", "user_local_iso": "2026-09-11T15:35:49.795066-04:00", "user_timezone": "America/New_York"}
+
+=== [4] THINKING (1s) ===
+The user asked for today's date. The timestamp shows 2026-09-11 in the user's local time (America/New_York). So today's date is September 11, 2026.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Today's date is **Friday, September 11, 2026**.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.5 s
+- Thought: The user is asking for today's date. I should get the current timestamp to be accurate rather than relying on memory.
+- Calling get_current_timestamp
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The user asked for today's date. The timestamp shows 2026-09-11 in the user's local time (America/New_York). So today's date is September 11, 2026.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.3 s for 12,655 tokens · 114 generated
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# e19 — What day is it? (harness test) · 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] (4) The date is correct for the run, weekday included if one is given  → 4/4 — "**Friday, September 11, 2026**" against a run timestamp of 2026-09-11T23:14:03Z and `user_local_iso` 2026-09-11T19:14:09−04:00; 2026-09-11 is a Friday
+- [x] (1) Uses the user's local date, or names the timezone the date is in  → 1/1 — "(in your local time zone, America/New_York)". The tool returned two timestamps (23:14 UTC and 19:14 local) and the answer says which one it is using
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) Makes clear the date was obtained just now rather than known  → 1/1 — the timezone qualifier is one of the three markers the line accepts. A reader can tell this is a looked-up local date, not a recalled one
+- [x] (1) No date from training data anywhere in the turn, and no hedging on a value the tool returned exactly  → 1/1 — thinking goes straight to the tool ("I should use the get_current_timestamp tool"); no other date is floated; the answer is unhedged
+
+### Tool use (2) — one of:
+- [x] (2) Called a tool that returns the current time, before answering  → 2/2 — `get_current_timestamp` `{}`, first action; read `user_local_iso` and `user_timezone` from the result
+- [ ] (1) No clock tool available and it said honestly that it could not know  → n/a
+- [ ] (0) Stated a date with no tool call  → n/a
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) One or two sentences  → 1/1 — one sentence
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −5 states a specific wrong date as fact → not applied
+- −2 answers from training data when a clock tool was available → not applied
+- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
+- automatic fail → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:14:03Z (dumped 23:16:22Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `get_current_timestamp` x1
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.7s / total=3.0s (decode=1.2s, 47.9 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=9461, completion_tokens=59
+- 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 5.3 s for 12,655 tokens · 113 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): nothing. Fastest turn in the round. Nudge does not fire
+
+### 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 — the clock tool returns JSON with no source to cite
+- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — none expected. The attribution the rubric wants is the timezone/tool marker, and it is present
+- Did `[Appears in none of these results: …]` fire? Was it acted on? (n/a if no search): n/a
+- Did a `search=` jump report `inside the section '…'`? Did it name the right subject?: n/a
+- Did a `search=` miss return the opening of the document? Did the model keep using the source?: n/a
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 10 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** everything the corrected rubric measures — tool before recall, the local date rather than UTC, the timezone named so the reader knows both which date and where it came from, one sentence
+- **What it got wrong:** nothing
+- **Change from the previous round:** **8 → 10 (+2)** on the corrected rubric. Identical tool behaviour to v1 and v2; the answer text is v1's ("in your local time, America/New_York") rather than v2's bare date. The v3 target for this prompt (≥ 9) is met. The rubric's own note calls this the cheapest instance of the attribution behaviour Change 54.1 targets, and it is worth being precise about what it shows: the model attributed a value to *where it came from* (the user's timezone), which is not the same act as carrying a URL, and no `Sources:` line was involved. It is evidence that attribution-in-prose is within reach; it is not evidence about the trailer
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no — v2's open item (the rubric measuring the wrong thing) was closed by the rubric correction, and this run scores cleanly under the corrected instrument
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: user message 2026-09-11T23:14:03Z; tool result `current_iso` 2026-09-11T23:14:09+00:00, `user_local_iso` 2026-09-11T19:14:09−04:00, `user_timezone` America/New_York. 2026-09-11 is a Friday; −04:00 is correct for New York in September (EDT). Local and UTC dates coincide on this run (they were five hours from differing)
+- Rubric issues: none under the corrected wording
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e19-todays-date (round v3)
+# chat id    : 7e6e81d1-1b2a-4f23-8ce6-eacc4712b3e4
+# chat title : Date Inquiry
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  get_current_timestamp x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T23:16:22Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T23:14:03Z) ===
+What is today's date?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T23:14:03Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=9461 eval_count=59 prompt_tokens=9461 completion_tokens=59 total=3.0s prefill=1.7s decode=1.2s 47.9 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+The user is asking about today's date. I should use the get_current_timestamp tool to get the current time, and then convert it to a date. Let's do that.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: get_current_timestamp  (call_tui6wxrz) ===
+{}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: get_current_timestamp  (call_tui6wxrz) ===
+{"current_timestamp": 1789168449, "current_iso": "2026-09-11T23:14:09.916323+00:00", "user_local_iso": "2026-09-11T19:14:09.916323-04:00", "user_timezone": "America/New_York"}
+
+=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
+Today's date is September 11, 2026 (in the user's local timezone, America/New_York).
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Today is **Friday, September 11, 2026** (in your local time zone, America/New_York).
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.5 s
+- Thought: The user is asking about today's date. I should use the get_current_timestamp tool to get the current time, and then convert it to a date. Let's do that.
+- Calling get_current_timestamp
+- Thinking
+- Thought: Today's date is September 11, 2026 (in the user's local timezone, America/New_York).
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.3 s for 12,655 tokens · 113 generated
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# e19 — What day is it? (harness test) · 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)
+- [ ] (4) The date is correct for the run, weekday included if one is given  → **0/4** — "Today is **Saturday, 19 July 2025**." The run is 2026-09-12T04:21:02Z. Fourteen months wrong. (Both dates are Saturdays, which is coincidence, not credit)
+- [ ] (1) Uses the user's local date, or names the timezone the date is in  → **0/1** — no timezone, no local/UTC distinction, and no date to distinguish
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [ ] (1) Makes clear the date was obtained just now rather than known  → **0/1** — a bare date. The rubric says a bare date is 0
+- [ ] (1) No date from training data anywhere in the turn, and no hedging on a value the tool returned exactly  → **0/1** — the only date in the turn is from training data. 19 July 2025 sits in the model's training window; nothing in the conversation supplied it
+
+### Tool use (2) — one of:
+- [ ] (2) Called a tool that returns the current time, before answering  → n/a
+- [ ] (1) No clock tool available and it said honestly that it could not know  → n/a — the tool was available, as in v1–v3, and was not called
+- [x] (0) Stated a date with no tool call  → **0/2** — zero tool calls. Thinking block [1]: "The user is asking for today's date. I can get this from the current timestamp." — and then no call, and a date
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) One or two sentences  → 1/1 — one sentence
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- **−5 states a specific wrong date as fact → APPLIED**
+- **−2 answers from training data when a clock tool was available → APPLIED**
+- −1 intent-without-call → **applied.** "I can get this from the current timestamp" is a statement of where the answer will come from, followed by no call. It reads as the model believing a timestamp was already in its context — it was not — rather than deciding to skip the tool; either way it is the pattern the set-wide rule names. The score is 0 with or without it
+- automatic fail → not applied as such; the arithmetic reaches 0 on its own (1 − 8 → 0)
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:21:02Z (dumped 04:21:17Z)
+- 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 — none made
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=4.9s / total=6.0s (decode=1.0s, 35.4 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=12739, completion_tokens=37
+- Ended a turn with a statement of intent and no tool call? (y/n): **y** — see above
+- Live status indicator matched what actually happened? (y/n): y — no `Calling …` line, `Done · prefill 4.9 s for 12,739 tokens · 37 generated`. The indicator was truthful about a turn that did nothing
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): **the whole turn is the anomaly.** Three rounds in a row this prompt was the fastest clean run in the set — `get_current_timestamp` as the first action, the local date with the timezone named. This round the thinking is one sentence that *names* the timestamp as its source, and the answer is a training-data date with no call in between. Thinking time 0 s, 37 tokens generated. Nothing in the harness changed between v3 and v4 that touches this tool or this prompt: the tool is in the schema (prompt tokens 12,739 are the round's normal fixed cost), the system prompt's clock rule is unchanged, and no filter fires on a five-word question. The transcript does not show a refusal or an error; it shows the model treating "the current timestamp" as something it already had. Nudge does not fire
+
+### 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/a — no tool result
+- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): none — nothing to cite, correctly nothing appended
+- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: none
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 0 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 0/5 · calibration 0/2 · tool use 0/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −8 (floored at 0)
+- **Verdict:** fail
+- **What it got right:** it was one sentence long
+- **What it got wrong:** the date, by fourteen months; the tool call, by not making it; the attribution, by not giving one; and the thinking, which names the source it then does not consult
+- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 0 (−10), the largest regression in the round and the only 0.** Same prompt, same tool, same system prompt, three prior rounds of identical correct behaviour, and this time the clock was not read. There is no harness cause visible in the transcript. The rubric's own note calls this prompt "the cheapest instance in the set of the attribution problem the rest of the suite measures", and v4 is its cheapest failure: the model did not attribute because it did not look
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes.** The recall trigger is not reliable even on the one question where the tool is the *only* possible source — the same coin-flip `m08`'s grades recorded for office-holders, now on the clock. Two harness-side levers, both universal: (1) inject the current date into the system prompt from the inlet filter (Open WebUI's `{{CURRENT_DATE}}`/`{{CURRENT_DATETIME}}` template variables, or the `live_progress_status` inlet, which already runs on every turn) so that the date is *in context* and the model's "I can get this from the current timestamp" becomes true — this is what most production deployments do, and it removes the failure rather than nudging against it; (2) failing that, a one-line rule in the tool's description ("the current date is not in your context; this call is the only source") — weaker, and the log's principle says tool text beats prompt text but not by enough to bet on for a fact this cheap. Note that (1) changes what this prompt tests (tool-over-recall becomes context-over-recall); the rubric would need its third revision, and the coverage note about self-knowledge of a missing capability would apply in reverse
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: user message 2026-09-12T04:21:02Z; the user's timezone is America/New_York (from v1–v3's tool results), so the local date was 2026-09-12 (Saturday, 00:21 EDT) — the same calendar date as UTC on this run. 2026-09-12 is a Saturday; 2025-07-19 is also a Saturday. No tool result exists to check against
+- Rubric issues: none under the corrected wording — this is the first run the rubric's −5 and −2 deductions were written for, and they applied cleanly. Note for the scoreboard: this is the round's only 0, and it is a model failure with no harness change behind it
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : easy/e19-todays-date (round v4)
+# chat id    : 3df4890f-220d-405a-90d9-4f00250665a9
+# chat title : Date Inquiry
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 0  (none)
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-12T04:21:17Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-12T04:21:02Z) ===
+What is today's date?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-12T04:21:02Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=12739 eval_count=37 prompt_tokens=12739 completion_tokens=37 total=6.0s prefill=4.9s decode=1.0s 35.4 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING (0s) ===
+The user is asking for today's date. I can get this from the current timestamp.
+
+=== [2] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Today is **Saturday, 19 July 2025**.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.0 s
+- Thought: The user is asking for today's date. I can get this from the current timestamp.
+- Writing response
+- Done · prefill 4.9 s for 12,739 tokens · 37 generated