Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
|
||||
Who won the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, who did they play, and what was the score? Be precise about how it was decided.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
# e20 — 2022 World Cup final
|
||||
|
||||
| | |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Difficulty** | easy |
|
||||
| **Domain** | sport |
|
||||
| **Probes** | a well-known fact with a precision requirement; whether supporting details are sourced or embroidered |
|
||||
| **Tools expected** | `wikipedia_lookup` / `web_search` |
|
||||
| **Trap** | Reporting "4–2" as the score without saying it was the shoot-out, or "3–3" without saying after extra time. Inventing scorers/minutes. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Ground truth
|
||||
|
||||
- **Argentina** beat **France**, 18 December 2022, Lusail Stadium, Qatar.
|
||||
- **3–3 after extra time** (2–2 after 90 minutes; 3–3 after 120), **Argentina won 4–2 on penalties**.
|
||||
- Scorers: Messi 2, Di María 1 (Argentina); Mbappé 3 (France).
|
||||
|
||||
> **Ground truth verified at grading time, 2026-09-11, via WebFetch of
|
||||
> `https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final`. The rubric's ground truth is
|
||||
> CORRECT as written — no correction needed.** Full detail returned by that fetch, used
|
||||
> below to check the model's supporting claims:
|
||||
> - Argentina: Messi 23' (pen.), Di María 36', Messi 108'. France: Mbappé 80' (pen.), 81', 118' (pen.).
|
||||
> - 2–2 after 90 minutes, 3–3 after extra time.
|
||||
> - Shoot-out (Argentina 4–2): Argentina — Messi ✓, Dybala ✓, Paredes ✓, Montiel ✓.
|
||||
> France — **Mbappé ✓ (scored)**, **Coman ✗ (saved by Martínez)**, **Tchouaméni ✗ (wide)**, Kolo Muani ✓.
|
||||
> Article text: "Mbappé and Messi successfully converted the first two attempts to begin the
|
||||
> penalty shoot-out at 1–1"; "Martínez then saved Coman's shot"; "Tchouaméni then sent his
|
||||
> shot wide of the goal to the left."
|
||||
> - Venue Lusail Stadium, Lusail, Qatar; attendance 88,966; referee Szymon Marciniak (Poland);
|
||||
> Man of the Match Lionel Messi.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Argentina
|
||||
- [ ] (1) France
|
||||
- [ ] (2) 3–3 a.e.t., 4–2 on penalties — both parts, correctly labelled
|
||||
- [ ] (1) At least one supporting detail (date, venue, scorers) correct and from a source
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) No invented details (wrong scorers, minutes, attendance)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Source cited
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) A lookup was made
|
||||
- [ ] (1) URL given
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Direct, no match report
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −2 "4–2" presented as the match score without the shoot-out context
|
||||
- −1 wrong scorer
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide)
|
||||
- automatic fail, score 0 (set-wide: reporting numbers that appear in no tool output while presenting them as looked-up)
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 +1,55 @@
|
||||
# e20 — 2022 World Cup final · round v1
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v1**. The ground truth, the trap and the
|
||||
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
|
||||
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
|
||||
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Argentina → 1/1 — "**Argentina** won the 2022 FIFA World Cup", stated first.
|
||||
- [x] (1) France → 1/1 — "beating **France** at Lusail Stadium".
|
||||
- [x] (2) 3–3 a.e.t., 4–2 on penalties — both parts, correctly labelled → 2/2 — "ended **3–3 after extra time** (90 minutes plus the two 15-minute halves of extra time)" and "decided by a **penalty shoot-out, which Argentina won 4–2**". Both labels explicit and correct; the trap is avoided cleanly.
|
||||
- [x] (1) At least one supporting detail (date, venue, scorers) correct and from a source → 1/1 — date (18 December 2022), venue (Lusail Stadium, Lusail, Qatar) and Man of the Match (Messi) are all correct and all appear verbatim in the `fetch_page` output at [6].
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) No invented details (wrong scorers, minutes, attendance) → 0/1 — the whole "precise points" block is fabricated from memory; none of it appears in any tool output. Errors: (a) "Argentina scored first (Di María, 36')" — Messi scored first, 23' pen.; (b) "Argentina went ahead again (**Di María, 108'**)" — that goal was **Messi**; Messi is never named as a scorer at all, and Di María is credited with two goals he did not score; (c) Mbappé's second goal given as "83'" — it was 81'; (d) "**Kylian Mbappé** and Aurélien Tchouaméni both missed for France" — Mbappé **scored** his shoot-out penalty; the misses were **Coman** (saved) and Tchouaméni. Exactly the embroidery this prompt probes for.
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Source cited → 0/1 — the answer names no source. It does not say "according to Wikipedia", gives no URL, and never signals which claims came from the lookup and which from memory — the precise blending the calibration section is meant to catch.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) A lookup was made → 1/1 — `web_search` then `fetch_page` on the Wikipedia final article, both before answering.
|
||||
- [ ] (1) URL given → 0/1 — no URL anywhere in the answer text, despite the model having fetched `https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final` itself.
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Direct, no match report → 0/1 — the opening two blocks are exemplary (direct answer, then "How it was decided"), but the model then appends precisely the goal-by-goal match report this criterion excludes, complete with editorial colour ("making it one of the most dramatic finals ever"). Reading used: the criterion is a conjunction (direct **and** no match report), and the appended narrative is where all four factual errors live, so the second half is not met. Noting this was the closest judgment call on this rubric — a grader who reads "Direct" as the operative half would award 1/1 and make the final score 6/10.
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −2 "4–2" presented as the match score without the shoot-out context → **not applied** — the model labels 4–2 as the shoot-out result every time it appears and never confuses it with the match score.
|
||||
- −1 wrong scorer → **applied** — Di María credited with Messi's 108' winner, Messi omitted as a scorer entirely, and Mbappé listed among the shoot-out missers. Reading used: this line is a single categorical −1, not −1 per wrong scorer; applied once. Applying it on top of the lost calibration point does double-count the same fabrication, which is slightly harsh for an answer whose headline facts are all right — but the brief says to apply the rubric's deductions as written, so it stands.
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → **not applied** — every stated intent ("let me verify … with a search", "let me verify the penalty details by fetching") is immediately followed by the matching call.
|
||||
- automatic fail, score 0 (set-wide: reporting numbers that appear in no tool output while presenting them as looked-up) → **not applied**, as a deliberate judgment call. The fabricated minutes and shoot-out misses genuinely appear in no tool output, and the turn is framed as a verification exercise, so this rule is arguably in range. It was not applied because (a) the model attributes the fabricated block to nothing at all — it cites no source, names no page and gives no URL, so it does not *present* the numbers as looked-up in the way the rule describes; and (b) this rubric already prices "wrong scorer" at −1 and "no invented details" at 1 point, which would be dead letters if every invented goal minute triggered an automatic 0. Flagged for reviewer confirmation; applying the rule instead would make this 0/10 fail.
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T04:46:47Z (user turn); dumped 2026-09-11T04:47:28Z.
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: `qwen3.8:latest` / Open WebUI 0.11.3.
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): `web_search` → `fetch_page` (2 calls total, matching the header tally).
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none wasted, failed or repeated — but one call was **missing**. `fetch_page` was issued with `max_chars: 4000` and returned characters 0–4,000 of 118,506, ending with an explicit `[MORE AVAILABLE … call fetch_page again with … offset=4000]` notice. The model did not continue. The un-read remainder is exactly where the goal-scorer table and the shoot-out sequence live, so the one call it skipped is the one that would have prevented every factual error in the answer. The `web_search` result also carried a degraded-coverage note ("brave, yahoo did not respond … Consider a second search"); the model did not act on that either, though its search hits were in fact sufficient for the headline facts.
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill 2.4 s, decode 10.0 s, total 12.5 s; prompt_tokens 12,765, completion_tokens 373; 37.3 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 — the STATUS HISTORY lists "Processing prompt → Thinking → Calling web_search → Thinking → Calling fetch_page → Thinking → Writing response → Done · 2 tool calls", which matches blocks [1]–[8] and the header's tool tally exactly. One cosmetic mismatch: the indicator reported "prompt processed in 5.3 s" while the `usage:` line reports prefill 2.4 s.
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the `fetch_page` truncation notice is the story of this run (see above), and its closing hint — "Only do so if this section did not answer the question" — actively discourages the follow-up call, because the first 4,000 characters *did* answer the headline question while omitting every supporting detail the model went on to invent. No loops, no tool errors. The quantitative-question nudge does **not** apply to this prompt: the message carries no number with a unit ("2022" is a bare year), so nothing was injected and the tool use here is the model's own initiative.
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 5 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 0/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 0/1 · deductions −1
|
||||
- **Verdict:** partial (5–7)
|
||||
- **What it got right:** every headline fact, and the precision the prompt actually asked for. Argentina beat France at Lusail Stadium on 18 December 2022; the match is correctly reported as **3–3 after extra time** and the title as decided by a **penalty shoot-out Argentina won 4–2**, with the two never conflated — the rubric's central trap is dodged cleanly. It searched before answering rather than answering from memory, fetched the correct Wikipedia article, and the peripheral claims that *were* checkable against its tool output (Messi as Man of the Match, "third World Cup final decided by penalties, after 1994 and 2006") are correct and sourced. Argentina's third title, Messi's first, and France as 2018 holders are all correct too.
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** everything in the appended "precise points" block, none of which is in any tool output. It never names Messi as a scorer: it credits "**Di María, 108'**" for what was **Messi's** winner and says "Argentina scored first (Di María, 36')" when Messi's 23' penalty opened the scoring. Mbappé's 81' equaliser is given as "**83'**". Worst, it claims "**Kylian Mbappé** and Aurélien Tchouaméni both missed for France" — Mbappé **scored** his shoot-out penalty (Wikipedia: "Mbappé and Messi successfully converted the first two attempts"); the misses were **Coman** (saved by Martínez) and Tchouaméni (wide). It also cites no source and gives no URL even though it had the Wikipedia page open, and closes with a narrative match report the rubric asks it to omit.
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes.** Two findings, both about tool output rather than the model. (1) `fetch_page` truncation is causing fabrication: the model read 4,000 of 118,506 characters, and the continuation hint — "Only do so if this section did not answer the question" — told it to stop, because the lead section *did* answer the headline question. It then filled the unread remainder from memory and got the scorers wrong. The hint should push toward continuing whenever the answer needs itemised detail (scorers, timelines, tables) that a lead section will never carry, or `fetch_page` should surface the infobox/summary tables rather than raw leading characters. (2) The model fetched a URL and then cited nothing: worth checking whether the system prompt actually requires a URL for any claim drawn from a lookup, since this run lost 2 of 10 points purely on attribution. Separately, note for the rubric author that `wikipedia_lookup` was not offered/used — the model reached Wikipedia via `web_search` + `fetch_page`, which is a reasonable substitute and was graded as such.
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: verified 2026-09-11 by WebFetch of `https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final` (two passes — one for score/scorers/venue/attendance/referee, one specifically for the shoot-out order and who failed to convert). The rubric's ground truth (Argentina beat France, 3–3 a.e.t. after 2–2 at 90, 4–2 on penalties, Messi 2 / Di María 1 / Mbappé 3, 18 Dec 2022, Lusail) is **correct as written and was not corrected**. The extra detail needed to judge the model's embroidery — exact minutes (Messi 23' pen., Di María 36', Mbappé 80' pen. and 81', Messi 108', Mbappé 118' pen.) and the shoot-out sequence (Mbappé scored; Coman saved, Tchouaméni wide) — came from the same source and is quoted in the Ground truth block above. I also cross-checked every supporting claim in the answer against the model's *own* tool outputs at blocks [3] and [6]: the date, venue, Man of the Match and "third final decided by penalties" are present there; **no scorer, no goal minute and no part of the shoot-out sequence appears anywhere in the model's tool output**, so all of it was memory.
|
||||
- Rubric issues: three, all handled rather than silently re-scored. (1) "−1 wrong scorer" does not say whether it is per-error or categorical; the model has four distinct scorer/minute errors. I read it as a single categorical −1 and applied it once. (2) The set-wide automatic-fail rule ("a number that appears in no tool output and is presented as looked-up") arguably covers the invented minutes and shoot-out misses, which would force 0/10. I did not apply it — the model attributes the block to no source at all, and this rubric's own −1 "wrong scorer" line plus its "no invented details" point would be redundant if invented goal minutes were an automatic fail — but this is the single judgment call a reviewer should confirm, since it is the difference between 5/10 partial and 0/10 fail. (3) "Direct, no match report" is a conjunction the model half-meets (direct opening, then a match report); with no partial credit available at N=1 I scored it 0/1 and recorded that the alternative reading yields 6/10. Also noted: the rubric expects `wikipedia_lookup` / `web_search`; the model used `web_search` + `fetch_page` to reach the same Wikipedia article, which I treated as satisfying "a lookup was made".
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e20-world-cup-2022
|
||||
# chat id : 7e50465e-b457-4f81-8b37-a58673b898a4
|
||||
# chat title : 2022 FIFA World Cup Final
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 2 web_search x1, fetch_page x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T04:47:28Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T04:46:47Z) ===
|
||||
Who won the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, who did they play, and what was the score? Be precise about how it was decided.
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T04:46:47Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=12765 eval_count=373 prompt_tokens=12765 completion_tokens=373 total=12.5s prefill=2.4s decode=10.0s 37.3 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
The user is asking about the 2022 World Cup final. I know Argentina beat France on penalties, but let me verify the precise details with a search to be safe.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: web_search (call_9bhrzjk2) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"query": "2022 FIFA World Cup final score Argentina France penalties"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: web_search (call_9bhrzjk2) ===
|
||||
Search results for: 2022 FIFA World Cup final score Argentina France penalties
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Argentina v France: Full Penalty Shoot-out | 2022 #FIFAWorldCup ...**
|
||||
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWJNOfJoSM
|
||||
Dec 18, 2023 ... Argentina v France: 2022 FIFA World Cup Final (December 18, 2022) Relive the 2022 #FIFAWorldCup on FIFA+ ...
|
||||
2. **Argentina 3-3 France (Dec 18, 2022) Final Score - ESPN**
|
||||
https://www.espn.com/soccer/match/_/gameId/633850/france-argentina
|
||||
Argentina beat France 4-2 on penalties to win the 2022 World Cup after a 3-3 draw in a thrilling final at the Lusail Stadium in Doha, Qatar.
|
||||
3. **2022 FIFA World Cup final - Wikipedia**
|
||||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final
|
||||
The match was the third FIFA World Cup final to be decided by a penalty shoot-out, after 1994 and 2006, the latter of which France lost to Italy. [96] The six goals in the final brought the total number of goals in the tournament to a…
|
||||
4. **The penalty shootout between Lionel Messi's Argentina and Kylian ...**
|
||||
https://www.facebook.com/NetflixSports/posts/the-penalty-shootout-between-lionel-messis-argentina-and-kylian-mbapp%C3%A9s-france-i/122196229064876468/
|
||||
Sep 1, 2026 ... 2022 FIFA World Cup Updates 🎙️ Final : Argentina 3-3 France (Argentina win 4-2 on Penalties) Lionel Messi finally achieved his ...
|
||||
5. **A look back at the 2022 FIFA World Cup final - CBS News**
|
||||
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/revisiting-2022-world-cup-final-argentina-france/
|
||||
Jul 19, 2026 ... But the game came down to penalty kicks in the end, with Argentina scoring four to France's two. Before the 2022 final. Anticipation built ...
|
||||
6. **2022 - Wikipedia**
|
||||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022
|
||||
The world population reached eight billion people in 2022. The year also witnessed numerous natural disasters, including two …
|
||||
|
||||
[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.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING ===
|
||||
Let me verify the penalty details by fetching the Wikipedia page to be precise about the shoot-out.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] TOOL CALL: fetch_page (call_93nof5nr) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final",
|
||||
"max_chars": 4000
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [6] TOOL RESULT: fetch_page (call_93nof5nr) ===
|
||||
# Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final
|
||||
(web page, 118,506 characters)
|
||||
|
||||
[characters 0-4,000 of 118,506]
|
||||
| 2022 FIFA World Cup final | |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Event | [2022 FIFA World Cup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup) |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| After [extra time](<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime_(sports)#Association_football>)Argentina won 4–2 on [penalties](<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)>) | |
|
||||
| Date | 18 December 2022 |
|
||||
| Venue | [Lusail Stadium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusail_Stadium) ,[Lusail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusail) |
|
||||
| [Man of the Match](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_of_the_match) | [Lionel Messi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi) (Argentina) |
|
||||
| [Referee](<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referee_(association_football)>) | [Szymon Marciniak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szymon_Marciniak) ([Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Football_Association) ) |
|
||||
| Attendance | 88,966 |
|
||||
| Weather | Partly cloudy 22 °C (72 °F) 64% [humidity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity)<sup>[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org#cite_note-1)</sup><sup>[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org#cite_note-2)</sup> |
|
||||
|
||||
| [Argentina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_national_football_team) | [France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_national_football_team) |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| 3 | 3 |
|
||||
|
||||
The final match of the [2022 FIFA World Cup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup), the 22nd edition of [FIFA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA)'s competition for [men's national football teams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men's_national_association_football_teams), was played at [Lusail Stadium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusail_Stadium) in [Lusail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusail), Qatar, on 18 December 2022 ([Qatari National Day](<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_(Qatar)>)), and was contested by [Argentina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_national_football_team) and defending champions [France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_national_football_team). With a record 1.5 billion people watching on television, the final became one of the most widely watched televised sporting events in history.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org#cite_note-3)
|
||||
|
||||
The tournament was contested by hosts [Qatar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_national_football_team) and 31 other teams who emerged victorious from [the qualification phase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification), which was organised by the six [FIFA confederations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_federations#FIFA_Confederations). The 32 teams competed in a group stage, from which 16 teams qualified for [the knockout stage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_knockout_stage). En route to the final, Argentina finished first in [Group C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_C), first losing to Saudi Arabia 2–1, then defeating both [Mexico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_national_football_team) and [Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_national_football_team) 2–0. They then defeated [Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_men's_national_soccer_team) 2–1 in the round of 16, the [Netherlands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_national_football_team) in the quarter-final through a [penalty shoot-out](<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)>) after a 2–2 draw in extra time, and [Croatia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia_national_football_team) in the semi-final 3–0. France finished first in [Group D](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_D) with two wins and one loss (4–1 win over [Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_men's_national_soccer_team), 2–1 win over [Denmark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_national_football_team), and a 1–0 loss to [Tunisia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia_national_football_team)). They defeated Poland 3–1 in the round of 16, [England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_nati
|
||||
|
||||
[MORE AVAILABLE: 114,506 characters (~35,783 tokens) remain. To continue, call fetch_page again with url='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final' and offset=4000. Only do so if this section did not answer the question.]
|
||||
|
||||
=== [7] THINKING (0s) ===
|
||||
I have enough to answer precisely. The match was 3-3 after extra time, Argentina won 4-2 on penalties. Let me give the precise details.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [8] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
**Argentina** won the 2022 FIFA World Cup, beating **France** at Lusail Stadium in Lusail, Qatar on 18 December 2022.
|
||||
|
||||
**How it was decided:**
|
||||
- The match ended **3–3 after extra time** (90 minutes plus the two 15-minute halves of extra time).
|
||||
- It was then decided by a **penalty shoot-out, which Argentina won 4–2**.
|
||||
|
||||
So the headline scoreline is 3–3 after extra time, with Argentina taking the title 4–2 on penalties. Lionel Messi was named Man of the Match.
|
||||
|
||||
A couple of precise points worth noting:
|
||||
- **Argentina** scored first (Di María, 36'), France equalised (Mbappé, 80' pen.), Argentina went ahead again (Di María, 108'), and Mbappé then scored a hat-trick (83' and 118') to force the shoot-out — making it one of the most dramatic finals ever.
|
||||
- In the shoot-out, **Kylian Mbappé and Aurélien Tchouaméni both missed for France**, while all four of Argentina's takers scored.
|
||||
- It was only the **third World Cup final decided by penalties** (after 1994 and 2006), and the first time a final went to a shoot-out since 2006 — France's last final appearance before this was as winners in 2018.
|
||||
|
||||
This is Argentina's third World Cup title, and Messi's first.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · prompt processed in 5.3 s
|
||||
- Thought: The user is asking about the 2022 World Cup final. I know Argentina beat France on penalties, but let me verify the precise details with a search to be safe.
|
||||
- Calling web_search
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Let me verify the penalty details by fetching the Wikipedia page to be precise about the shoot-out.
|
||||
- Calling fetch_page
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: I have enough to answer precisely. The match was 3-3 after extra time, Argentina won 4-2 on penalties. Let me give the precise details.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 2 tool calls
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
||||
# e20 — 2022 World Cup final · round v2
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v2**. The ground truth, the trap and the
|
||||
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
|
||||
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
|
||||
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Argentina → 1/1 — first word of the answer
|
||||
- [x] (1) France → 1/1
|
||||
- [x] (2) 3–3 a.e.t., 4–2 on penalties — both parts, correctly labelled → 2/2 — "**Full-time score: 3–3** (after extra time)" and "a **penalty shoot-out, which Argentina won 4–2**", then made unmistakable: "So the winner was decided by penalties, not by regulation or extra-time goals." The rubric's central trap is not merely avoided, it is addressed head-on
|
||||
- [x] (1) At least one supporting detail (date, venue, scorers) correct and from a source → 1/1 — the whole goal-by-goal list is correct, and the scorers, the sequence and the 97-second detail are all in the retrieved text
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) No invented details (wrong scorers, minutes, attendance) → 1/1 — **every detail in the answer is correct.** Checked each against the rubric's verified ground truth: Messi 23' (pen.), Di María 36', Mbappé 80' (pen.), Mbappé 81', Messi 108', Mbappé 118' (pen.) — all six right, in the right order, with the right running score. Nothing is wrong. But see "What it got wrong": three of those minute figures are not in the tool output, and the line is worded to penalise *wrong* details, which is why it scores 1/1 rather than 0
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Source cited → **0/1** — no source named and no URL, although `Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final` was the second line of the tool result and the answer is built almost entirely from that page
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) A lookup was made → 1/1 — one `wikipedia_lookup`, `{topic: "2022 FIFA World Cup final", search: "score"}`
|
||||
- [ ] (1) URL given → **0/1** — same miss as the calibration line, charged once here and once there as the rubric splits it
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Direct, no match report → 1/1 — headline answer, then the decision mechanism, then a six-line goal timeline, then two sentences of context. The timeline is a table of facts rather than narrative prose, and it is what "be precise about how it was decided" actually asks for: it shows the reader that the match was level after 120 minutes. 281 completion tokens against v1's 373
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −2 "4–2" presented as the match score without the shoot-out context → not applied — the two are separated explicitly and then restated
|
||||
- −1 wrong scorer → not applied — all six goals attributed correctly
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail, score 0 (set-wide: reporting numbers that appear in no tool output while presenting them as looked-up) → **considered seriously and not applied.** The minutes **108'** and **118'** appear nowhere in the tool result: the article text the model received says only "During extra time, Messi scored again" and "Mbappé scored a second penalty to tie the game 3–3 with just a few minutes remaining". Both figures came from recall. The reason the rule does not fire is the second half of its condition. The answer cites no source, quotes nothing, and attributes nothing to Wikipedia; the minutes are bare assertions in an uncited list, not material presented as retrieved — the same line drawn in e16, against e12 where a fabricated blockquote *was* introduced as a document's text. Two further considerations, recorded so a v3 grader can see the reasoning rather than guess at it: the figures are **correct**, and this prompt's own calibration line is scoped to "**wrong** scorers, minutes, attendance", so the rubric author's concern here is demonstrably accuracy rather than provenance. A stricter grader could reach 0 on the literal wording; I think that would mis-describe a transcript in which nothing is false
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T19:36:28Z (dumped 19:36:53Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `wikipedia_lookup` x1
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none. One call, and it returned everything the answer needed
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=3.6s / total=9.9s (decode=6.2s, 45.1 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10797, completion_tokens=281
|
||||
- Ended a turn with a statement of intent and no tool call? (y/n): n — "Let me verify with Wikipedia" is followed immediately by the call
|
||||
- Live status indicator matched what actually happened? (y/n): y — `Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.9 s for 12,681 tokens · 339 generated`. v1's grade noted the old prefill mismatch; resolved by Change 52
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): **v1's main finding is half-fixed, and the half that is fixed is the half that mattered.** v1 reached Wikipedia via `web_search` + `fetch_page`, read 4,000 of 118,506 characters, and was told by the old continuation hint to stop ("Only do so if this section did not answer the question") — the lead *did* answer the headline question, so it stopped and invented the rest, getting the shoot-out takers flatly wrong. In v2 the model uses `wikipedia_lookup` directly (Change 48's full-article path), `search="score"` lands at character 1,381, and the window that comes back contains the entire goal summary in one paragraph. So the itemised detail the lead never carried was in front of it this time, and every scorer is right. What did **not** change is the stopping behaviour: the footer offered `full_article=true` and `offset=` to read on, thinking block [4] says "I have all the details I need" after zero seconds, and three minute-marks were then supplied from memory. They happened to be right. The Change-49 rewrite of the hint ("Keep reading if the answer may be further in — what you have not read, you do not know") is on `fetch_page`'s paginate path; `wikipedia_lookup`'s jump footer here reads as a neutral offer rather than a push, which is worth noting given that this prompt is the one that produced the finding. The quantitative nudge does not fire
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 8 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
|
||||
- **Verdict:** pass
|
||||
- **What it got right:** everything factual. Argentina beat France; 3–3 after extra time; Argentina 4–2 on penalties; the two never conflated and the distinction stated twice. All six goals correctly attributed with the right running score, where v1 misattributed Messi's winner to Di María and claimed Mbappé missed his shoot-out kick. And it showed real restraint where v1 did not: it says nothing at all about who took or missed the shoot-out penalties — the section of the article it had not read, and precisely where v1 fabricated
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** no source, no URL, on an answer lifted almost wholesale from one Wikipedia page whose URL was in the tool result header. And three minute-marks — 80', 108' and 118' — are not in the text it read. The first is a sound inference (the tool says Mbappé's two goals came within 97 seconds and the second was in the 81st minute), but 108' and 118' are pure recall, dropped into a list where every neighbouring entry is sourced, with nothing to mark the difference. They are right this time; the process that produced them is the process that produced v1's "Mbappé missed"
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **5 → 8 (+3).** The gain is entirely in calibration and is entirely attributable to a better-targeted retrieval. v1 lost 2 points on calibration and took a −1 deduction because its appended details block was invented: Di María credited with Messi's 108' winner, Messi's opener attributed to Di María, Mbappé's 81' given as 83', and — the worst of it — "Mbappé and Tchouaméni both missed for France" when Mbappé converted and the misses were Coman and Tchouaméni. v2 gets all of that right, and gets it right because `wikipedia_lookup` with `search="score"` put the goal paragraph on screen instead of a lead section. The two points still missing are the same attribution points the rest of the easy set is losing
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes — this is the clearest before/after for Change 48's full-article path.** v1's finding was "truncation is causing fabrication: the model read 4,000 of 118,506 characters and the hint told it to stop"; v2 reads the right 3,000 characters and the fabrication disappears. Record the specific numbers, because the mechanism is unusually legible here. Two residuals worth a line each. (1) `wikipedia_lookup`'s jump footer ("call wikipedia_lookup with topic='…', full_article=true and offset= to read more") is phrased as an available option; `fetch_page`'s equivalent was deliberately rewritten in Change 49 to push ("Keep reading if the answer may be further in — what you have not read, you do not know"). Giving `wikipedia_lookup` the same push would close the last part of this prompt's original finding, since the model stopped reading and then supplied two minute-marks the article would have given it. (2) v1's secondary finding — "the model fetched a URL and then cited nothing" — is unchanged and is now the round's dominant pattern rather than this prompt's problem
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: the rubric carries its own verified ground truth, re-checked against `https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final` on 2026-09-11 and recorded as correct; I checked the model's six goal claims against it line by line and all six match — Messi 23' (pen.), Di María 36', Mbappé 80' (pen.), Mbappé 81', Messi 108', Mbappé 118' (pen.), 2–2 after 90 minutes, 3–3 after extra time, Argentina 4–2 on penalties. Separately I classified each of those figures by whether it appears in the **tool output the model actually received**: the 23rd and 36th minutes, the 81st minute, the 97-second gap, the 3–2 and 3–3 extra-time states, the 4–2 shoot-out, Argentina's third title and the Hurst hat-trick comparison are all in the retrieved text; the minutes **80'**, **108'** and **118'** are not. 80' is derivable from it; 108' and 118' are not
|
||||
- Rubric issues: one worth flagging for v3. This prompt's calibration line reads "No invented details (**wrong** scorers, minutes, attendance)" while its automatic-fail line targets "numbers that appear in **no tool output** while presenting them as looked-up". Those are two different tests — accuracy and provenance — and this transcript passes the first and sits on the boundary of the second, which is why the same run can be argued to 8/10 or to 0/10. The distinction is the whole point of the prompt ("whether supporting details are sourced or embroidered"), so it deserves its own line: something like "any minute, scorer or figure not in the tool output is labelled as recollection" would let a grader charge unlabelled-but-correct recall proportionately, instead of choosing between ignoring it and failing the run. Recorded, not applied — the master is not edited while grading
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e20-world-cup-2022 (round v2)
|
||||
# chat id : 60111121-10bd-42ea-bf28-ee853bd218e8
|
||||
# chat title : 2022 World Cup Final
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 wikipedia_lookup x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T19:36:53Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T19:36:28Z) ===
|
||||
Who won the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, who did they play, and what was the score? Be precise about how it was decided.
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T19:36:28Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=10797 eval_count=281 prompt_tokens=10797 completion_tokens=281 total=9.9s prefill=3.6s decode=6.2s 45.1 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
Simple settled fact. Let me verify with Wikipedia.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: wikipedia_lookup (call_neyam3lh) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"topic": "2022 FIFA World Cup final",
|
||||
"search": "score"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: wikipedia_lookup (call_neyam3lh) ===
|
||||
# 2022 FIFA World Cup final
|
||||
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final
|
||||
(Wikipedia, full article, 24,784 characters)
|
||||
|
||||
[Jumped to 'score' at character 1,381 of 24,784]
|
||||
|
||||
…
|
||||
land 2–1 in the quarter-final, and Morocco 2–0 in the semi-final. The final took place in front of 88,966 spectators and was refereed by Szymon Marciniak.
|
||||
Argentina took a 1–0 lead after Lionel Messi scored from a penalty kick in the 23rd minute. Ángel Di María made it 2—0 in the 36th minute with a low shot into the corner of the goal after a sweeping Argentina counterattack. France failed to make a shot on goal for the vast majority of the match, until Kylian Mbappé scored two goals within 97 seconds (the first of which was from a penalty kick), making the score 2–2 in the 81st minute. During extra time, Messi scored again to give Argentina a 3–2 lead. Mbappé scored a second penalty to tie the game 3–3 with just a few minutes remaining, becoming the second male player to score a hat-trick in a World Cup final after Geoff Hurst in 1966. Argentina won the ensuing penalty shoot-out 4–2 to win their third World Cup, and their first since 1986.
|
||||
It was the second time that Argentina reached the World Cup final after losing their opening match, the other occasion being in 1990. It was the second time that a team won the tournament after losing their opening match, following Spain in 2010. France became the first team in history to score three goals in a World Cup final and lose. Messi was named the man of the match and won the Golden Ball as FIFA's best player of the tournament. He became the first player to win a second World Cup Golden Ball, having previously won it in 2014. The 2022 final was ranked by the football media and fans alike as one of the greatest World Cup finals, and one of the greatest matches in the history of the sport.
|
||||
|
||||
== Background ==
|
||||
Argentina had previously won the World Cup in 1978 and 1986. They had finished as runners-up in 1930, 1990 and 2014. After the 2014 final loss, they lost two consecutive Copa América finals to Chile, in 2015 and 2016. After being eliminated from the 2018 World Cup in the first knockout round, and finishing third in the 2019 Copa América, Argentina's newly appointed coach Lionel Scaloni led them to their first international title since 1993 when they defeated defending champions Brazil 1–0 in the 2021 Copa América final, handing captain Lionel Messi his first senior international title. After defeating Italy in the 2022 Finalissima, Argentina were considered one of the favourites to win the 2022 World Cup.
|
||||
France were the defending champions from the 2018 World Cup, which made this the first time since the 2002 final that a team had made consecutive appearances in the final, and the first time since 1998 that the title holders qualified for the subsequent final—both feats were achieved by Brazil. France had also previously won the World Cup in 1998. France also reached the 2006 final, but lost to Italy in a penalty shoot-out. As defending champions, France also entered the 2022 World Cup as one of the favourites to win. They aimed to become the third country to successfully defend a World Cup title, after Italy in 1938 and Brazil in 1962. France manager Didier Deschamps was seeking to become the second manager to win two men's FIFA World Cup titles, after Vittorio Pozzo with Italy in 1934 and 1938. Having won the 1998 tournament as a player, Deschamps was also seeking to become the third person to win three World Cup titles, after Pelé (all three as a player) and Mário Zagallo (two as a player, one as a manager).
|
||||
|
||||
The two nations met in the knockout stage for the second straight World Cup. In 2018 in Russia at the Kazan Arena in the round of 16, France won the encounter 4–3 in what The Independent called "one of the greatest World Cup games of all time". Antoine Griezmann opened the scoring with a penalty before Ángel Di María and Gabriel Mercado put Argentina in front, with France then scoring the next three goals courtesy of Benjamin Pavard's volley outside of the box – which was later voted as the goal of the tournament – and then Kylian Mbappé twice. Sergio Agüero reduced the deficit to one in stoppage time, but Argentina was unable to equalise and send the match to extra time.
|
||||
The match ball for the 2022 FIFA World Cup semi-finals, match for third place and final was announced on 11 December 2022. It was a variation of the Adidas Al Rihla used in the rest of the tournament named the Adidas Al-Hilm, meaning "The Dream" in Arabic, a reference to every nation's dream of lifting the FIFA World Cup. Whilst the technical aspects of the ball are the same, the colour is different from the Al-Rihla balls used in the group stages and preceding knockout games, with a Gold Metallic, maroon, Collegiate Burgundy, and red design, a reference to the national colours of host nation Qatar and the golden colours shared by the final's venue Lusail Stadium and the FIFA World Cup Trophy. It is the fifth special ball for FIFA World Cup final matches, after the +Teamgeist Berlin, Jo'bulani, Brazuca Final Rio, and Telstar Mechta.
|
||||
|
||||
== Venue ==
|
||||
The final was played at Lusail Stadium in Lusail, Qatar, located about 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) north of the city centre of Doha. The stadium was intended to host the final as part of Qatar's World Cup bid, and was confirmed as the final ven
|
||||
…
|
||||
|
||||
[Showing the region around 'score'. The full document is 24,784 characters - call wikipedia_lookup with topic='2022 FIFA World Cup final', full_article=true and offset= to read more.]
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
|
||||
I have all the details I need to answer the question accurately.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
**Argentina** won the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, beating **France**.
|
||||
|
||||
Here's precisely how it was decided:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Full-time score: 3–3** (after extra time)
|
||||
- The match went to a **penalty shoot-out, which Argentina won 4–2**, giving them the title.
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal-by-goal:**
|
||||
- 23' — Lionel Messi (penalty), Argentina 1–0
|
||||
- 36' — Ángel Di María, Argentina 2–0
|
||||
- 80' — Kylian Mbappé (penalty), France 2–1
|
||||
- 81' — Mbappé, France 2–2 (his two goals came within 97 seconds)
|
||||
- Extra time, 108' — Messi, Argentina 3–2
|
||||
- Extra time, 118' — Mbappé (penalty), France 3–3
|
||||
|
||||
So the winner was decided by penalties, not by regulation or extra-time goals. Argentina took their third World Cup title (first since 1986), while Mbappé became the second male player after Geoff Hurst (1966) to score a hat-trick in a World Cup final.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 6.1 s
|
||||
- Thought: Simple settled fact. Let me verify with Wikipedia.
|
||||
- Calling wikipedia_lookup
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: I have all the details I need to answer the question accurately.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.9 s for 12,681 tokens · 339 generated
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
||||
# e20 — 2022 World Cup final · round v3
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v3**. The ground truth, the trap and the
|
||||
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
|
||||
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
|
||||
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Argentina → 1/1 — first words of the answer
|
||||
- [x] (1) France → 1/1 — "beating defending champions **France**"
|
||||
- [x] (2) 3–3 a.e.t., 4–2 on penalties — both parts, correctly labelled → 2/2 — "3–3 after extra time, with **Argentina winning the penalty shoot-out 4–2**", then "The match was decided by the **penalty shoot-out**". Never conflated
|
||||
- [x] (1) At least one supporting detail (date, venue, scorers) correct and from a source → 1/1 — date and venue (18 December 2022, Lusail Stadium) and the scoring sequence, all in the retrieved introduction
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) No invented details (wrong scorers, minutes, attendance) → 1/1 — every detail is right, and this round every detail is in the tool output: Messi 23' (pen.), Di María 36', Mbappé's two within 97 seconds "in the 80th–81st" (the text gives 81' and 97 seconds; 80th is the arithmetic), Messi in extra time, Mbappé's second penalty, the Hurst comparison, the third title and 1986. **The two minute-marks v2 supplied from memory (108', 118') are absent** — the answer says "in extra time" and "a second penalty", which is what the text says. That is the restraint v2's grade asked for
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Source cited → **0/1** — no source named, no URL
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) A lookup was made → 1/1 — one `wikipedia_lookup`, `{topic: "2022 FIFA World Cup final"}` (introduction only)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) URL given → **0/1** — `Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final` closed the tool result; not carried
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Direct, no match report → 1/1 — headline, two bullets (date/venue, score with the mechanism), a four-bullet "how it unfolded", two closing sentences. About 180 words; the timeline is the precision the question asked for, not narrative
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −2 "4–2" presented as the match score without the shoot-out context → not applied — explicitly the shoot-out, twice
|
||||
- −1 wrong scorer → not applied
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied — every figure in the answer is in the tool output, so the question v2 had to argue does not arise
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:14:24Z (dumped 23:16:41Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `wikipedia_lookup` x1
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.6s / total=9.8s (decode=7.1s, 39.9 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10206, completion_tokens=284
|
||||
- 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 5.8 s for 12,681 tokens · 339 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the lookup was **introduction only** (no `search=`, no `full_article`) — the same shallow-retrieval choice that cost e10 a point. Here it cost nothing, because this article's lead happens to carry the full scoring sequence, the venue, the date and the shoot-out result. Thinking block [1]: "Simple settled fact — but the instructions say to verify with wikipedia_lookup" — the Change 51 trigger being followed as a rule. 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): **y** — `Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final`
|
||||
- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: **n — offered and dropped**
|
||||
- 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 — no `search=`
|
||||
- Did a `search=` miss return the opening of the document? Did the model keep using the source?: n/a
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 8 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
|
||||
- **Verdict:** pass
|
||||
- **What it got right:** everything factual, with the shoot-out distinction made twice; and, unlike v2, nothing in the answer comes from anywhere but the page it read — no recalled minute-marks, no shoot-out takers
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** no source, no URL — the same two points as v2, now with the URL in the shape 54.1 built
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **8 → 8 (0)** on score; better underneath. v2's residual was two minute-marks supplied from memory into an otherwise sourced list; v3 supplies none. The retrieval was shallower (lead only vs v2's `search="score"` jump) and sufficed only because this article's lead is unusually complete. The two lost points are the attribution points, unchanged across three rounds
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): only as a data point for two existing notes — the `Sources:` trailer not landing (recorded on e05), and the introduction-only default being taken even when the tool's header says a specific fact needs the full article (recorded on e10; here it worked by luck)
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: the rubric carries its own verified ground truth; the model's claims checked against it line by line — Messi 23' (pen.), Di María 36', Mbappé 80'/81', Messi in extra time, Mbappé 118' (pen.) as "a second penalty", 3–3, 4–2 on penalties, 18 December 2022, Lusail. All correct; all in the retrieved text except "80th", which is derived from "81st minute" and "97 seconds"
|
||||
- Rubric issues: v2's note about the accuracy-versus-provenance split in the calibration line stands but was not exercised — this transcript passes both readings
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e20-world-cup-2022 (round v3)
|
||||
# chat id : db0ed0e8-617b-4882-bf62-6bd267cf36d1
|
||||
# chat title : 2022 FIFA World Cup Final
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 wikipedia_lookup x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T23:16:41Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T23:14:24Z) ===
|
||||
Who won the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, who did they play, and what was the score? Be precise about how it was decided.
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T23:14:24Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=10206 eval_count=284 prompt_tokens=10206 completion_tokens=284 total=9.8s prefill=2.6s decode=7.1s 39.9 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
Simple settled fact — but the instructions say to verify with wikipedia_lookup. Let me check.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: wikipedia_lookup (call_wcj10mxw) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"topic": "2022 FIFA World Cup final"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: wikipedia_lookup (call_wcj10mxw) ===
|
||||
# 2022 FIFA World Cup final
|
||||
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final
|
||||
(Wikipedia, introduction only, 2,841 characters)
|
||||
[Introduction only. For a specific fact - a date, a result, a list, a quotation - call again with full_article=true and search='<term>'. The lead section summarises; it rarely carries the detail.]
|
||||
|
||||
The final match of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, the 22nd edition of FIFA's competition for men's national football teams, was played at Lusail Stadium in Lusail, Qatar, on 18 December 2022 (Qatari National Day), and was contested by Argentina and defending champions France. With a record 1.5 billion people watching on television, the final became one of the most widely watched televised sporting events in history.
|
||||
The tournament was contested by hosts Qatar and 31 other teams who emerged victorious from the qualification phase, which was organised by the six FIFA confederations. The 32 teams competed in a group stage, from which 16 teams qualified for the knockout stage. En route to the final, Argentina finished first in Group C, first losing to Saudi Arabia 2–1, then defeating both Mexico and Poland 2–0. They then defeated Australia 2–1 in the round of 16, the Netherlands in the quarter-final through a penalty shoot-out after a 2–2 draw in extra time, and Croatia in the semi-final 3–0. France finished first in Group D with two wins and one loss (4–1 win over Australia, 2–1 win over Denmark, and a 1–0 loss to Tunisia). They defeated Poland 3–1 in the round of 16, England 2–1 in the quarter-final, and Morocco 2–0 in the semi-final. The final took place in front of 88,966 spectators and was refereed by Szymon Marciniak.
|
||||
Argentina took a 1–0 lead after Lionel Messi scored from a penalty kick in the 23rd minute. Ángel Di María made it 2—0 in the 36th minute with a low shot into the corner of the goal after a sweeping Argentina counterattack. France failed to make a shot on goal for the vast majority of the match, until Kylian Mbappé scored two goals within 97 seconds (the first of which was from a penalty kick), making the score 2–2 in the 81st minute. During extra time, Messi scored again to give Argentina a 3–2 lead. Mbappé scored a second penalty to tie the game 3–3 with just a few minutes remaining, becoming the second male player to score a hat-trick in a World Cup final after Geoff Hurst in 1966. Argentina won the ensuing penalty shoot-out 4–2 to win their third World Cup, and their first since 1986.
|
||||
It was the second time that Argentina reached the World Cup final after losing their opening match, the other occasion being in 1990. It was the second time that a team won the tournament after losing their opening match, following Spain in 2010. France became the first team in history to score three goals in a World Cup final and lose. Messi was named the man of the match and won the Golden Ball as FIFA's best player of the tournament. He became the first player to win a second World Cup Golden Ball, having previously won it in 2014. The 2022 final was ranked by the football media and fans alike as one of the greatest World Cup finals, and one of the greatest matches in the history of the sport.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
|
||||
All the facts are there. Answer precisely.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
**Argentina won the 2022 FIFA World Cup final**, beating defending champions **France**.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Date/venue:** 18 December 2022, Lusail Stadium, Qatar
|
||||
- **Score:** 3–3 after extra time, with **Argentina winning the penalty shoot-out 4–2** — so the decisive result is often written **3–3 (4–2 on penalties)**.
|
||||
|
||||
How it unfolded:
|
||||
- Argentina led 2–0 (Messi PK 23', Di María 36').
|
||||
- Mbappé scored twice within 97 seconds in the 80th–81st to make it 2–2.
|
||||
- In extra time, Messi put Argentina ahead 3–2, then Mbappé scored a second penalty to tie it 3–3 — completing a hat-trick and making him the second male player ever (after Geoff Hurst, 1966) to score three in a World Cup final.
|
||||
- The match was decided by the **penalty shoot-out, which Argentina converted 4–2**.
|
||||
|
||||
It was Argentina's third World Cup title and their first since 1986. Messi won both the Golden Ball (best player of the tournament) and the man-of-the-match award.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 6.0 s
|
||||
- Thought: Simple settled fact — but the instructions say to verify with wikipedia_lookup. Let me check.
|
||||
- Calling wikipedia_lookup
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: All the facts are there. Answer precisely.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.8 s for 12,681 tokens · 339 generated
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
# e20 — 2022 World Cup final · round v4
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v4**. The ground truth, the trap and the
|
||||
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
|
||||
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
|
||||
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Argentina → 1/1 — first word of the answer
|
||||
- [x] (1) France → 1/1 — "defeating defending champions **France**"
|
||||
- [x] (2) 3–3 a.e.t., 4–2 on penalties — both parts, correctly labelled → 2/2 — "The match ended **3–3 after extra time**, so it was decided by a **penalty shoot-out, which Argentina won 4–2**", and again in the closing line: "the scoreline on the pitch was 3–3, and the winner was determined solely by penalties (4–2)". Never conflated
|
||||
- [x] (1) At least one supporting detail (date, venue, scorers) correct and from a source → 1/1 — the full scoring sequence with minutes, all in the retrieved introduction
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) No invented details (wrong scorers, minutes, attendance) → 1/1 — Messi 23' (pen.), Di María 36', Mbappé two in 97 seconds with the first a penalty, 2–2 in the 81st, Messi in extra time, Mbappé's second penalty, the hat-trick and Hurst 1966, third title, first since 1986. Every detail is in the tool output; no minute-mark is supplied from memory (the 108' and 118' v2 recalled are absent, as in v3)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Source cited → **1/1** — `Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final` closes the delivered answer. The body itself names no source; the citation is the `answer_sources` filter's (see below). The line asks whether the answer the user receives cites its source, and it does — the harness is under test, and this is the harness doing what Change 55.1 was built to do
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) A lookup was made → 1/1 — one `wikipedia_lookup`, `{topic: "2022 FIFA World Cup final"}` (introduction only)
|
||||
- [x] (1) URL given → **1/1** — same line, filter-appended
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Direct, no match report → 1/1 — headline, the decision mechanism in one sentence, three bullets (regulation, extra time, shoot-out), one precision line. About 170 words
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −2 "4–2" presented as the match score without the shoot-out context → not applied — the shoot-out is named three times
|
||||
- −1 wrong scorer → not applied
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied — every figure is in the tool output
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:21:26Z (dumped 04:21:50Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `wikipedia_lookup` x1
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.8s / total=8.0s (decode=6.1s, 44.4 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10298, completion_tokens=271
|
||||
- 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 1.9 s for 12,765 tokens · 334 generated` (prefill 1.9 s rather than the round's usual ~5 s — the system-prompt prefix was still in Ollama's cache from the previous prompt)
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): none. Same shallow retrieval as v3 (lead only, no `search=`), sufficient for the same reason — this article's lead carries the whole scoring sequence. Thinking block [1] is one sentence giving the reason for the lookup ("verify this settled sports fact… since the user wants precision"). 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): **y** — `Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final`
|
||||
- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): **filter.** The body names no source; the trailing block is the filter's. Both attribution points, lost in all three earlier rounds, are earned
|
||||
- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: none applies to a plain intro lookup
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 factual, with the shoot-out distinction made three times; nothing from anywhere but the page it read; and, via the filter, a cited source with a URL
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** nothing
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **8 → 10 (+2).** The two points are the two attribution points this prompt has lost in every round since v1, and both were closed by Change 55.1 rather than by the model — the body of the answer is indistinguishable in attribution from v3's. This is the cleanest demonstration in the round of what the filter does: a correct, fully sourced answer that named no source now names one. First 10 on this prompt (v1 5, v2 8, v3 8)
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): as evidence for 55.1, yes. Worth being precise on what it shows: the *model's* citation behaviour did not change (no source in the body, four rounds running); the *harness* now supplies it. The rubric scores the delivered answer, so the points are real; whether they should count as the model learning anything is a separate question the scoreboard should keep visible
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: the rubric carries its own verified ground truth; the model's claims checked against it line by line — all correct and all in the retrieved text. The one derived number in v3 ("80th minute") is not repeated; v4 says "twice within 97 seconds… 2–2 in the 81st minute", which is the text's own wording
|
||||
- Rubric issues: the calibration "Source cited" and tool-use "URL given" lines were both satisfied by a filter-appended line. If a future master wants to separate model attribution from harness attribution, it should say so; under the current wording the delivered answer is what is scored
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : easy/e20-world-cup-2022 (round v4)
|
||||
# chat id : ccc6f346-555f-43ff-ba67-5d07e21f0040
|
||||
# chat title : 2022 FIFA World Cup Final
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 wikipedia_lookup x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-12T04:21:50Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-12T04:21:26Z) ===
|
||||
Who won the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, who did they play, and what was the score? Be precise about how it was decided.
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-12T04:21:26Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=10298 eval_count=271 prompt_tokens=10298 completion_tokens=271 total=8.0s prefill=1.8s decode=6.1s 44.4 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
Let me verify this settled sports fact with a lookup rather than recalling it, since the user wants precision on how it was decided.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: wikipedia_lookup (call_s1bykeva) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"topic": "2022 FIFA World Cup final"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: wikipedia_lookup (call_s1bykeva) ===
|
||||
# 2022 FIFA World Cup final
|
||||
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final
|
||||
(Wikipedia, introduction only, 2,841 characters)
|
||||
[Introduction only. For a specific fact - a date, a result, a list, a quotation - call again with full_article=true and search='<term>'. The lead section summarises; it rarely carries the detail.]
|
||||
|
||||
The final match of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, the 22nd edition of FIFA's competition for men's national football teams, was played at Lusail Stadium in Lusail, Qatar, on 18 December 2022 (Qatari National Day), and was contested by Argentina and defending champions France. With a record 1.5 billion people watching on television, the final became one of the most widely watched televised sporting events in history.
|
||||
The tournament was contested by hosts Qatar and 31 other teams who emerged victorious from the qualification phase, which was organised by the six FIFA confederations. The 32 teams competed in a group stage, from which 16 teams qualified for the knockout stage. En route to the final, Argentina finished first in Group C, first losing to Saudi Arabia 2–1, then defeating both Mexico and Poland 2–0. They then defeated Australia 2–1 in the round of 16, the Netherlands in the quarter-final through a penalty shoot-out after a 2–2 draw in extra time, and Croatia in the semi-final 3–0. France finished first in Group D with two wins and one loss (4–1 win over Australia, 2–1 win over Denmark, and a 1–0 loss to Tunisia). They defeated Poland 3–1 in the round of 16, England 2–1 in the quarter-final, and Morocco 2–0 in the semi-final. The final took place in front of 88,966 spectators and was refereed by Szymon Marciniak.
|
||||
Argentina took a 1–0 lead after Lionel Messi scored from a penalty kick in the 23rd minute. Ángel Di María made it 2—0 in the 36th minute with a low shot into the corner of the goal after a sweeping Argentina counterattack. France failed to make a shot on goal for the vast majority of the match, until Kylian Mbappé scored two goals within 97 seconds (the first of which was from a penalty kick), making the score 2–2 in the 81st minute. During extra time, Messi scored again to give Argentina a 3–2 lead. Mbappé scored a second penalty to tie the game 3–3 with just a few minutes remaining, becoming the second male player to score a hat-trick in a World Cup final after Geoff Hurst in 1966. Argentina won the ensuing penalty shoot-out 4–2 to win their third World Cup, and their first since 1986.
|
||||
It was the second time that Argentina reached the World Cup final after losing their opening match, the other occasion being in 1990. It was the second time that a team won the tournament after losing their opening match, following Spain in 2010. France became the first team in history to score three goals in a World Cup final and lose. Messi was named the man of the match and won the Golden Ball as FIFA's best player of the tournament. He became the first player to win a second World Cup Golden Ball, having previously won it in 2014. The 2022 final was ranked by the football media and fans alike as one of the greatest World Cup finals, and one of the greatest matches in the history of the sport.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
|
||||
I have all the details I need to answer this question accurately.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
**Argentina** won the 2022 FIFA World Cup final, defeating defending champions **France**.
|
||||
|
||||
The match ended **3–3 after extra time**, so it was decided by a **penalty shoot-out, which Argentina won 4–2**.
|
||||
|
||||
Key details on how it was decided:
|
||||
- **Regulation time:** Argentina led 2–0 (Messi penalty, 23rd min; Di María, 36th min), but Kylian Mbappé scored twice within 97 seconds — the first from a penalty — to make it 2–2 in the 81st minute.
|
||||
- **Extra time:** Messi put Argentina ahead 3–2, then Mbappé converted a second penalty to tie it 3–3, completing his hat-trick (the second male player ever to do so in a World Cup final, after Geoff Hurst in 1966).
|
||||
- **Penalty shoot-out:** Argentina prevailed 4–2, claiming their third World Cup title and their first since 1986.
|
||||
|
||||
So to be precise: the scoreline on the pitch was 3–3, and the winner was determined solely by penalties (4–2).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_final
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 2.0 s
|
||||
- Thought: Let me verify this settled sports fact with a lookup rather than recalling it, since the user wants precision on how it was decided.
|
||||
- Calling wikipedia_lookup
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: I have all the details I need to answer this question accurately.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 1.9 s for 12,765 tokens · 334 generated
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user