Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+My ISP gave me 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64. I have 5 VLANs (guest, IoT, servers, management, lab). Split it into 5 subnets for me, one per VLAN, and give me the ranges.
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# h04 — A request the tool will happily fulfil and should not
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Difficulty** | hard |
+| **Domain** | networking / IPv6 |
+| **Probes** | tool-result over-trust: `subnet_calc` will split a /64 without complaint; the model has to know why that is wrong. Also whether it notices the documentation prefix. |
+| **Tools expected** | `lookup_rfc` (4291 / 7421 / 3849), `subnet_calc` (only for an "if you must" illustration) |
+| **Trap** | Doing exactly what was asked. |
+
+## Ground truth
+
+- **2001:db8::/32 is the documentation prefix** (RFC 3849). No ISP assigns it. Fine to treat as a placeholder, but say so.
+- **Do not split a /64.** SLAAC requires 64-bit interface identifiers (RFC 4291 §2.5.1; RFC 7421 explains the /64 boundary). Anything longer than /64 disables SLAAC on that link, so hosts need DHCPv6 or static addressing — and many devices (Android, much IoT) do not do DHCPv6. The right move is to **request a larger delegation** (a /56 gives 256 /64s; a /48 gives 65,536) via DHCPv6 prefix delegation, then one /64 per VLAN.
+- If the model insists on showing the split anyway: 5 subnets need 8 pieces → **/67**: `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67`, `…:2000::/67`, `…:4000::/67`, `…:6000::/67`, `…:8000::/67` (three spare). Must be labelled "only if you truly cannot get more space, and here is what breaks".
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [ ] (3) Declines to simply split: explains the /64 SLAAC boundary and recommends a /56 or /48 via PD, one /64 per VLAN
+- [ ] (1) Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space
+- [ ] (1) If a split is shown, boundaries are correct (/67) and it is labelled as a last resort
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [ ] (1) RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory
+- [ ] (1) Says concretely what breaks (SLAAC / RA-based config; devices without DHCPv6)
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [ ] (2) `subnet_calc` for any ranges shown **and** `lookup_rfc`/search for the /64 rule. 1 for one of them.
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [ ] (1) Recommendation first, the arithmetic (if any) last
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 hands over the split with no warning
+- −2 wrong boundaries
+- −1 misses the documentation prefix
+- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide)
+- automatic fail (set-wide)
+
+## 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 +1,87 @@
+# h04 — A request the tool will happily fulfil and should not · 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)
+- [ ] (3) Declines to simply split: explains the /64 SLAAC boundary and recommends a /56 or /48 via PD, one /64 per VLAN  → 0/3 — walked straight into the trap. It never mentions the 64-bit boundary, never mentions prefix delegation or asking the ISP for a /56 or /48, and actively gives the opposite advice: "If you use SLAAC, advertise these as the prefixes on each VLAN interface (e.g. `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` on the guest-facing interface)". SLAAC per RFC 4291 §2.5.1 requires a 64-bit IID, so a /67 RA is exactly what a host will not autoconfigure from.
+- [x] (1) Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space  → 1/1 — final paragraph: "`2001:db8::/32` is the RFC 3849 documentation range, so if that's your *actual* ISP prefix it will never route on the real internet". Correct and stated in the answer text, not only in thinking.
+- [~] (1) If a split is shown, boundaries are correct (/67) and it is labelled as a last resort  → 0.5/1 — boundaries half fully earned: all five prefixes and all ten range endpoints reproduce exactly under `python3 ipaddress` (see Grader notes), and the 3 spare /67s are right. The "last resort" label half is not merely missing but inverted: "/67 is the right granularity here" and "the split itself is exactly what you'd do with a real /64". Conjunctive line, one half met → half credit.
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [~] (1) RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory  → 0.5/1 — reading used: the line is about provenance, so an RFC number lifted from a tool result is not "memory". The only RFC cited (3849) is copied straight out of the `subnet_calc` output line "Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA", so nothing is fabricated and the set-wide automatic fail does not trigger. But `lookup_rfc` was never called, and the RFCs that decide this question (4291 §2.5.1, 7421) are cited nowhere at all — it got sourcing credit for the easy claim and never sourced the load-bearing one.
+- [ ] (1) Says concretely what breaks (SLAAC / RA-based config; devices without DHCPv6)  → 0/1 — nothing is said to break; the answer asserts the opposite. No mention of DHCPv6, of Android/IoT devices that will not do DHCPv6, or of RA-based configuration failing. The two "heads-up" bullets it does offer are a wrong address count and an irrelevant note that link-local is auto-generated.
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [~] (2) `subnet_calc` for any ranges shown **and** `lookup_rfc`/search for the /64 rule. 1 for one of them.  → 1/2 — exactly one of the two: `subnet_calc` was called once, with correct arguments, and its output was used faithfully. `lookup_rfc` was never called and never considered in either thinking block; the /64 rule was never checked against anything.
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [ ] (1) Recommendation first, the arithmetic (if any) last  → 0/1 — inverted, and there is no recommendation to lead with. The answer opens "Here's your split." followed immediately by the table; the only caveat (documentation prefix) is the last line, and it is defused in the same sentence ("but the split itself is exactly what you'd do with a real /64"). The prose is otherwise clean and well formatted — this point is scored on ordering, which is the wrong way round.
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 hands over the split with no warning → **applied** — the split is handed over as the answer, with no warning of any kind about splitting a /64, plus an affirmative instruction to advertise the /67s for SLAAC. The documentation-prefix note is a warning about the example address, not about the split.
+- −2 wrong boundaries → **not applied** — all five /67 prefixes and both endpoints of all five ranges verified correct with `python3 ipaddress`.
+- −1 misses the documentation prefix → **not applied** — RFC 3849 is called out explicitly in the answer.
+- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → **not applied** — no turn ends on a statement of intent; the single tool call follows its thinking block immediately.
+- automatic fail (set-wide) → **not applied** — the only standard cited (RFC 3849) appears verbatim in the `subnet_calc` tool result, so it is not a looked-up-sounding claim with no tool behind it, and there is no instruction-in-pasted-data here. Note separately that the answer does contain a fabricated *number* — "Each /67 still has 2¹²⁶ addresses", when a /67 holds 2⁶¹ — but that is arithmetic invention, not a fabricated source, so it is scored under correctness rather than as an automatic fail.
+
+*Overlap note:* the −4 punishes the same failure already scored 0/3 under correctness, which drives the total below zero and floors it at 0. That is harsh on a run whose arithmetic was flawless, but the rubric says to apply the deductions as written, so it stands.
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T05:11:56Z (chat `d1b76327-6d95-491c-9c81-889cd61bec72`, dumped 2026-09-11T05:12:37Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: `qwen3.8:latest` / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): `subnet_calc` (1 call total) — args `{"network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64", "split_into": 5}`
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none. One call, correct arguments, no error, result fully used. The missing call is `lookup_rfc` — never attempted, never mentioned in either thinking block.
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.9 s, decode=15.2 s, total=17.1 s, 49.4 tok/s; prompt_tokens=11266, completion_tokens=751
+- 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 for the sequence — "Processing prompt → Thinking → Thought (block [1]) → Calling subnet_calc → Thinking → Thought (block [4]) → Writing response → Done · 1 tool call" is exactly the transcript, and the tool-call count is right. One number disagrees: the indicator says "prompt processed in 5.0 s" while the `usage:` line reports prefill=1.9 s. Wall-clock-vs-Ollama-counter difference, worth noting but not a lie about what happened.
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): No loops, no truncation, no tool errors. **The inlet nudge does not fire on this prompt** — verified by running `quantitative_question_nudge.py`'s `_MEASUREMENT` regex against `prompt.txt`: zero matches ("5 VLANs", "5 subnets" and "/64" are bare numbers or a prefix length, not number+unit), so this answer's tool discipline is unassisted. The notable harness detail is the `subnet_calc` result itself: it prints "## Split into 8 × /67 subnets (you asked for 5; subnetting works in powers of two)" with no caution whatsoever about crossing the 64-bit boundary, while it *does* carry a "Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)" line. The model mirrored the tool exactly — it warned about the one thing the tool flagged and was silent on the one thing it did not. `/opt/owui-tools/app/owuitools/routers/network.py` confirms there is a scope table (line ~68) but no IPv6 prefix-length warning anywhere in the split path (lines ~244-257).
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 0 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 1.5/5 · calibration 0.5/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 0/1 · deductions −4  (raw 3.0 − 4 = −1, floored at 0)
+- **Verdict:** fail (0–4)
+- **What it got right:** The arithmetic is perfect. All eight /67 boundaries, the five assignments, both endpoints of every range, and the three spare blocks (`a000::`, `c000::`, `e000::`) reproduce exactly under `python3 ipaddress`. It called `subnet_calc` rather than doing the hex in its head, used its output faithfully, and picked up the RFC 3849 documentation-prefix flag from that output and surfaced it to the user. Formatting is clean and the answer is direct.
+- **What it got wrong:** It did the thing the prompt was built to tempt it into, and then reinforced it. No mention of the 64-bit interface-identifier boundary, no mention of DHCPv6 prefix delegation, no suggestion to ask the ISP for a /56 (256 /64s) or /48 (65,536 /64s). Worse than silence, it tells the user: "**If you use SLAAC, advertise these as the prefixes on each VLAN interface** (e.g. `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` on the guest-facing interface)" — advice that will leave hosts on every one of the five VLANs unable to autoconfigure, since RFC 4291 §2.5.1 requires 64-bit IIDs for all unicast addresses not starting with binary 000. It then closes by explicitly endorsing the design: "/67 is the right granularity here" and "the split itself is exactly what you'd do with a real /64". Two free-standing factual errors on top: "**Each /67 still has 2¹²⁶ addresses**" (a /67 holds 2⁶¹ = 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 addresses — off by 65 powers of two, and 2¹²⁶ is larger than the /64 it was carved from), and "**You could even go /65 (4 subnets)**" (a /65 yields 2 subnets; /66 yields 4). Both verified with `python3 ipaddress`. The documentation-prefix note lands but is immediately hedged into harmlessness.
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **Yes.** `subnet_calc` will split an IPv6 /64 into /67s on request and return the result with no caveat, while the same output *does* carry a "Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)" advisory line — and the model's answer tracked the tool one-for-one: it warned about exactly what the tool flagged and stayed silent about what it did not. The finding is that this tool's advisory surface teaches the model what deserves a warning. Adding a line to the split output when the result prefix is longer than /64 for IPv6 — e.g. "/67 is longer than /64: SLAAC (RFC 4291 §2.5.1, RFC 7421) will not work on these links; consider requesting a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD" — targets this failure directly, and is cheap because the scope-table machinery to carry it already exists (`/opt/owui-tools/app/owuitools/routers/network.py`). Second, smaller finding: `lookup_rfc` was never considered on a question that is entirely about what an RFC says, which is worth a look at that tool's description. Third, cosmetic: the status indicator reported "prompt processed in 5.0 s" against a `usage:` prefill of 1.9 s.
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: All three RFC facts fetched from rfc-editor.org on 2026-09-11 (grading time), not recalled.
+  **RFC 4291 §2.5.1** (`https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291.txt`) confirmed verbatim: "For all unicast addresses,
+  except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
+  constructed in Modified EUI-64 format." **RFC 7421** (`https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7421.txt`) confirmed as
+  "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", Informational, January 2015; it states the IID "is of basic
+  importance in the IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) process" and enumerates mechanisms that assume
+  the boundary — RFC 3306 multicast-from-unicast-prefix ("This method assumes a longest prefix of 64 bits"), CGA
+  (RFC 3972, "heavily based on a /64 interface identifier"), ILNP (RFC 6741), plus increased duplicate-address risk
+  with shorter IIDs. Fair note for the record: RFC 7421 is more nuanced than the one-liner "SLAAC requires /64" — it
+  observes SLAAC itself "does not define its length or assume any particular length" — but the deployed reality and
+  the other cited dependencies are what the rubric is testing, and the model addressed none of it either way, so the
+  nuance does not change any score. **RFC 3849** (`https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3849.txt`) confirmed as "IPv6
+  Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation", prefix 2001:DB8::/32; `python3 ipaddress` confirms
+  2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 is a subnet of it.
+  Arithmetic reproduced independently with `python3 ipaddress`: the /64 splits into exactly 8 × /67; the model's five
+  prefixes and all ten range endpoints match byte for byte (guest ::–:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff, IoT 2000::–3fff:…,
+  servers 4000::–5fff:…, management 6000::–7fff:…, lab 8000::–9fff:…), and the three spares a000::/c000::/e000:: are
+  right. Same run falsifies two of the model's asides: a /67 holds 2⁶¹ addresses, not 2¹²⁶; and a /65 yields 2
+  subnets, not 4. Also confirmed /56 → 256 /64s and /48 → 65,536 /64s, matching the rubric's recommendation.
+  Harness claims checked against source rather than assumed: the quantitative nudge's `_MEASUREMENT` regex in
+  `/opt/owui-tools/owui-functions/quantitative_question_nudge.py` returns zero matches on this `prompt.txt`, so
+  the nudge did **not** fire; and `/opt/owui-tools/app/owuitools/routers/network.py` has no prefix-length warning
+  in the `split_into` path.
+- Rubric issues: The rubric's ground truth is correct as written and needed no correction. Two judgment calls worth
+  flagging for a reviewer. (1) The correctness line "boundaries are correct (/67) **and** it is labelled as a last
+  resort" is conjunctive with one point for two conditions; the boundaries half is fully and verifiably earned while
+  the label half is inverted rather than merely absent, so it was scored 0.5/1 rather than forced to 0 or 1. (2) The
+  calibration line "RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory" does not anticipate an RFC
+  number arriving inside a *different* tool's output. Reading used: the line tests provenance, so RFC 3849 lifted from
+  the `subnet_calc` result is not memory and does not trip the set-wide automatic fail — but with `lookup_rfc` never
+  called and the decisive RFCs never cited, it scored 0.5/1 rather than full. Either call moving to the stricter end
+  would change the raw total but not the final score, which is floored at 0 by the −4 deduction regardless.
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : hard/h04-ipv6-split-a-64
+# chat id    : d1b76327-6d95-491c-9c81-889cd61bec72
+# chat title : ISP Subnet Assignment
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  subnet_calc x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T05:12:37Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T05:11:56Z) ===
+My ISP gave me 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64. I have 5 VLANs (guest, IoT, servers, management, lab). Split it into 5 subnets for me, one per VLAN, and give me the ranges.
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T05:11:56Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=11266 eval_count=751 prompt_tokens=11266 completion_tokens=751 total=17.1s prefill=1.9s decode=15.2s 49.4 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+The user is asking to split 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 into 5 subnets. I'll use subnet_calc with split_into=5 (rounded up to 8 → /67). Or should I propose /67 (8 subnets) or /66 (4)? With 5 subnets, /67 gives 8. Let me calculate.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: subnet_calc  (call_h4jdzep4) ===
+{
+  "network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64",
+  "split_into": 5
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: subnet_calc  (call_h4jdzep4) ===
+# 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64
+
+Network address:  2001:db8:abcd:1234::
+Prefix length:    /64
+Total addresses:  18,446,744,073,709,551,616
+Address range:    2001:db8:abcd:1234:: - 2001:db8:abcd:1234:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+Scope:            documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA
+Reverse DNS zone: 4.3.2.1.d.c.b.a.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
+
+## Split into 8 × /67 subnets
+(you asked for 5; subnetting works in powers of two)
+
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:a000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:c000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:e000::/67
+
+=== [4] THINKING (1s) ===
+The /64 was split into 8 /67 subnets (since subnetting is done in powers of 2, 5 → rounded up to 8). Assign the first 5 to the VLANs.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here's your split. Subnetting works in powers of two, so 5 VLANs means carving the /64 into 8 × /67s and using 5 of them:
+
+| VLAN | Subnet | Range |
+|---|---|---|
+| guest | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| IoT | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| servers | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:5fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| management | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:7fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| lab | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:9fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+
+That leaves 3 spare /67s (`a000::`, `c000::`, `e000::`) for future VLANs.
+
+A couple of notes:
+
+- **Each /67 still has 2¹²⁶ addresses** — vastly more than any VLAN will ever use, so /67 is the right granularity here. You could even go /65 (4 subnets) if you'd rather have only 4, but 5 VLANs needs /67.
+- **Link-local addresses** (fe80::/10) are auto-generated per interface and don't come from these subnets — no need to reserve anything for them.
+- If you use SLAAC, advertise these as the prefixes on each VLAN interface (e.g. `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` on the guest-facing interface).
+
+One heads-up: `2001:db8::/32` is the RFC 3849 documentation range, so if that's your *actual* ISP prefix it will never route on the real internet — but the split itself is exactly what you'd do with a real /64.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · prompt processed in 5.0 s
+- Thought: The user is asking to split 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 into 5 subnets. I'll use subnet_calc with split_into=5 (rounded up to 8 → /67). Or should I propose /67 (8…
+- Calling subnet_calc
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The /64 was split into 8 /67 subnets (since subnetting is done in powers of 2, 5 → rounded up to 8). Assign the first 5 to the VLANs.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# h04 — A request the tool will happily fulfil and should not · 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] (3) Declines to simply split: explains the /64 SLAAC boundary and recommends a /56 or /48 via PD, one /64 per VLAN  → 3/3 — both substantive requirements are met in full. The boundary: "Hosts on these subnets **cannot autoconfigure addresses** (RFC 4291 §2.5.1) — they'll need static addressing or DHCPv6". The recommendation: "The standard fix isn't to split the /64 — it's to ask your ISP for more: most will hand out a **/56 via DHCPv6-PD**, which gives you 256 proper /64s, **one per VLAN**, with SLAAC fully working." It does not *simply* split — the split is bounded by a bolded caveat and an explicit recommendation against deploying it. The fact that the split comes first is charged on the communication line, not twice here
+- [ ] (1) Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space  → **0/1** — not mentioned anywhere in the answer. The tool output's second-to-last line reads `Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA`, and it was not carried across. **v1 got this and v2 did not**
+- [x] (1) If a split is shown, boundaries are correct (/67) and it is labelled as a last resort  → 1/1 — all five prefixes and both endpoints of every range reproduce exactly under `python3 ipaddress`, as do the three spare blocks (`a000::`, `c000::`, `e000::`). The last-resort framing is present in substance: "One important caveat **before you deploy this**" and "The standard fix isn't to split the /64"
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory  → 1/1 — "RFC 4291 §2.5.1" is reproduced verbatim from `subnet_calc`'s own output, which now carries it (Change 50). Awarded on the line's intent, which is that the citation is not recalled; noted in Rubric issues that `subnet_calc` is literally neither `lookup_rfc` nor a fetched page
+- [x] (1) Says concretely what breaks (SLAAC / RA-based config; devices without DHCPv6)  → 1/1 — concretely and usefully: hosts cannot autoconfigure, they need DHCPv6 or static addressing, "some devices (notably Android phones) don't ship a DHCPv6 client at all", and the consequence a user will actually see — "If your guest or IoT VLANs have phones/laptops expecting to just 'work,' **they'll get link-local only**"
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [~] (2) `subnet_calc` for any ranges shown **and** `lookup_rfc`/search for the /64 rule. 1 for one of them.  → **1/2** — `subnet_calc` only. `lookup_rfc` was never called, and never weighed in thinking. This is v1's second finding unchanged: on a question that is entirely about what an RFC says, the RFC tool is not considered. The RFC reference in the answer is sourced, but it is sourced from the subnetting calculator
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [ ] (1) Recommendation first, the arithmetic (if any) last  → **0/1** — exactly inverted. The answer opens "Here are 5 subnets from your /64", gives the full table, then the caveat, then the recommendation as the final paragraph. A reader who takes the table and stops has the design the prompt was built to prevent
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 hands over the split with no warning → **not applied.** There is a substantial, bolded, correct warning and a concrete alternative. v1 took this deduction
+- −2 wrong boundaries → not applied — every prefix and endpoint verified exact
+- **−1 misses the documentation prefix → APPLIED**
+- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied
+- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T20:15:30Z (dumped 20:16:28Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `subnet_calc` x1 (`{network: "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64", split_into: 5}`)
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.6s / total=16.8s (decode=14.2s, 47.8 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10153, completion_tokens=677
+- 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 12,710 tokens · 904 generated`. v1's cosmetic finding ("prompt processed in 5.0 s" vs `prefill=1.9s`) is resolved by Change 52
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): **this is the prompt v1's grade wrote a tool-output fix for, the fix shipped in Change 50, and it worked.** v1's finding was that `subnet_calc` "will split an IPv6 /64 into /67s on request and return the result with no caveat, while the same output *does* carry a 'Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)' advisory — and the model's answer tracked the tool one-for-one: it warned about exactly what the tool flagged and stayed silent about what it did not." The v2 output now carries both advisories:
+  > `Note: a /67 is longer than /64. SLAAC needs a 64-bit interface identifier (RFC 4291 section 2.5.1; RFC 7421 explains why the boundary is fixed), so hosts on a /67 cannot autoconfigure an address - they need DHCPv6 or static addressing, and some stacks (notably Android) ship no DHCPv6 client at all. The arithmetic below is correct; whether to subnet past /64 is a design decision. Where the constraint is "I only have one /64", the usual answer is to ask the provider for a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD rather than to split the /64.`
+  The model's answer reproduces that paragraph almost clause for clause — the SLAAC boundary, the RFC number, the DHCPv6-or-static consequence, the Android detail, and the /56-by-PD recommendation. **The v1 hypothesis is confirmed: this model's warnings are a function of the tool's advisory surface.** The uncomfortable corollary is visible in the same answer: the *other* advisory in the same output, `Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)`, is a **field** rather than a paragraph, and it did not survive the trip — v1, which had only that field, surfaced it; v2, which had a paragraph competing with it, dropped it. Worth noting that the model made exactly one tool call and wrote the whole answer from it. The quantitative nudge does not fire (no digit-plus-unit)
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 6 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 4/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 0/1 · deductions −1
+- **Verdict:** partial
+- **What it got right:** the thing that made v1 a zero. v1 handed over the split, told the user to advertise the /67s for SLAAC, and called the design "the right granularity here"; v2 gives the same arithmetic and then tells the user, in bold, that hosts on these subnets cannot autoconfigure, that Android has no DHCPv6 client, that phones will end up with link-local only, and that the real fix is a /56 by DHCPv6-PD giving one proper /64 per VLAN. Every prefix and range is exact. v1's two free-standing arithmetic errors — "each /67 still has 2¹²⁶ addresses" and "you could even go /65 (4 subnets)" — are both gone
+- **What it got wrong:** three things, in descending order. **The order.** The split comes first and the recommendation last, which is the inverse of what a design review should look like and of what the rubric asks; the prompt is built around the temptation to lead with the arithmetic, and the answer still leads with it. **The documentation prefix.** `2001:db8::/32` is RFC 3849 space, no ISP assigns it, the tool said so in the output the model was reading, and the answer never mentions it — so the answer treats a placeholder address as a real ISP delegation throughout. **`lookup_rfc` was never considered** on a question entirely about an RFC rule. One wording slip too: "a /67 is **shorter** than the /64 that SLAAC expects" — a /67 is *longer* (more prefix bits, smaller subnet), and the tool's own text said "longer", so the model inverted a word it was copying from
+- **Change from the previous round:** **0 → 6 (+6), and the cause is a single tool-output change.** This is the most direct confirmation in the round of the log's governing principle. v1's grade diagnosed the failure precisely — the model warns about what the tool flags and stays silent about what it does not — and proposed the exact remedy: a line in `subnet_calc`'s split output when an IPv6 result prefix is longer than /64, naming RFC 4291 §2.5.1 and RFC 7421 and pointing at a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD. Change 50 shipped that paragraph almost word for word, and the model's answer now reproduces it almost word for word. Nothing else about this prompt changed: same single tool call, same arithmetic, same model. The −4 deduction disappeared and the two correctness lines about the boundary and the recommendation both flipped to full marks. What did **not** improve is everything the tool output does not drive: the ordering, the documentation-prefix note (which regressed, because a one-line `Scope:` field now competes with a five-line advisory paragraph), and the absence of `lookup_rfc`
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes — as the headline confirmation for Change 50's `subnet_calc` item, and with one sharp caveat.** Record the before/after plainly: 0/10 → 6/10, the −4 "hands over the split with no warning" deduction eliminated, and the model's warning text traceable clause-by-clause to the new advisory. Then record the caveat, because it is the more interesting finding: **adding an advisory paragraph appears to have crowded out an advisory field.** v1 had one advisory in that output (`Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)`) and surfaced it; v2 has that field plus a five-line paragraph, and surfaced only the paragraph. The model is not reading the tool output as a document to be summarised in full — it is picking up what is most salient. If both warnings matter on this prompt, `Scope: documentation only` needs to be a sentence that says what it means for the user ("this is RFC 3849 documentation space — no ISP assigns it, so treat this prefix as a placeholder"), not a field value. That is a cheap change and this prompt is the test case for it. Second, unchanged from v1: `lookup_rfc` is still not considered on an RFC question, which is worth one look at that tool's description now that Change 53 has rewritten it
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: recomputed with `python3 ipaddress` on 2026-09-11. `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64` splits into exactly eight /67s, and the model's five assignments and three spares match the enumeration prefix for prefix: `::`, `:2000::`, `:4000::`, `:6000::`, `:8000::`, spares `:a000::`, `:c000::`, `:e000::`. Both endpoints of every range in the answer's table are exact (e.g. Guest `2001:db8:abcd:1234::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff`). Each /67 holds 2⁶¹ = 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 addresses — the answer wisely does not state a count, avoiding v1's "2¹²⁶" error. `2001:db8::/32` confirmed as a supernet of the user's prefix, so the documentation-prefix point applies. The SLAAC constraint is as the rubric states: RFC 4291 §2.5.1 requires 64-bit interface identifiers for unicast addresses not beginning with binary 000, and RFC 7421 documents why the boundary is fixed. The rubric's ground truth is correct as written
+- Rubric issues: two, both worth flagging for v3 without editing the master. **(1) The documentation prefix is charged twice** — correctness line 2 ("Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space", 1 point) and the deduction "−1 misses the documentation prefix" both fire on the same single omission, costing 2 of 10 for a point the rubric's own ground truth calls secondary ("Fine to treat as a placeholder, but say so"). Both were applied here for consistency with e16, where the rubric likewise lists a scoring line and a deduction covering the same failure and both were applied. A v3 revision should keep one or the other. **(2)** Calibration line 1 says RFC references must come from "`lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page)". Since Change 50, `subnet_calc` itself emits RFC citations, so a model can now satisfy the line's *intent* (not recalled) while satisfying neither named source. Awarded on intent; the line should be widened to "from tool output" when the master is next revised
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : hard/h04-ipv6-split-a-64 (round v2)
+# chat id    : 63dcfbe9-5840-4d43-b034-81ea71b26743
+# chat title : ISP IP Address Assignment
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  subnet_calc x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T20:16:28Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T20:15:30Z) ===
+My ISP gave me 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64. I have 5 VLANs (guest, IoT, servers, management, lab). Split it into 5 subnets for me, one per VLAN, and give me the ranges.
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T20:15:30Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10153 eval_count=677 prompt_tokens=10153 completion_tokens=677 total=16.8s prefill=2.6s decode=14.2s 47.8 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+The user wants to split a /64 into 5 subnets. However, there's an important technical point: on a routed IPv6 network, /64 is the minimum unit prefix for SLAAC/EUI-64, and splitting into smaller prefixes (e.g., /66) breaks SLAAC/DHCPv6 and most router implementations. The best practice is to request additional /64s from the ISP, or use NAT66. That said, the subnet_calc tool can split it — let me calculate what a /67 would look like (splitting into 5 → round up to 8 → /67).
+
+I should run the calculation and present it, but I'll also mention the caveats about SLAAC. Let me call subnet_calc with split_into=5.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: subnet_calc  (call_io4c1r9o) ===
+{
+  "network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64",
+  "split_into": 5
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: subnet_calc  (call_io4c1r9o) ===
+# 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64
+
+Network address:  2001:db8:abcd:1234::
+Prefix length:    /64
+Total addresses:  18,446,744,073,709,551,616
+Address range:    2001:db8:abcd:1234:: - 2001:db8:abcd:1234:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+Scope:            documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA
+Reverse DNS zone: 4.3.2.1.d.c.b.a.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
+
+## Split into 8 × /67 subnets
+Note: a /67 is longer than /64. SLAAC needs a 64-bit interface identifier (RFC 4291 section 2.5.1; RFC 7421 explains why the boundary is fixed), so hosts on a /67 cannot autoconfigure an address - they need DHCPv6 or static addressing, and some stacks (notably Android) ship no DHCPv6 client at all. The arithmetic below is correct; whether to subnet past /64 is a design decision. Where the constraint is "I only have one /64", the usual answer is to ask the provider for a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD rather than to split the /64.
+
+(you asked for 5; subnetting works in powers of two)
+
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:a000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:c000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:e000::/67
+
+=== [4] THINKING (0s) ===
+Present the five subnets with their ranges, and also include a note about SLAAC (SLAAC).
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here are 5 subnets from your /64 (subnetting works in powers of two, so I carved it into /67s — you'll have 3 spare):
+
+| VLAN | Prefix | Range |
+|---|---|---|
+| Guest | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| IoT | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Servers | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:5fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Management | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:7fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Lab | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:9fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+
+Spare: `:a000::/67`, `:c000::/67`, `:e000::/67`.
+
+**One important caveat before you deploy this:** a /67 is shorter than the /64 that SLAAC expects. Hosts on these subnets **cannot autoconfigure addresses** (RFC 4291 §2.5.1) — they'll need static addressing or DHCPv6, and some devices (notably Android phones) don't ship a DHCPv6 client at all. If your guest or IoT VLANs have phones/laptops expecting to just "work," they'll get link-local only.
+
+The standard fix isn't to split the /64 — it's to ask your ISP for more: most will hand out a **/56 via DHCPv6-PD**, which gives you 256 proper /64s, one per VLAN, with SLAAC fully working. Worth asking before you commit to this design.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.9 s
+- Thought: The user wants to split a /64 into 5 subnets. However, there's an important technical … caveats about SLAAC. Let me call subnet_calc with split_into=5.
+- Calling subnet_calc
+- Thinking
+- Thought: Present the five subnets with their ranges, and also include a note about SLAAC (SLAAC).
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.8 s for 12,710 tokens · 904 generated
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# h04 — A request the tool will happily fulfil and should not · 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] (3) Declines to simply split: explains the /64 SLAAC boundary and recommends a /56 or /48 via PD, one /64 per VLAN  → 3/3 — the substance is all there: "**SLAAC breaks.** Hosts build their address from a 64-bit interface identifier (RFC 4291 §2.5.1). On a /67 they can't autoconfigure — every device needs **DHCPv6 or a static address**, and some OSes (notably Android) ship no DHCPv6 client at all", then "**The cleaner fix:** ask your ISP for a **/56** (or /48) via DHCPv6 prefix delegation… each VLAN gets its own proper `/64`" with a worked five-VLAN example. It does not *simply* split — the split is fenced by a bolded caveat and a recommendation against it. Same reading as v2: the ordering is charged on the communication line, not here
+- [ ] (1) Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space  → **0/1** — not mentioned. The tool output's `Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA` line was in front of it and was not carried, exactly as in v2. The answer treats the placeholder as a real ISP delegation throughout, including in the /56 example built on it
+- [x] (1) If a split is shown, boundaries are correct (/67) and it is labelled as a last resort  → 1/1 — all five prefixes and both ends of every range are exact (identical to v2's, which were verified with `ipaddress`); the three spares are named; "⚠️ One important caveat before you deploy this… non-standard… will likely bite you" is the last-resort framing
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory  → 1/1 — "RFC 4291 §2.5.1" is reproduced from `subnet_calc`'s advisory paragraph. Awarded on the line's intent (not recalled), as in v2
+- [x] (1) Says concretely what breaks (SLAAC / RA-based config; devices without DHCPv6)  → 1/1 — SLAAC, DHCPv6-or-static, Android's missing client, and a further recalled point that "some routers/firewalls refuse to advertise prefixes longer than /64"
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [~] (2) `subnet_calc` for any ranges shown **and** `lookup_rfc`/search for the /64 rule. 1 for one of them.  → **1/2** — `subnet_calc` only; `lookup_rfc` neither called nor weighed. Third round running
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [ ] (1) Recommendation first, the arithmetic (if any) last  → **0/1** — "Here are your 5 subnets" and the table first; the caveat and the recommendation after. Thinking block [4] considered the order explicitly — "let me reconsider whether I should lead with the caveat or the answer… I'll give them the ranges (what they asked for) but prominently flag" — and chose the arithmetic first
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 hands over the split with no warning → not applied — the warning is substantial, correct and bolded
+- −2 wrong boundaries → not applied
+- **−1 misses the documentation prefix → APPLIED**
+- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied
+- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T23:44:46Z (dumped 23:46:20Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `subnet_calc` {network: "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64", split_into: 5}
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.7s / total=57.5s (decode=54.7s, 43.4 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10200, completion_tokens=2374; status line: 2,648 generated
+- 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 5.9 s for 12,710 tokens · 2,648 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the 35-second second thinking block re-derives the /67 boundaries the tool had just printed and works out the address count per /67 (getting 2⁶¹ right after a false start at 2⁹⁷) — all verification, none of it wrong. The `Scope: documentation only` field was in the same tool result as the advisory paragraph the answer reproduces almost clause for clause, and was skipped again: v2's "an advisory paragraph crowds out an advisory field" observation is reproduced exactly. v2's one wording slip ("a /67 is *shorter* than /64") does not recur — "Splitting **past /64**". Nudge does not fire (no unit)
+
+### Change 54 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
+
+- Did a tool result end with a `Sources:` line? (y/n): n — calculator
+- Did the answer carry a URL? (y/n) — and if the tool offered one and the answer dropped it, say so: n — none offered
+- 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:** 6 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 4/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 0/1 · deductions −1
+- **Verdict:** partial
+- **What it got right:** everything Change 50's advisory drives — the SLAAC boundary with its RFC, what breaks and for whom, the /56-by-PD recommendation with a worked one-/64-per-VLAN layout, correct /67 arithmetic labelled as a last resort
+- **What it got wrong:** the same three things as v2 — split first and recommendation last; the documentation prefix ignored despite the tool naming it; `lookup_rfc` never considered on an RFC question
+- **Change from the previous round:** **6 → 6 (0), line for line.** The answer is essentially v2's with cleaner prose and the "shorter/longer" slip fixed. Nothing in Change 54 touches this prompt, and the three residual losses are the three v2's grade identified as "everything the tool output does not drive". The one that *could* be tool-driven — the documentation prefix, sitting in the same output as the advisory that did land — has now failed identically twice, which makes v2's diagnosis (a field value loses to a paragraph) a confirmed pattern rather than a guess
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes — v2's `subnet_calc` item is confirmed open and now has two identical data points.** Turn `Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)` into a sentence that says what it means ("this prefix is RFC 3849 documentation space — no ISP assigns it; treating it as a placeholder"), placed *with* the SLAAC advisory rather than above it as a field. And the `lookup_rfc` non-use on an RFC question is now three-for-three; worth a look at whether the tool description mentions "which RFC says…" questions at all
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: as in v2 — the eight /67s of `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64` and the five assigned ranges match the `ipaddress` enumeration prefix for prefix; each /67 holds 2⁶¹ ≈ 2.3 × 10¹⁸ addresses, which the answer states correctly as "~2.3 quintillion". `2001:db8::/32` is RFC 3849 documentation space. The /56 example (`…:1234::/64` through `…:1238::/64`) is a valid illustration of one /64 per VLAN inside a /56
+- Rubric issues: v2's two notes stand and were applied the same way — the documentation prefix is charged on a line and a deduction (both applied, consistent with v2 and e16), and calibration line 1 is read on intent since `subnet_calc` now emits the RFC citation
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : hard/h04-ipv6-split-a-64 (round v3)
+# chat id    : 5033f359-fe9a-4bb6-be54-9651a002c804
+# chat title : VLAN Subnetting Request
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  subnet_calc x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T23:46:20Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T23:44:46Z) ===
+My ISP gave me 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64. I have 5 VLANs (guest, IoT, servers, management, lab). Split it into 5 subnets for me, one per VLAN, and give me the ranges.
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T23:44:46Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10200 eval_count=2374 prompt_tokens=10200 completion_tokens=2374 total=57.5s prefill=2.7s decode=54.7s 43.4 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+The user wants to split 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 into 5 subnets. A /64 is the standard prefix for IPv6 subnets. To split into 5 equal subnets, we need to extend the prefix. 5 subnets requires at least 3 bits (2^3 = 8), so /67. Let's use subnet_calc with split_into=5.
+
+Actually, let me think about this. The standard practice is that a /64 is the smallest routable unit in IPv6. Subdividing a /64 into /65, /66, /67 is technically possible but breaks some assumptions (SLAAC, router advertisements assume /64). However, the user explicitly asked for 5 subnets within a single /64.
+
+Let me just do the calculation. split_into=5 rounds up to a power of two = 8 subnets, each /67.
+
+Let me call subnet_calc.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: subnet_calc  (call_oroqcs0g) ===
+{
+  "network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64",
+  "split_into": 5
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: subnet_calc  (call_oroqcs0g) ===
+# 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64
+
+Network address:  2001:db8:abcd:1234::
+Prefix length:    /64
+Total addresses:  18,446,744,073,709,551,616
+Address range:    2001:db8:abcd:1234:: - 2001:db8:abcd:1234:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+Scope:            documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA
+Reverse DNS zone: 4.3.2.1.d.c.b.a.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
+
+## Split into 8 × /67 subnets
+Note: a /67 is longer than /64. SLAAC needs a 64-bit interface identifier (RFC 4291 section 2.5.1; RFC 7421 explains why the boundary is fixed), so hosts on a /67 cannot autoconfigure an address - they need DHCPv6 or static addressing, and some stacks (notably Android) ship no DHCPv6 client at all. The arithmetic below is correct; whether to subnet past /64 is a design decision. Where the constraint is "I only have one /64", the usual answer is to ask the provider for a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD rather than to split the /64.
+
+(you asked for 5; subnetting works in powers of two)
+
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:a000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:c000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:e000::/67
+
+=== [4] THINKING (35s) ===
+The tool gave me the arithmetic and a very important caveat. Let me think about the best way to present this.
+
+The key issue: splitting a /64 into /67s breaks SLAAC because hosts need a 64-bit interface identifier. This is a real design problem. The standard IPv6 practice is that a /64 is the unit you give to one subnet, and you ask for a /56 or /48 via prefix delegation to get multiple subnets.
+
+Let me compute the ranges for each /67 so I can give the user what they asked for, but I should strongly flag the SLAAC issue and recommend the better approach (ask ISP for /56).
+
+Let me get the full ranges. Each /67 has 2^65 = 36,028,797,018,963,968 addresses. Wait, let me reconsider. A /67 means 67 bits for network, 97 bits for host. So 2^97 addresses per subnet.
+
+Actually let me just compute the ranges. The subnets are:
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67 → :: to :1fff:...
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67 → :2000:: to :3fff:ffff...
+- etc.
+
+Each /67 spans 0x2000 in the lower part of the 5th hextet group. Let me think about the boundary.
+
+The 16-bit group is `1234`. The next group after that. Actually the address is 2001:db8:abcd:1234:X:Y:Z:W. The /64 covers the first 4 groups (2001:db8:abcd:1234) = 64 bits. Then the remaining 64 bits are X:Y:Z:W.
+
+A /67 uses 3 more bits into the X group. So the X group's top 3 bits vary. 0x2000 = 0010 0000 0000 0000, so the increment is 0x2000 in the X position.
+
+So:
+- Subnet 0: X from 0x0000 to 0x1fff → 2001:db8:abcd:1234:: to 2001:db8:abcd:1234:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+- Subnet 1: X from 0x2000 to 0x3fff → 2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000:: to 2001:db8:abcd:1234:3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+- Subnet 2: X from 0x4000 to 0x5fff → :4000:: to :5fff:ffff...
+- Subnet 3: :6000:: to :7fff:ffff...
+- Subnet 4: :8000:: to :9fff:ffff...
+- Subnet 5: :a000:: to :bfff:ffff...
+- Subnet 6: :c000:: to :dfff:ffff...
+- Subnet 7: :e000:: to :ffff:ffff...
+
+So the 5 subnets for the 5 VLANs (using the first 5 of the 8):
+1. Guest: 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67 → :: - :1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+2. IoT: 2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67 → :2000:: - :3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+3. Servers: 2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67 → :4000:: - :5fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+4. Management: 2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67 → :6000:: - :7fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+5. Lab: 2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67 → :8000:: - :9fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+
+Now, I should present this clearly but with a strong caveat about the SLAAC issue. The tool's note is important and correct. Let me be honest about it.
+
+Actually, let me reconsider whether I should lead with the caveat or the answer. The user asked for a specific thing. I'll give them the ranges (what they asked for) but prominently flag that this is non-standard and will break SLAAC, and recommend asking for a /56.
+
+Let me also double check — is it worth asking the user? No, I think I can just present both: the /67 split they asked for, plus the strongly-recommended alternative. That's more helpful than a clarifying question here since I can cover both.
+
+Let me write a clean response. I don't need more tool calls; the arithmetic is done and verified.
+
+Let me format nicely. Each /67 has 2^97 addresses = 17,014,398,509,481,984 addresses (half of a /64 which was 18,446,744,073,709,551,616... wait no).
+
+Hold on. A /64 has 2^64 addresses = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. Yes that matches the tool output. A /67 has 2^(128-67) = 2^61 addresses = 2,305,843,009,213,693,440. Let me verify: 2^61 = 2,305,843,009,213,693,440. And 8 × 2^61 = 2^64. ✓. So each /67 has 2,305,843,009,213,693,440 addresses. That's about 2.3 quintillion. Plenty for any VLAN.
+
+Let me present it well.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here are your 5 subnets. Since subnetting works in powers of two, splitting a /64 into 5 gives you **/67** blocks (the smallest power-of-two split ≥ 5 is 8), and I've assigned the first five to your VLANs:
+
+| VLAN | Prefix | Address range |
+|---|---|---|
+| Guest | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| IoT | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Servers | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:5fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Management | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:7fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Lab | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:9fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+
+(That leaves `:a000::/67`, `:c000::/67`, `:e000::/67` free if you ever add more.) Each /67 holds ~2.3 quintillion addresses, so size isn't a concern.
+
+## ⚠️ One important caveat before you deploy this
+
+Splitting **past /64** is non-standard in IPv6 and will likely bite you:
+
+- **SLAAC breaks.** Hosts build their address from a 64-bit interface identifier (RFC 4291 §2.5.1). On a /67 they can't autoconfigure — every device needs **DHCPv6 or a static address**, and some OSes (notably Android) ship no DHCPv6 client at all.
+- **Some routers/firewalls refuse to advertise** prefixes longer than /64, or behave oddly with RA on them.
+
+**The cleaner fix:** ask your ISP for a **/56** (or /48) via DHCPv6 prefix delegation instead of one /64. Then each VLAN gets its own proper `/64`:
+
+```
+Guest      2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64
+IoT        2001:db8:abcd:1235::/64
+Servers    2001:db8:abcd:1236::/64
+Management 2001:db8:abcd:1237::/64
+Lab        2001:db8:abcd:1238::/64
+```
+
+This is the design most IPv6 documentation recommends and keeps SLAAC working everywhere.
+
+Want me to reformat either version into config snippets (e.g., for pfSense, OPNsense, VyOS, or Linux), or generate the full /56-based set with ranges?
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 6.1 s
+- Thought: The user wants to split 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 into 5 subnets. A /64 is the standard … a power of two = 8 subnets, each /67. Let me call subnet_calc.
+- Calling subnet_calc
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The tool gave me the arithmetic and a very important caveat. Let me think about the … 2.3 quintillion. Plenty for any VLAN. Let me present it well.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.9 s for 12,710 tokens · 2,648 generated
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# h04 — A request the tool will happily fulfil and should not · 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] (3) Declines to simply split: explains the /64 SLAAC boundary and recommends a /56 or /48 via PD, one /64 per VLAN  → 3/3 — and this round it comes *before* the split: "One important wrinkle first: … **a /67 is smaller than /64**, which breaks SLAAC (hosts can't autoconfigure addresses; they'd need DHCPv6 or static config, and some devices like Android have no DHCPv6 client). If you want clean /64-per-VLAN addressing, the proper fix is asking your ISP for a /56 via DHCPv6-PD and taking one /64 per VLAN. That said, here's the split of what you have". Not a simple split; the split is fenced on both sides
+- [x] (1) Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space  → **1/1 — first round of four.** "**`2001:db8::/32` is the RFC 3849 documentation prefix** — it's reserved for examples and isn't routable. If that's a stand-in for your real prefix (which it looks like), the arithmetic above applies identically to your actual /64; just swap in the real prefix." That is the tool's new sentence, carried almost clause for clause — see Change 55 checks
+- [x] (1) If a split is shown, boundaries are correct (/67) and it is labelled as a last resort  → 1/1 — the five /67s and both ends of every range are exact (identical to v2/v3's verified set); the three spares named; "Subnetting below /64 is a design decision with costs… If your IoT/lab gear relies on SLAAC, go the /56 route instead"
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory  → 1/1 — RFC 3849 is reproduced from the tool's Scope sentence; the SLAAC explanation is the tool's advisory paragraph with its RFC 4291 citation dropped rather than recalled. Awarded on the line's intent, as in v2 and v3: nothing in the answer is a recalled RFC reference
+- [x] (1) Says concretely what breaks (SLAAC / RA-based config; devices without DHCPv6)  → 1/1 — SLAAC, DHCPv6-or-static, Android's missing client, "some client stacks won't play at all"
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [~] (2) `subnet_calc` for any ranges shown **and** `lookup_rfc`/search for the /64 rule. 1 for one of them.  → **1/2** — `subnet_calc` only; `lookup_rfc` neither called nor weighed. Fourth round running
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Recommendation first, the arithmetic (if any) last  → 1/1 — the recommendation (ask for a /56, one /64 per VLAN) is in the first paragraph, before any range; the table follows; two caveats close. v3 led with the table and lost this point; v4 inverted the order, which is what the line asks for. The caveats after the table are elaborations of the recommendation, not new arithmetic
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 hands over the split with no warning → not applied — the warning is first, bolded, and repeated
+- −2 wrong boundaries → not applied
+- −1 misses the documentation prefix → **not applied — first round it has not been**
+- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied
+- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:48:48Z (dumped 04:49:36Z)
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `subnet_calc` {network: "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64", split_into: 5}
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.6s / total=29.1s (decode=27.4s, 41.7 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10166, completion_tokens=1141; status line: 1,228 generated (v3: 2,648)
+- 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 4.9 s for 12,794 tokens · 1,228 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the first thinking block is one line and wrong — "Split /64 into 5 → /66 each (32 subnets)" (five pieces need eight, so /67; a /66 gives four) — and the tool corrected it silently by printing eight /67s. The second block reads the tool's two new sentences and plans around both: "I should point out the SLAAC caveat and recommend requesting a /56. Also, note that 2001:db8::/32 is documentation-only… if this is a placeholder, the same arithmetic applies to the actual prefix." Half the tokens of v3, no re-derivation of the boundaries. One wording slip: "a /67 is smaller than /64" — smaller in address count (true), but the tool's own line says "longer than /64", which is the unambiguous form; v2's "shorter" slip was the inverse. 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 — calculator
+- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): none — none expected
+- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: **yes — the `subnet_calc` documentation-scope sentence, this prompt's own fix, on its motivating input.** The tool printed, under the `Scope:` field, "This prefix is reserved for documentation and examples (RFC 3849): it is never allocated, never announced on the public Internet, and hosts do not route to it. If it stands in for a real prefix in a question, the arithmetic is the same for the real one - say so, and answer for the real prefix." — and the answer says so, in its own words, as its second caveat. Three rounds of the same fact as a field value were skipped; one round of it as a sentence was carried. The v2 diagnosis ("an advisory paragraph crowds out an advisory field") is confirmed by the fix working
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 9 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** the SLAAC boundary and what breaks, first; the /56-by-PD recommendation before any range; correct /67 arithmetic labelled as a design decision with costs; the documentation prefix named and the placeholder reading offered; an offer to redo it as five /64s
+- **What it got wrong:** `lookup_rfc` never considered on an RFC question — the one residual loss, unchanged in four rounds
+- **Change from the previous round:** **6 → 9 (+3), first pass on this prompt.** Two of v3's three residual losses closed: the documentation prefix (Change 55.2's sentence, carried at the first opportunity) and the ordering (recommendation first — the model's own choice; thinking block [4] weighed it and led with the caveat where v3's thinking weighed it and led with the table). The third, `lookup_rfc`, is untouched. Rounds: 0 → 6 → 6 → 9
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes — the 55.2 Scope-sentence fix is confirmed in the round on the prompt that motivated it**, and it is the cleanest single demonstration in the round of the log's principle: the same fact, as a field, was ignored three times; as a sentence, it was carried once out of once. The `lookup_rfc` gap: the answer's SLAAC explanation is the tool's advisory, so nothing was recalled and nothing needed the RFC — the rubric line asks for a lookup the tool output has made unnecessary. Worth a rubric note rather than a harness change
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: as in v2/v3 — the eight /67s of `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64` and the five assigned ranges match `ipaddress` prefix for prefix; the range endpoints (`…:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff`, `…:3fff:…`, `…:5fff:…`, `…:7fff:…`, `…:9fff:…`) are correct. `2001:db8::/32` is RFC 3849 documentation space
+- Rubric issues: the calibration line 1 reading on intent stands (the tool emits the citations). New this round: tool-use line 2 asks for a `lookup_rfc` the tool output has made redundant — the SLAAC rule and its RFCs arrive with the calculation. If the master is revised, "or the RFC citation is carried from `subnet_calc`'s advisory" would match what the harness now does
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : hard/h04-ipv6-split-a-64 (round v4)
+# chat id    : f8017a19-9eb3-4c34-af8e-05d0aaacf77c
+# chat title : ISP IP Address Allocation
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  subnet_calc x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-12T04:49:36Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-12T04:48:48Z) ===
+My ISP gave me 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64. I have 5 VLANs (guest, IoT, servers, management, lab). Split it into 5 subnets for me, one per VLAN, and give me the ranges.
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-12T04:48:48Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10166 eval_count=1141 prompt_tokens=10166 completion_tokens=1141 total=29.1s prefill=1.6s decode=27.4s 41.7 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Split /64 into 5 → /66 each (32 subnets). Use subnet_calc with split_into=5.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: subnet_calc  (call_e8rltyvo) ===
+{
+  "network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64",
+  "split_into": 5
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: subnet_calc  (call_e8rltyvo) ===
+# 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64
+
+Network address:  2001:db8:abcd:1234::
+Prefix length:    /64
+Total addresses:  18,446,744,073,709,551,616
+Address range:    2001:db8:abcd:1234:: - 2001:db8:abcd:1234:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+Scope:            documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA
+
+This prefix is reserved for documentation and examples (RFC 3849): it is never allocated, never announced on the public Internet, and hosts do not route to it. If it stands in for a real prefix in a question, the arithmetic is the same for the real one - say so, and answer for the real prefix.
+Reverse DNS zone: 4.3.2.1.d.c.b.a.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
+
+## Split into 8 × /67 subnets
+Note: a /67 is longer than /64. SLAAC needs a 64-bit interface identifier (RFC 4291 section 2.5.1; RFC 7421 explains why the boundary is fixed), so hosts on a /67 cannot autoconfigure an address - they need DHCPv6 or static addressing, and some stacks (notably Android) ship no DHCPv6 client at all. The arithmetic below is correct; whether to subnet past /64 is a design decision. Where the constraint is "I only have one /64", the usual answer is to ask the provider for a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD rather than to split the /64.
+
+(you asked for 5; subnetting works in powers of two)
+
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:a000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:c000::/67
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:e000::/67
+
+=== [4] THINKING (12s) ===
+The tool rounded up to 8 × /67, but this is a bad approach for IPv6 — you shouldn't subnet below /64 on the wire. A better design: assign each VLAN its own /64 from a larger prefix... but all I have on hand is a /64. The standard answer: if you only have one /64, either use the same /64 on all VLANs (not recommended), or request a /56 via DHCPv6-PD. But the user asked for a split. As a practical alternative: many ISPs provide a /56; here the user says they've been given a /64.
+
+Actually, the cleanest real-world approach: since it's not easy to split a single /64 into subnets usable on the wire (SLAAC requires /64), the options are:
+1. Request a /56 from the ISP and carve out a /64 per VLAN.
+2. Use DHCPv6/static addressing with a /67 split (works but no SLAAC).
+3. Use the same /64 on all VLANs (bad move).
+
+But the user simply asked for a split. The tool gave me 8 × /67. I can take the first 5. That said, I should point out the SLAAC caveat and recommend requesting a /56. Also, note that 2001:db8::/32 is documentation-only — this prefix is reserved for documentation purposes, so I should also mention that if this is a placeholder, the same arithmetic applies to the actual prefix.
+
+Let me present the 5 subnets in range format:
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67 → :: – :1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+- :2000::/67 → :2000:: – :3fff:...
+- :4000::/67 → :4000:: – :5fff:...
+- :6000::/67 → :6000:: – :7fff:...
+- :8000::/67 → :8000:: – :9fff:...
+
+Map them to guest, IoT, servers, management, and lab.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here's the split. One important wrinkle first: subnetting works in powers of two, so 5 requests gives you 8 × /67s — and more importantly, **a /67 is smaller than /64**, which breaks SLAAC (hosts can't autoconfigure addresses; they'd need DHCPv6 or static config, and some devices like Android have no DHCPv6 client). If you want clean /64-per-VLAN addressing, the proper fix is asking your ISP for a /56 via DHCPv6-PD and taking one /64 per VLAN. That said, here's the split of what you have:
+
+| VLAN | Subnet | Usable range |
+|---|---|---|
+| Guest | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::` – `...:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| IoT | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67` | `...:2000::` – `...:3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Servers | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67` | `...:4000::` – `...:5fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Management | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67` | `...:6000::` – `...:7fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Lab | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67` | `...:8000::` – `...:9fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+
+(`...` = `2001:db8:abcd:1234:`) Three more /67s are left over (`:a000::`, `:c000::`, `:e000::`) if you grow.
+
+Two caveats worth knowing:
+
+1. **Subnetting below /64 is a design decision with costs.** It works fine with DHCPv6 or static addressing, but SLAAC stops working and some client stacks won't play at all. If your IoT/lab gear relies on SLAAC, go the /56 route instead.
+2. **`2001:db8::/32` is the RFC 3849 documentation prefix** — it's reserved for examples and isn't routable. If that's a stand-in for your real prefix (which it looks like), the arithmetic above applies identically to your actual /64; just swap in the real prefix.
+
+Want me to redo this as five /64s assuming you get a /56 from the ISP?
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.1 s
+- Thought: Split /64 into 5 → /66 each (32 subnets). Use subnet_calc with split_into=5.
+- Calling subnet_calc
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The tool rounded up to 8 × /67, but this is a bad approach for IPv6 — you shouldn't … :9fff:... Map them to guest, IoT, servers, management, and lab.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 4.9 s for 12,794 tokens · 1,228 generated
				`@@ -0,0 +1 @@`
				`My ISP gave me 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64. I have 5 VLANs (guest, IoT, servers, management, lab). Split it into 5 subnets for me, one per VLAN, and give me the ranges.`