Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
# h08 — Annuity maths with an interpretation fork · round v4
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v4**. The ground truth, the trap and the
|
||||
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
|
||||
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
|
||||
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [x] (2) FV ≈ $610k → 2/2 — **$609,986**, ordinary annuity, end-of-month, stated in the formula line; tool output 609,985.50
|
||||
- [x] (1) $180k contributed / ~$430k growth → 1/1 — $180,000 (29.5%) / $429,986 (70.5%)
|
||||
- [x] (1) ≈ $251k deflated → 1/1 — "$609,986 ÷ 1.03³⁰ ≈ **$251,300 in today's purchasing power**"; tool output 251,305.95
|
||||
- [x] (1) Names the second interpretation (real-rate / contributions indexed to inflation) or the annuity-due timing fork, with a number → 1/1 — the real-rate annuity, **$348,920**, correctly described as "a different question — 'what would the pot be if I raised my contribution with inflation?' — and overstates your actual plan", plus the "7% − 3% = 4%" shortcut quantified at $347,025 and explained as the same assumption in disguise. The rubric's reading 2 with the right caveat, at the v3 convention (monthly Fisher; the rubric's annual-rate/12 convention gives $339,908 — see v3's grader notes)
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [~] (1) Assumptions stated: end-of-month, 7%/12 monthly, 3% deflator, no fees/taxes → **0.5/1** — three of four: "deposits at month-end, so no interest on the first one", "0.07/12" in the formula, "1.03³⁰" for the deflator. **No fees/taxes is not stated**, and neither is the constancy of the rates; v3 had all four ("Constant 3% inflation, constant 7% return, no taxes or fees… are all idealizations")
|
||||
- [x] (1) Rates framed as assumptions, no prediction or advice language → 1/1 — no prediction, no advice; "For the plan as you stated it, use the ~$251k figure" is guidance on which reading answers the question, not on what to invest in. The rates are treated as the user's premises rather than framed as idealisations, which is the same gap as above and is charged once
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [x] (2) `matlab_run`. 1 if closed-form formula shown by hand with a correct result. → 2/2 — two scratch calls, both clean (v3's two `\'` parse errors have no counterpart — this round's strings contain no apostrophes); every published figure — FV, the split, the deflator, both alternative readings — is a line of tool output
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [x] (1) Three numbers up front, then the interpretation note → 1/1 — formula and FV, a two-row table for the split, the deflated figure in its own line, then three numbered interpretations and a one-sentence rule for which to use
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −2 FV off by more than 2% → not applied — exact
|
||||
- −2 annual compounding (1.07^30) → not applied
|
||||
- −1 deflates linearly (30 × 3%) → not applied — 1.03³⁰
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail → not applied
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-12T04:57:35Z (dumped 04:58:58Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 2 — `matlab_run` (scratch: FV, split, both readings), `matlab_run` (scratch: the 4%-shortcut variant)
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none — the cleanest run of the four rounds (v3: four calls, two parse errors)
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=0.6s / total=24.6s (decode=23.9s, 37.2 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=11182 (final round), completion_tokens=891; status line: 2,274 generated (v3: 6,219)
|
||||
- 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 — two `Calling matlab_run` lines, `Done · 2 tool calls · prefill 5.1 s for 12,971 tokens · 2,274 generated`
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the nudge fires ($500, 30 years, 7%, 3%). Thinking block [4] works out why reading 2 overstates the actual plan ("later payments are only worth $500 in nominal terms, which by that time is less than $500 in today's purchasing power") — the same insight v3 reached in a block three times as long. Three unscored slips in the prose, none in a tool figure: (1) the displayed real-rate formula "(1+0.07/12)/(1+0.03^(1/12)) − 1" has the exponent on 0.03 instead of on 1.03 — the code is right, the typeset formula is not; (2) "FV = 500 × [((1 + 0.07/12)³⁶₀ − 1)…]" renders 360 as a superscript 36 and a subscript 0; (3) "your real gain is roughly $71k above what you actually put in" compares a real FV with nominal contributions — true arithmetic (251,306 − 180,000), loose economics, and v3's stream-discounted split ($119k/$132k) was the careful version. "~$1,220/month by year 30" for 500 × 1.03³⁰ = 1,213.6 is a rounding
|
||||
|
||||
### 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?: **the `\'` hint — this prompt's own fix — was not exercised**, because the model wrote no apostrophes inside single-quoted strings this round (the v3 failure was `'…today\'s dollars…'`; v4's labels are "Interp 1 (discount final amount)"). Confirmed by smoke test only
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 9.5 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 1.5/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
|
||||
- **Verdict:** pass
|
||||
- **What it got right:** every number, all three compounding traps avoided by putting the arithmetic in Octave, the interpretation fork handled with two quantified alternatives and the right explanation of why they answer a different question, and a clear rule for which figure to use; two calls, no failures
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** the no-fees/no-taxes assumption is not stated; two typeset formulas are garbled in the prose; one loose real-vs-nominal comparison
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **10 → 9.5 (−0.5).** The numbers and the reasoning are v3's, reached in a third of the tokens and with no wasted calls (the `\'` bug did not recur because no apostrophe was written, not because the hint fired). The half-point is a dropped assumption sentence; v3's "is 7% nominal or real?" reading and its stream-discounted split are also gone, which the rubric does not score. Same shape, tighter, one caveat lighter
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): no — the 55.2 `\'` hint remains confirmed only by smoke test on this prompt; nothing new
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: recomputed — FV 609,985.50; contributions 180,000; growth 429,985.50; 1.03³⁰ = 2.42726; deflated 251,305.95; real monthly rate (1 + 0.07/12)/1.03^(1/12) − 1 = 0.335878 % → real-rate annuity 348,919.78; 4 %/12 for 360 months → 347,024.70; (1.07/1.03 − 1) = 3.883 %. Every published figure matches the tool. The typeset formula's "1+0.03^(1/12)" is a typo for "(1+0.03)^(1/12)"; the code and the number are right
|
||||
- Rubric issues: v2's and v3's note on reading 2's convention stands; correctness line 4 accepted the monthly-Fisher figure again, as it should
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : hard/h08-investment-inflation (round v4)
|
||||
# chat id : 66885fc3-40cc-40e3-9f27-7bb3e1299b27
|
||||
# chat title : Future Value of $500 Investment
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 2 matlab_run x2
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-12T04:58:58Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-12T04:57:35Z) ===
|
||||
If I invest $500 at the end of every month for 30 years at a 7% annual return compounded monthly, how much will I have? Split it into what I contributed vs growth. Then tell me what that final amount is worth in today's dollars if inflation averages 3% per year — and explain if there's more than one way to interpret that.
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-12T04:57:35Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=11182 eval_count=891 prompt_tokens=11182 completion_tokens=891 total=24.6s prefill=0.6s decode=23.9s 37.2 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
This is an annuity calculation. Future value of a monthly payment of $500, monthly interest rate i = 0.07/12, n = 360 periods.
|
||||
|
||||
FV = P * [((1+i)^n − 1)/i]
|
||||
|
||||
Total contribution = 500*360 = $180,000.
|
||||
|
||||
Let me use matlab_run with scratch to compute this precisely.
|
||||
|
||||
Inflation adjustment: FV / (1.03^30). There are different interpretations: adjusting the final lump sum by 3% over 30 years; or treating each contribution separately (each contribution should be adjusted by the inflation rate until the time of withdrawal, but since we're measuring in present-day dollars at the time of the final withdrawal, the standard approach is to divide the final amount by (1+inflation rate)^30); or computing the real (inflation-adjusted) return from the start: real monthly rate = (1+nominal monthly rate)/(1+monthly inflation rate)−1, then compute the FV using the real rate. These give slightly different results. Let me compute both.
|
||||
|
||||
Let's run it in MATLAB.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: matlab_run (call_i0lda3ge) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"purpose": "scratch",
|
||||
"code": "pmt = 500;\nn = 30*12;\ni = 0.07/12; % monthly rate\nfv = pmt * ((1+i)^n - 1)/i; % ordinary annuity, end-of-month deposits\ncontrib = pmt*n;\ngrowth = fv - contrib;\nfprintf('FV = %.2f\\nContrib = %.2f\\nGrowth = %.2f\\n', fv, contrib, growth);\n\n% Inflation interpretation 1: discount the final lump sum 3% per year for 30 yrs\nreal1 = fv / (1.03^30);\nfprintf('\\nInterp 1 (discount final amount): %.2f\\n', real1);\n\n% Inpretation 2: real-rate annuity - each month's $500 is today's dollars,\n% real monthly return = (1+nominal_m)/(1+inflation_m)-1\ninfm = (1.03)^(1/12) - 1;\nir = (1+i)/(1+infm) - 1;\nfv_real = pmt * ((1+ir)^n - 1)/ir;\nfprintf('Interp 2 (real-rate annuity): %.2f\\n', fv_real);\n\n% Interpretation 3: contributions are fixed nominal $500 even though they buy\n% less over time; real value of each contribution depends on when it was made.\n% Equivalent to: real FV = sum over k=1..n of 500*(1+ir)^(k-1) ... same as interp 2\n% but with nominal $500 payments. That IS interp 2 since payments are constant nominal.\n% Alternative: what if each $500 payment keeps its purchasing power (i.e., you'd\n% need to raise payments)? Then real FV = fv_real but with growing nominal payments.\n% Purchasing-power value of the actual final pot in year-30 dollars:\nfv_in_y30_dollars = fv / (1.03^30); % same as interp 1\nfprintf('\\nCheck: fv/(1.03^30) = %.2f\\n', fv_in_y30_dollars);"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run (call_i0lda3ge) ===
|
||||
# Scratch run OK (0.43s)
|
||||
## Output
|
||||
```
|
||||
FV = 609985.50
|
||||
Contrib = 180000.00
|
||||
Growth = 429985.50
|
||||
|
||||
Interp 1 (discount final amount): 251305.95
|
||||
Interp 2 (real-rate annuity): 348919.78
|
||||
|
||||
Check: fv/(1.03^30) = 251305.95
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING ===
|
||||
Wait — Interpretation 2: the real rate annuity assumes each $500 payment retains its purchasing power in today's dollar terms (i.e., a $500 payment at month 200 is treated as equivalent to $500 in year-30 dollars, which would require it to be worth more in nominal terms… no wait).
|
||||
|
||||
Let me think carefully. Interpretation 2 treats each payment as a constant "today's dollar" amount and compounds at the real rate. This means each payment is worth $500 in today's purchasing power, but in reality the later payments are only worth $500 in nominal terms, which by that time is less than $500 in today's purchasing power. So Interpretation 2 overstates the real value of the actual plan. The actual plan's real value (in today's dollars) is exactly Interpretation 1: FV/(1.03^30) = $251,306.
|
||||
|
||||
Hmm, actually, let me reconsider. Is Interpretation 1 correct? The final pot is $609,986 in year-30 dollars. Year-30 dollars have purchasing power of 1/1.03^30 relative to today. So $609,986 / 1.03^30 = $251,306 in today's purchasing power. Yes, this is the correct answer for "what is the final amount worth in today's dollars."
|
||||
|
||||
The real-rate annuity ($348,920) answers a different question: if each $500 payment had the same purchasing power as today's $500 (i.e., if you raised the payments with inflation), what would the pot be worth in today's dollars? This is a legitimate alternative interpretation — "if you kept up your contributions with inflation."
|
||||
|
||||
There's also an intermediate view: some people compute the real rate using simple subtraction (7%−3%=4% nominal… i.e., 4%/12 monthly) and get a slightly different number. Let me compute that too for completeness.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] TOOL CALL: matlab_run (call_gyfu800a) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"purpose": "scratch",
|
||||
"code": "pmt=500; n=360;\n% Approximate \"naive\" real rate: 7% - 3% = 4% nominal, compounded monthly\nfv_naive = pmt*((1+0.04/12)^n-1)/(0.04/12);\nfprintf('Naive (7%%-3%%=4%%): %.2f\\n', fv_naive);"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [6] TOOL RESULT: matlab_run (call_gyfu800a) ===
|
||||
# Scratch run OK (0.45s)
|
||||
## Output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Naive (7%-3%=4%): 347024.70
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
=== [7] THINKING (6s) ===
|
||||
Now I'll write the answer. The main figures:
|
||||
|
||||
- Future value (FV) = $609,985.50
|
||||
- Contributions = $180,000
|
||||
- Growth = $429,985.50
|
||||
|
||||
Inflation:
|
||||
1. Correct interpretation: divide the final amount by 1.03^30 → $251,306 in today's dollars. This is the only correct answer to the question as asked.
|
||||
2. Alternative interpretation: an annuity with a real interest rate ($348,920) — this assumes each $500 payment retains its purchasing power (i.e., that you're raising your contributions with inflation). It overstates the actual plan.
|
||||
3. Naive calculation of 7%−3%=4% → $347,025 — close to #2 but not exactly the same.
|
||||
|
||||
Explain why #2 ≠ #1: because later nominal $500 payments are worth less than today's $500, the "real interest rate annuity" treats them as if they were worth more.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [8] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
## Your future value
|
||||
|
||||
Using the ordinary-annuity formula (deposits at month-end, so no interest on the first one):
|
||||
|
||||
FV = 500 × [((1 + 0.07/12)³⁶₀ − 1) / (0.07/12)] ≈ **$609,986**
|
||||
|
||||
| Component | Amount | Share |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **You contributed** (500 × 360) | $180,000 | 29.5% |
|
||||
| **Growth (interest earned)** | $429,986 | 70.5% |
|
||||
|
||||
About three-quarters of the pot is interest — a nice illustration of how long horizons do most of the work.
|
||||
|
||||
## Worth in today's dollars at 3% inflation
|
||||
|
||||
The direct answer: discount the final lump sum back 30 years:
|
||||
|
||||
$609,986 ÷ 1.03³⁰ ≈ **$251,300 in today's purchasing power**
|
||||
|
||||
So your real gain is roughly $71k above what you actually put in — the last third of your contributions were made with money that was already worth less than today's dollar.
|
||||
|
||||
## Yes, there are multiple interpretations — and they give different numbers
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Discount the final amount (the one above): ~$251,300.** This is the only correct reading of "what is *that final amount* worth in today's dollars." It treats your $500 payments as fixed nominal amounts, which is what you described.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Real-rate annuity: ~$348,920.** Compute each payment as if it kept its *purchasing power* (i.e., you'd raise your contribution to ~$1,220/month by year 30), then compound at the true real monthly rate: (1+0.07/12)/(1+0.03^(1/12)) − 1. This answers a different question — "what would the pot be if I raised my contribution with inflation?" — and overstates your actual plan, because later $500 payments are *less* valuable than today's $500, not equal to it.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **The naive "7% minus 3% = 4%" shortcut: ~$347,025.** Subtraction of rates isn't the same as dividing (1.07)/(1.03) = 1.039 — the real rate is ~3.88%, not 4%. It lands close to interpretation 2 for the same reason: it also assumes constant-purchasing-power contributions.
|
||||
|
||||
The key distinction: **interpretation 1 discounts one growing pot; interpretations 2 and 3 assume your contributions themselves grow with prices.** For the plan as you stated it, use the ~$251k figure.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 5.2 s
|
||||
- Thought: This is an annuity calculation. Future value of a monthly payment of $500, monthly … different results. Let me compute both. Let's run it in MATLAB.
|
||||
- Calling matlab_run
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Wait — Interpretation 2: the real rate annuity assumes each $500 payment retains its … different number. Let me compute that too for completeness.
|
||||
- Calling matlab_run
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Now I'll write the answer. The main figures: - Future value (FV) = $609,985.50 - … interest rate annuity" treats them as if they were worth more.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 2 tool calls · prefill 5.1 s for 12,971 tokens · 2,274 generated
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user