Initial Commit

docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v1/grade.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# m07 — Knights and knaves · 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] (3) C is a knave  → 3/3 — opening line states "**C is a knave**", and both branches land on it explicitly.
+- [x] (2) A and B undetermined, but opposite types  → 2/2 — "no — you cannot determine A and B individually; you can only say they are opposite types", restated as "one is a knight and the other a knave … the statements never pin down which is which".
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (2) Shows both consistent cases explicitly (or a truth table / brute force)  → 2/2 — Case 1 (A knight) and Case 2 (A knave) are each derived step by step and each marked "✓ Consistent"; the two cases are exactly the two surviving worlds from the brute force. Nothing fabricated, no invented statement for C.
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [x] (2) Either a clean two-case proof with no tool, or a `matlab_run` enumeration — both fine  → 2/2 — 0 tool calls, and the rubric explicitly allows a clean no-tool two-case proof. The case split on A is exhaustive and the derivation in each branch is valid, so it covers the full 8-assignment space without enumerating it.
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Answer first, then the two cases  → 1/1 — bolded answer to both questions in the first sentence, then "Here's why, by cases on A", then the two cases and a one-paragraph gloss on why the symmetry is unbreakable. No preamble, no padding.
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −3 "C cannot be determined"  → not applied — the model says the opposite: C is determined and only A/B are not.
+- −2 assigns definite types to A and B  → not applied — explicitly refuses to, twice.
+- −1 invents a statement C never made  → not applied — correctly treats C's silence as "no third statement to break the symmetry".
+- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied — the turn ends with the finished answer; no stated intent to look anything up.
+- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied — no pasted-data instruction to follow, no study/number presented as looked-up.
+
+## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
+
+- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T05:02:06Z (user turn); dumped 2026-09-11T05:02:43Z
+- Model tag / Open WebUI version: `qwen3.8:latest` / Open WebUI 0.11.3
+- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): none — header reads `tool calls : 0  (none)`
+- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none (no calls at all; correct for this prompt)
+- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=5.0s, decode=10.3s, total=17.6s; prompt_tokens=13571, completion_tokens=486, 47.1 tok/s. Note the ~13.5k-token prefill on a 233-character question — that is the fixed system-prompt + tool-schema preamble, and it is the dominant cost on a prompt that needs no tools (prefill 5.0s + decode 10.3s = 15.3s, leaving ~2.3s of harness overhead inside the 17.6s total).
+- 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 (with one cosmetic timing mismatch) — `Processing prompt → Thinking → Thought: <preview> → Writing response → Done` tracks the real sequence (one thinking block, then answer text), and `Done` correctly carries no "· N tool calls" suffix because there were none. The one discrepancy: the indicator says "prompt processed in 7.4 s" while the `usage:` line reports `prefill=5.0s`, so the two prefill numbers shown to the user disagree by ~2.4s (the indicator is wall-clock to first token including queue/HTTP; `prefill=` is Ollama's `prompt_eval_duration`).
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): nothing odd. No loops, no truncation, no tool errors. The quantitative-question nudge did **not** fire: verified by running `_MEASUREMENT` from `owui-functions/quantitative_question_nudge.py` against `prompt.txt` — no match (the only quantity is the word "three", and bare/worded numbers without units are excluded by design). So this answer is unassisted by the inlet. The thinking block and the final answer agree completely; nothing correct appears only in thinking.
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 10 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 2/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass (8–10)
+- **What it got right:** Everything the rubric asks for, and it walked straight past both traps. It answered both questions in the first line ("C is a knave" / "you cannot determine A and B individually"), then gave an exhaustive case split on A with a valid derivation in each branch, each marked consistent. Case 1 reproduces the world (A knight, B knave, C knave) and Case 2 reproduces (A knave, B knight, C knave) — exactly the two worlds my `python3` enumeration of all 8 assignments leaves standing. It correctly separated "determined" from "individually determined": C is pinned even though A and B are not, and A and B are pinned *relative to each other* as opposites. It also explained *why* the system is under-determined (C's silence leaves no third statement to break the symmetry) rather than just asserting it. No tool was needed and none was called, which the rubric explicitly rates as fine; nothing was fabricated and C was never given a statement.
+- **What it got wrong:** Nothing material. The only thing separating this from a brute-force-backed answer is that the exhaustiveness of the case split on A is left implicit — the model never says "these two are the only consistent assignments out of 8" — but a two-valued split on A with a forced derivation in each branch *is* exhaustive, so the rubric's "clean two-case proof" criterion is met on its own terms and no points are withheld.
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): Yes, two small harness notes (neither cost the model anything): (1) the live status indicator's "prompt processed in 7.4 s" disagrees with the transcript's `prefill=5.0s` for the same turn — two different prefill numbers shown for one request, worth making consistent or labelling differently; (2) a 233-character tool-free logic puzzle still carries a 13,571-token prefill of system prompt + tool schemas, ~5s of the 17.6s turn, which is the standing cost of the tool preamble on every non-tool prompt in the suite.
+
+## Grader notes
+- Ground truth verification: Reproduced with `python3` in Bash on 2026-09-11 — enumerated all 8 knight/knave assignments over (A,B,C) and evaluated A's statement as `¬B` and B's statement as `A == C`, keeping worlds where each speaker's type matches the truth value of their own statement (C unconstrained, as C speaks). Exactly two worlds survive: (knight, knave, knave) and (knave, knight, knave). C is a knave in both; neither A nor B is constant across the two; A ≠ B in both. This matches the rubric's ground truth exactly, so no correction was needed. The nudge question was settled by executing the filter's own `_MEASUREMENT` regex against `prompt.txt` (no match) rather than by eye. No web lookup was required — the puzzle is self-contained.
+- Rubric issues: None substantive. One judgment call: the Tool-use line offers "a clean two-case proof with no tool" as a full-credit alternative to a `matlab_run` enumeration, and I read "clean" as *logically exhaustive and correctly derived* rather than *explicitly enumerating all 8 assignments*. Under that reading the two-case split on A earns the full 2/2; under the stricter reading the model would lose a point for never stating that the two consistent worlds are the only ones out of 8. I used the former, since the rubric's own "Tools expected" row says "none needed" and calls the brute force merely "a good sign", not a requirement.

docs/testing/prompt-corpus/medium/m07-knights-and-knaves/v1/result.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : medium/m07-knights-and-knaves
+# chat id    : bb132f46-3ddc-4c1a-a6db-3b10b4c7bce7
+# chat title : C's Identity and Relationship
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 0  (none)
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-11T05:02:43Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-11T05:02:06Z) ===
+On an island, knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You meet three islanders, A, B and C. A says: “B is a knave.” B says: “A and C are the same type.” C says nothing. What is C? And can you determine what A and B are?
+
+=== ASSISTANT  (2026-09-11T05:02:06Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=13571 eval_count=486 prompt_tokens=13571 completion_tokens=486 total=17.6s prefill=5.0s decode=10.3s 47.1 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING (4s) ===
+This is a classic knights and knaves puzzle. Let me think through it.
+
+A says "B is a knave."
+B says "A and C are the same type."
+C says nothing.
+
+Case 1: A is a knight. Then B is a knave (A's statement true). B is a knave, so B's statement "A and C are the same type" is a lie. So A and C are NOT the same type. A is knight, so C is a knave.
+
+Case 2: A is a knave. Then A's statement is a lie, so B is a knight. B is a knight, so "A and C are the same type" is true. A is knave, so C is a knave.
+
+In both cases, C is a knave. And A and B are opposite types, but we can't determine which is which.
+
+So: C is a knave, and A and B are opposite — one knight, one knave — but we cannot determine which is which.
+
+=== [2] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+**C is a knave. And no — you cannot determine A and B individually; you can only say they are opposite types.**
+
+Here's why, by cases on A:
+
+**Case 1: A is a knight.**
+Then A's statement is true → B is a knave.
+B is a knave, so B's statement "A and C are the same type" is false → A and C are *different* types.
+A is a knight, so **C is a knave**. ✓ Consistent.
+
+**Case 2: A is a knave.**
+Then A's statement is false → B is a knight.
+B is a knight, so "A and C are the same type" is true → C is the same type as A.
+A is a knave, so **C is a knave**. ✓ Consistent.
+
+In **both** cases C comes out a knave, so that's determined. But A and B flip between the two cases — one is a knight and the other a knave, yet the statements never pin down which is which. C saying nothing is exactly what makes the puzzle under-determined for A and B: there's no third statement to break the symmetry.
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · prompt processed in 7.4 s
+- Thought: This is a classic knights and knaves puzzle. Let me think through it. A says "B is a knave." B says "A and C are the same type." C says nothing. Case 1: A is a…
+- Writing response
+- Done