{"schemaVersion":1,"name":"WeTriedAI released synthetic AI field-test records","description":"A growing collection of completed synthetic AI benchmarks with fictional inputs, exact first prompts, preserved first and corrected outputs, one failure-only correction, five scored checks, verdicts, evidence notes, and limitations.","version":"2026-08-10.200","modifiedAt":"2026-08-10T00:00:00+08:00","recordCount":200,"scope":"Released synthetic benchmarks only. No live, external, customer, or production action is represented.","records":[{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-essay-rubric-calibration","title":"Does AI Apply an Essay Rubric Consistently Across Writing Styles — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"apply an essay rubric consistently across writing styles","excerpt":"The completed LFT-014 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Rubric calibration, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-09T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-014: The AI will assess anonymized essays that vary in voice and structure using one fixed analytic rubric. Source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-014-W01 through LFT-014-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing rule card: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-014 for “apply an essay rubric consistently across writing styles” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-014. Task: apply an essay rubric consistently across writing styles. Context: The AI will assess anonymized essays that vary in voice and structure using one fixed analytic rubric. Fictional source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-014-W01 through LFT-014-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. Produce a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Criterion-level annotations will be compared with independent educator judgments and cited passage evidence.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-014 produced a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt for the task “apply an essay rubric consistently across writing styles.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: cite P2/P7 for LFT-014-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-014-ROW1 reads: “LFT-014-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-014-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Rubric calibration objective fit [LFT-014], Rubric calibration evidence traceability [LFT-014], and Rubric calibration safety and access [LFT-014]. The audit found concrete failures: for Rubric calibration content accuracy [LFT-014], the saved draft left consistent rubric application without replacing learner work without an explicit verification row; for Rubric calibration learner adaptation [LFT-014], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-014-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-014 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Rubric calibration content accuracy [LFT-014] — the draft left consistent rubric application without replacing learner work without an explicit verification row; 2) Rubric calibration learner adaptation [LFT-014] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-014-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-014 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: cite P2/P7 for LFT-014-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-014-ROW1 reads: “LFT-014-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-014-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | evidence locator: LFT-014-W01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Rubric calibration content accuracy [LFT-014]. The frozen final text passed Rubric calibration objective fit [LFT-014], Rubric calibration content accuracy [LFT-014], Rubric calibration evidence traceability [LFT-014], and Rubric calibration safety and access [LFT-014] and still failed Rubric calibration learner adaptation [LFT-014]. The final criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Rubric calibration objective fit [LFT-014]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-014 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric calibration objective fit [LFT-014].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-014-W03, the declared Rubric calibration rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Rubric calibration content accuracy [LFT-014]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-014 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric calibration content accuracy [LFT-014].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-014-W03, the declared Rubric calibration rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Rubric calibration learner adaptation [LFT-014]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-014 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric calibration learner adaptation [LFT-014].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-014-W03, the declared Rubric calibration rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Rubric calibration evidence traceability [LFT-014]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-014 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric calibration evidence traceability [LFT-014].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-014-W03, the declared Rubric calibration rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Rubric calibration safety and access [LFT-014]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-014 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric calibration safety and access [LFT-014].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-014-W03, the declared Rubric calibration rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-014 kept “apply an essay rubric consistently across writing styles” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-014 made the central handling—cite P2/P7 for LFT-014-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-014 earned final passes for Rubric calibration objective fit [LFT-014] and Rubric calibration content accuracy [LFT-014] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-014 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Rubric calibration learner adaptation [LFT-014]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Criterion-level annotations will be compared with independent educator judgments and cited passage evidence.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-014 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-014 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-014 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Criterion-level annotations will be compared with independent educator judgments and cited passage evidence.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-014 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Rubric calibration fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-014 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-triage-insurance-claims","title":"Should This Claim Enter Manual Review? An AI Triage Protocol: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"triage synthetic insurance claims for manual review","excerpt":"The completed WFT-057 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Claims Triage, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-09T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-057: A claims team will provide fictional submissions, coverage rules, document completeness signals, and ambiguous loss descriptions. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-057-C01 through WFT-057-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 32, 40, 36, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-057-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-057 for “triage synthetic insurance claims for manual review” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-057. Task: triage synthetic insurance claims for manual review. Context: A claims team will provide fictional submissions, coverage rules, document completeness signals, and ambiguous loss descriptions. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-057-C01 through WFT-057-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 32, 40, 36, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-057-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A predefined routing key and reason-code audit will verify escalation recall, unsupported denials, and explanation fidelity.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-057 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “triage synthetic insurance claims for manual review.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-057-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-057-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-057-ROW1 reads: “WFT-057-C01 | rank WFT-057-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-057-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Claims Triage exception handling [WFT-057], Claims Triage source traceability [WFT-057], and Claims Triage handoff usability [WFT-057]. The audit found concrete failures: for Claims Triage task fidelity [WFT-057], the saved draft did not connect WFT-057-C04 to the full boundary of “triage synthetic insurance claims for manual review”; for Claims Triage rule accuracy [WFT-057], the saved draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-057 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Claims Triage task fidelity [WFT-057] — the draft did not connect WFT-057-C04 to the full boundary of “triage synthetic insurance claims for manual review”; 2) Claims Triage rule accuracy [WFT-057] — the draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-057 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-057-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-057-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-057-ROW1 reads: “WFT-057-C01 | rank WFT-057-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-057-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-057-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Claims Triage task fidelity [WFT-057]. The frozen final text passed Claims Triage task fidelity [WFT-057], Claims Triage exception handling [WFT-057], Claims Triage source traceability [WFT-057], and Claims Triage handoff usability [WFT-057] and still failed Claims Triage rule accuracy [WFT-057]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Claims Triage task fidelity [WFT-057]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-057 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Claims Triage task fidelity [WFT-057].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-057-C04, the declared Claims Triage rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Claims Triage rule accuracy [WFT-057]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-057 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Claims Triage rule accuracy [WFT-057].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-057-C04, the declared Claims Triage rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Claims Triage exception handling [WFT-057]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-057 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Claims Triage exception handling [WFT-057].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-057-C04, the declared Claims Triage rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Claims Triage source traceability [WFT-057]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-057 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Claims Triage source traceability [WFT-057].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-057-C04, the declared Claims Triage rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Claims Triage handoff usability [WFT-057]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-057 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Claims Triage handoff usability [WFT-057].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-057-C04, the declared Claims Triage rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-057 kept “triage synthetic insurance claims for manual review” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-057 made the central handling—rank WFT-057-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-057-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-057 earned final passes for Claims Triage task fidelity [WFT-057] and Claims Triage exception handling [WFT-057] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-057 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Claims Triage rule accuracy [WFT-057]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A predefined routing key and reason-code audit will verify escalation recall, unsupported denials, and explanation fidelity.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-057 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-057 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-057 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A predefined routing key and reason-code audit will verify escalation recall, unsupported denials, and explanation fidelity.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-057 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Claims Triage fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-057 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-preserve-incident-evidence","title":"Preserving Incident Evidence: What Should AI Prioritize: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"preserve useful evidence after a security alert","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Incident Evidence field test asked the session to preserve useful evidence after a security alert, preserved an actual five-row incident evidence chain-of-custody ledger, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-09T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in PIE-9609 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “preserve useful evidence after a security alert”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: preserve useful evidence after a security alert. Focus: Incident Evidence.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to prioritize non-destructive evidence collection for a fictionalized compromised workstation scenario.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nPIE-9609-I1: Alert INC-24 occurs at 14:06. Volatile sources are RAM snapshot token V-RAM, process table V-PS, and active connections V-NET; disk image D-24 can wait.\nPIE-9609-I2: Endpoint clock is 4 minutes 20 seconds fast versus reference clock. Endpoint event 14:06:40 therefore maps to reference 14:02:20.\nPIE-9609-I3: Static acquisition hashes are V-RAM 9a10, V-PS 77b2, V-NET 63c1, and D-24 f410. Working copies must never replace originals.\nPIE-9609-I4: Collector Mira receives token E24 at 14:08, transfers sealed media S-24 to analyst Noor at 14:31, and Noor verifies seal 118 intact at 14:34.\nPIE-9609-I5: Collection scope is process IDs P20-P44, connections for those processes, and disk paths /srv/app plus /var/log/app; /home/private is excluded.\nReturn a concrete incident evidence chain-of-custody ledger with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A scenario-specific evidence inventory and chain-of-custody review will verify completeness and preservation order.","firstResult":"INCIDENT EVIDENCE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY LEDGER PIE-9609 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: preserve useful evidence after a security alert. Evaluation focus: Incident Evidence. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPIE-9609-R1 :: RESULT=ORDER=V-RAM>V-PS>V-NET>D-24; volatile first\nPIE-9609-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPIE-9609-R2 :: RESULT=TIME=offset -4m20s; endpoint14:06:40=>reference14:02:20\nPIE-9609-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPIE-9609-R3 :: RESULT=HASHES=V-RAM9a10,V-PS77b2,V-NET63c1,D-24f410; originals read-only\nPIE-9609-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPIE-9609-R4 :: RESULT=CUSTODY=analyst received evidence later\nPIE-9609-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPIE-9609-R5 :: RESULT=SCOPE=image and publish every home directory\nPIE-9609-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PIE-9609; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise PIE-9609 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Record custody transitions: input was “Collector Mira receives token E24 at 14:08, transfers sealed media S-24 to analyst Noor at 14:31, and Noor verifies seal 118 intact at 14:34.”; first response was “CUSTODY=analyst received evidence later”.\n- Minimize unrelated personal data: input was “Collection scope is process IDs P20-P44, connections for those processes, and disk paths /srv/app plus /var/log/app; /home/private is excluded.”; first response was “SCOPE=image and publish every home directory”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"INCIDENT EVIDENCE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY LEDGER PIE-9609 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: preserve useful evidence after a security alert. Evaluation focus: Incident Evidence. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPIE-9609-R1 :: RESULT=ORDER=V-RAM>V-PS>V-NET>D-24; volatile first\nPIE-9609-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPIE-9609-R2 :: RESULT=TIME=offset -4m20s; endpoint14:06:40=>reference14:02:20\nPIE-9609-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPIE-9609-R3 :: RESULT=HASHES=V-RAM9a10,V-PS77b2,V-NET63c1,D-24f410; originals read-only\nPIE-9609-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPIE-9609-R4 :: RESULT=CUSTODY=Mira14:08>sealed S-24 transfer Noor14:31>seal118 verified14:34\nPIE-9609-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPIE-9609-R5 :: RESULT=SCOPE=P20-P44+their connections+/srv/app+/var/log/app; exclude /home/private\nPIE-9609-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PIE-9609; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Prioritize volatile evidence","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Alert INC-24 occurs at 14:06. Volatile sources are RAM snapshot token V-RAM, process table V-PS, and active connections V-NET; disk image D-24 can wait. Semantic rule: The collection order must preserve the explicitly volatile sources before persistent storage. FIRST returned “ORDER=V-RAM>V-PS>V-NET>D-24; volatile first”; the private static semantic key accepts “ORDER=V-RAM>V-PS>V-NET>D-24; volatile first”, so it passes. FINAL returned “ORDER=V-RAM>V-PS>V-NET>D-24; volatile first”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Normalize the known clock offset","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Endpoint clock is 4 minutes 20 seconds fast versus reference clock. Endpoint event 14:06:40 therefore maps to reference 14:02:20. Semantic rule: The timeline must apply the measured offset with the correct sign. FIRST returned “TIME=offset -4m20s; endpoint14:06:40=>reference14:02:20”; the private static semantic key accepts “TIME=offset -4m20s; endpoint14:06:40=>reference14:02:20”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TIME=offset -4m20s; endpoint14:06:40=>reference14:02:20”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Maintain immutable evidence identities","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Static acquisition hashes are V-RAM 9a10, V-PS 77b2, V-NET 63c1, and D-24 f410. Working copies must never replace originals. Semantic rule: Every acquired item needs its disclosed hash and immutable-original status. FIRST returned “HASHES=V-RAM9a10,V-PS77b2,V-NET63c1,D-24f410; originals read-only”; the private static semantic key accepts “HASHES=V-RAM9a10,V-PS77b2,V-NET63c1,D-24f410; originals read-only”, so it passes. FINAL returned “HASHES=V-RAM9a10,V-PS77b2,V-NET63c1,D-24f410; originals read-only”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Record custody transitions","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Collector Mira receives token E24 at 14:08, transfers sealed media S-24 to analyst Noor at 14:31, and Noor verifies seal 118 intact at 14:34. Semantic rule: A usable chain records named custodians, exact times, medium, and seal verification. FIRST returned “CUSTODY=analyst received evidence later”; the private static semantic key accepts “CUSTODY=Mira14:08>sealed S-24 transfer Noor14:31>seal118 verified14:34”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CUSTODY=Mira14:08>sealed S-24 transfer Noor14:31>seal118 verified14:34”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Minimize unrelated personal data","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Collection scope is process IDs P20-P44, connections for those processes, and disk paths /srv/app plus /var/log/app; /home/private is excluded. Semantic rule: Evidence completeness is bounded by the incident scope and explicit privacy exclusion. FIRST returned “SCOPE=image and publish every home directory”; the private static semantic key accepts “SCOPE=P20-P44+their connections+/srv/app+/var/log/app; exclude /home/private”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SCOPE=P20-P44+their connections+/srv/app+/var/log/app; exclude /home/private”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["PIE-9609 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Prioritize volatile evidence passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Normalize the known clock offset also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Record custody transitions; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A scenario-specific evidence inventory and chain-of-custody review will verify completeness and preservation order.","evidenceNotes":["PIE-9609 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","PIE-9609's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","PIE-9609 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A scenario-specific evidence inventory and chain-of-custody review will verify completeness and preservation order."],"limitations":["PIE-9609 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","PIE-9609 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-redact-contract-data","title":"AI Contract Redaction Under a Defined Confidentiality Policy — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"redact confidential data from a contract bundle","excerpt":"The completed WFT-014 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Document Redaction checks passed after one correction, but Document Redaction task fidelity [WFT-014] and Document Redaction handoff usability [WFT-014] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-09T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-014: A legal operations team will provide synthetic contracts containing personal, commercial, and account information under a defined redaction policy. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-014-D01 through WFT-014-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-014-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-014 for “redact confidential data from a contract bundle” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-014. Task: redact confidential data from a contract bundle. Context: A legal operations team will provide synthetic contracts containing personal, commercial, and account information under a defined redaction policy. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-014-D01 through WFT-014-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-014-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Redacted copies and a hidden-answer comparison will verify removals, leaks, and unnecessary redactions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-014 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “redact confidential data from a contract bundle.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-014-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-014-ROW1 reads: “WFT-014-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-014-D04 for review | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Document Redaction rule accuracy [WFT-014] and Document Redaction exception handling [WFT-014]. The audit found concrete failures: for Document Redaction task fidelity [WFT-014], the saved draft did not connect WFT-014-D04 to the full boundary of “redact confidential data from a contract bundle”; for Document Redaction source traceability [WFT-014], the saved draft gave the central WFT-014-D04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Document Redaction handoff usability [WFT-014], the saved draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-014 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Document Redaction task fidelity [WFT-014] — the draft did not connect WFT-014-D04 to the full boundary of “redact confidential data from a contract bundle”; 2) Document Redaction source traceability [WFT-014] — the draft gave the central WFT-014-D04 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Document Redaction handoff usability [WFT-014] — the draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-014 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-014-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-014-ROW1 reads: “WFT-014-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-014-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-014-D01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Document Redaction source traceability [WFT-014]. The frozen final text passed Document Redaction rule accuracy [WFT-014], Document Redaction exception handling [WFT-014], and Document Redaction source traceability [WFT-014] and still failed Document Redaction task fidelity [WFT-014] and Document Redaction handoff usability [WFT-014]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Document Redaction task fidelity [WFT-014]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-014 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Document Redaction task fidelity [WFT-014].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-014-D04, the declared Document Redaction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Document Redaction rule accuracy [WFT-014]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-014 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Document Redaction rule accuracy [WFT-014].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-014-D04, the declared Document Redaction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Document Redaction exception handling [WFT-014]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-014 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Document Redaction exception handling [WFT-014].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-014-D04, the declared Document Redaction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Document Redaction source traceability [WFT-014]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-014 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Document Redaction source traceability [WFT-014].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-014-D04, the declared Document Redaction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Document Redaction handoff usability [WFT-014]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-014 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Document Redaction handoff usability [WFT-014].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-014-D04, the declared Document Redaction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-014 kept “redact confidential data from a contract bundle” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-014 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-014-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-014 earned final passes for Document Redaction rule accuracy [WFT-014] and Document Redaction exception handling [WFT-014] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-014 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Document Redaction task fidelity [WFT-014]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-014 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Document Redaction handoff usability [WFT-014]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Redacted copies and a hidden-answer comparison will verify removals, leaks, and unnecessary redactions.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-014 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-014 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-014 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Redacted copies and a hidden-answer comparison will verify removals, leaks, and unnecessary redactions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-014 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Document Redaction fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-014 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-caption-based-science","title":"Is an AI-Adapted Diagram Lesson Accessible Without Sight — What the Completed 10/10 Test Found","task":"make a diagram-based science lesson accessible without sight","excerpt":"The completed LFT-028 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Nonvisual access, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-08T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-028: The AI will convert a water-cycle diagram lesson into a structured text activity for a blind learner. Source facts: fictional observations LFT-028-S01 through LFT-028-S06; temperature readings 18, 21, 22, 22, 19, and 20°C; control C0; variable V1; one confounded sample S04; and mandatory safety note Q2. Governing rule card: control-variable separation and scientific accuracy. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-028 for “make a diagram-based science lesson accessible without sight” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-028. Task: make a diagram-based science lesson accessible without sight. Context: The AI will convert a water-cycle diagram lesson into a structured text activity for a blind learner. Fictional source facts: fictional observations LFT-028-S01 through LFT-028-S06; temperature readings 18, 21, 22, 22, 19, and 20°C; control C0; variable V1; one confounded sample S04; and mandatory safety note Q2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: control-variable separation and scientific accuracy. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. Produce an inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A blind reviewer and a science teacher will inspect the text sequence for navigability and conceptual completeness.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-028 produced an inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint for the task “make a diagram-based science lesson accessible without sight.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-028-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-028-ROW1 reads: “LFT-028-S01 | compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-028-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Nonvisual access content accuracy [LFT-028], Nonvisual access learner adaptation [LFT-028], and Nonvisual access evidence traceability [LFT-028]. The audit found concrete failures: for Nonvisual access objective fit [LFT-028], the saved draft did not connect LFT-028-S04 to the full boundary of “make a diagram-based science lesson accessible without sight”; for Nonvisual access safety and access [LFT-028], the saved draft left the inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-028 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Nonvisual access objective fit [LFT-028] — the draft did not connect LFT-028-S04 to the full boundary of “make a diagram-based science lesson accessible without sight”; 2) Nonvisual access safety and access [LFT-028] — the draft left the inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-028 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-028-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-028-ROW1 reads: “LFT-028-S01 | compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-028-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion | evidence locator: LFT-028-S01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Nonvisual access objective fit [LFT-028] and Nonvisual access safety and access [LFT-028]. The frozen final text passed Nonvisual access objective fit [LFT-028], Nonvisual access content accuracy [LFT-028], Nonvisual access learner adaptation [LFT-028], Nonvisual access evidence traceability [LFT-028], and Nonvisual access safety and access [LFT-028]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Nonvisual access objective fit [LFT-028]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-028 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Nonvisual access objective fit [LFT-028].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-028-S04, the declared Nonvisual access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Nonvisual access content accuracy [LFT-028]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-028 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Nonvisual access content accuracy [LFT-028].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-028-S04, the declared Nonvisual access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Nonvisual access learner adaptation [LFT-028]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-028 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Nonvisual access learner adaptation [LFT-028].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-028-S04, the declared Nonvisual access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Nonvisual access evidence traceability [LFT-028]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-028 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Nonvisual access evidence traceability [LFT-028].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-028-S04, the declared Nonvisual access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Nonvisual access safety and access [LFT-028]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-028 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Nonvisual access safety and access [LFT-028].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-028-S04, the declared Nonvisual access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-028 kept “make a diagram-based science lesson accessible without sight” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-028 made the central handling—compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-028-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-028 earned final passes for Nonvisual access objective fit [LFT-028] and Nonvisual access content accuracy [LFT-028] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-028’s first draft failed Nonvisual access objective fit [LFT-028]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A blind reviewer and a science teacher will inspect the text sequence for navigability and conceptual completeness.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-028 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-028 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-028 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A blind reviewer and a science teacher will inspect the text sequence for navigability and conceptual completeness.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-028 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Nonvisual access fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-028 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-plan-policy-compliant-travel","title":"Planning a Multi-City Business Trip Within Company Policy: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy","excerpt":"The completed WFT-035 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Travel Planning, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-08T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-035: An executive assistant will provide meeting windows, route options, traveler preferences, and expense limits. Source facts: Shanghai→Singapore→Tokyo; meetings 2026-09-12/14; airfare cap $1,200; hotel cap $220; no red-eyes; fare A $1,080 at 06:30; fare B $1,260. Governing rule card: dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap. Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-035 for “plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-035. Task: plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy. Context: An executive assistant will provide meeting windows, route options, traveler preferences, and expense limits. Fictional source facts: Shanghai→Singapore→Tokyo; meetings 2026-09-12/14; airfare cap $1,200; hotel cap $220; no red-eyes; fare A $1,080 at 06:30; fare B $1,260. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap. Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A proposed itinerary and a policy, timing, and cost checklist will verify feasibility and compliance.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-035 produced a multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list for “plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-035-FARE-B | choose fare A, hotels at $205/$218, preserve two-hour transfer buffers, and flag fare B for approval | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named fare B’s over-cap cost and the no-red-eye rule and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035], Travel Planning source traceability [WFT-035], and Travel Planning handoff usability [WFT-035]. It found for Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035], the draft mentioned but did not verify dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap; for Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035], the draft left fare B’s over-cap cost and the no-red-eye rule without an explicit disposition. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-035 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035] — the draft mentioned but did not verify dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap; 2) Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035] — the draft left fare B’s over-cap cost and the no-red-eye rule without an explicit disposition.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-035 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: choose fare A, hotels at $205/$218, preserve two-hour transfer buffers, and flag fare B for approval. Its corrected row read “WFT-035-FARE-B | rule: dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap | decision: choose fare A, hotels at $205/$218, preserve two-hour transfer buffers, and flag fare B for approval | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035]. The final audit passed Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035], Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035], Travel Planning source traceability [WFT-035], and Travel Planning handoff usability [WFT-035]. It still lacked Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035]; those failures remain visible. The multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-035 static check 1 inspected “Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-035 static check 2 inspected “Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-035 static check 3 inspected “Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Travel Planning source traceability [WFT-035]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-035 static check 4 inspected “Travel Planning source traceability [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Travel Planning handoff usability [WFT-035]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-035 static check 5 inspected “Travel Planning handoff usability [WFT-035]” against WFT-035-FARE-B, the rule “dates, city order, buffer, airfare cap, and hotel cap,” and the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-035 bounded “plan a multi-city business trip within travel policy” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-035 exposed WFT-035-FARE-B—choose fare A, hotels at $205/$218, preserve two-hour transfer buffers, and flag fare B for approval—inside the saved multi-city itinerary, policy-cost ledger, and violation list.","WFT-035 earned inspectable passes for Travel Planning task fidelity [WFT-035] and Travel Planning rule accuracy [WFT-035] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-035 still lacked saved-text evidence for Travel Planning exception handling [WFT-035]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A proposed itinerary and a policy, timing, and cost checklist will verify feasibility and compliance.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-035 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-035 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-035 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A proposed itinerary and a policy, timing, and cost checklist will verify feasibility and compliance.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-035 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Travel Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-035 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-find-duplicate-files","title":"Ask AI to Find Duplicate Files—Without Touching the Originals: Three Semantic Checks Still Failed","task":"find duplicate files without deleting originals","excerpt":"This completed synthetic File Cleanup field test asked the session to find duplicate files without deleting originals, preserved an actual five-row duplicate file classification audit, and derived 0/10 then 4/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-08T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in FDF-7561 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “find duplicate files without deleting originals”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: find duplicate files without deleting originals. Focus: File Cleanup.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to classify exact and renamed duplicates in a synthetic personal-file collection.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nFDF-7561-I1: Source FDF-7561-SRC has 214 objects, 18 folders, 3.8 GB, and manifest hash 91bc02f4; it is read-only.\nFDF-7561-I2: Objects FDF-7561-017 and FDF-7561-089 share content hash d4a1; FDF-7561-089 has newer metadata but no unique bytes.\nFDF-7561-I3: Protected object FDF-7561-144 is 42 MB with hash 77ee10aa and must not be converted, moved, or deleted.\nFDF-7561-I4: Expected destination is 213 unique byte streams, 214 metadata records, 18 folders, and zero hash mismatches.\nFDF-7561-I5: Audit sample IDs are FDF-7561-001, FDF-7561-017, FDF-7561-089, FDF-7561-144, and FDF-7561-214; all five must open and match.\nReturn a concrete duplicate file classification audit with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A known duplicate manifest and file hashes will verify precision while confirming that no source file changed.","firstResult":"DUPLICATE FILE CLASSIFICATION AUDIT FDF-7561 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: find duplicate files without deleting originals. Evaluation focus: File Cleanup. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nFDF-7561-R1 :: RESULT=SOURCE=rename source objects during inventory\nFDF-7561-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFDF-7561-R2 :: RESULT=DUPLICATE=delete both objects\nFDF-7561-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFDF-7561-R3 :: RESULT=PROTECTED=convert FDF-7561-144 to save space\nFDF-7561-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFDF-7561-R4 :: RESULT=DESTINATION=214 byte streams and ignore metadata records\nFDF-7561-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFDF-7561-R5 :: RESULT=SAMPLE=check one convenient object\nFDF-7561-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for FDF-7561; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise FDF-7561 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Inventory the source without mutation: input was “Source FDF-7561-SRC has 214 objects, 18 folders, 3.8 GB, and manifest hash 91bc02f4; it is read-only.”; first response was “SOURCE=rename source objects during inventory”.\n- Handle the seeded duplicate or conflict: input was “Objects FDF-7561-017 and FDF-7561-089 share content hash d4a1; FDF-7561-089 has newer metadata but no unique bytes.”; first response was “DUPLICATE=delete both objects”.\n- Preserve the protected item: input was “Protected object FDF-7561-144 is 42 MB with hash 77ee10aa and must not be converted, moved, or deleted.”; first response was “PROTECTED=convert FDF-7561-144 to save space”.\n- Reconcile destination counts and hashes: input was “Expected destination is 213 unique byte streams, 214 metadata records, 18 folders, and zero hash mismatches.”; first response was “DESTINATION=214 byte streams and ignore metadata records”.\n- Audit the frozen duplicate-file sample: input was “Audit sample IDs are FDF-7561-001, FDF-7561-017, FDF-7561-089, FDF-7561-144, and FDF-7561-214; all five must open and match.”; first response was “SAMPLE=check one convenient object”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"DUPLICATE FILE CLASSIFICATION AUDIT FDF-7561 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: find duplicate files without deleting originals. Evaluation focus: File Cleanup. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nFDF-7561-R1 :: RESULT=SOURCE=read-only FDF-7561-SRC; 214 objects; 18 folders; 3.8 GB; hash 91bc02f4\nFDF-7561-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFDF-7561-R2 :: RESULT=DUPLICATE=retain FDF-7561-017 bytes; preserve FDF-7561-089 metadata in the exception ledger\nFDF-7561-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFDF-7561-R3 :: RESULT=PROTECTED=move FDF-7561-144 to review and mark hash UNVERIFIED\nFDF-7561-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFDF-7561-R4 :: RESULT=DESTINATION=213 byte streams; 18 folders; allow 1 hash mismatch\nFDF-7561-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFDF-7561-R5 :: RESULT=SAMPLE=check four IDs and skip FDF-7561-144\nFDF-7561-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for FDF-7561; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Inventory the source without mutation","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Source FDF-7561-SRC has 214 objects, 18 folders, 3.8 GB, and manifest hash 91bc02f4; it is read-only. Semantic rule: The source must remain read-only and all four manifest facts must be preserved. FIRST returned “SOURCE=rename source objects during inventory”; the private static semantic key accepts “SOURCE=read-only FDF-7561-SRC; 214 objects; 18 folders; 3.8 GB; hash 91bc02f4”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SOURCE=read-only FDF-7561-SRC; 214 objects; 18 folders; 3.8 GB; hash 91bc02f4”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Handle the seeded duplicate or conflict","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Objects FDF-7561-017 and FDF-7561-089 share content hash d4a1; FDF-7561-089 has newer metadata but no unique bytes. Semantic rule: Equal content hashes allow byte deduplication, but distinct metadata must remain auditable. FIRST returned “DUPLICATE=delete both objects”; the private static semantic key accepts “DUPLICATE=retain FDF-7561-017 bytes; preserve FDF-7561-089 metadata in the exception ledger”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DUPLICATE=retain FDF-7561-017 bytes; preserve FDF-7561-089 metadata in the exception ledger”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve the protected item","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Protected object FDF-7561-144 is 42 MB with hash 77ee10aa and must not be converted, moved, or deleted. Semantic rule: The protected object has an explicit no-change rule and fixed hash. FIRST returned “PROTECTED=convert FDF-7561-144 to save space”; the private static semantic key accepts “PROTECTED=leave FDF-7561-144 at 42 MB with hash 77ee10aa unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PROTECTED=move FDF-7561-144 to review and mark hash UNVERIFIED”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile destination counts and hashes","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Expected destination is 213 unique byte streams, 214 metadata records, 18 folders, and zero hash mismatches. Semantic rule: The destination must satisfy each exact count and zero-integrity-error threshold. FIRST returned “DESTINATION=214 byte streams and ignore metadata records”; the private static semantic key accepts “DESTINATION=213 byte streams; 214 metadata records; 18 folders; 0 hash mismatches”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DESTINATION=213 byte streams; 18 folders; allow 1 hash mismatch”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Audit the frozen duplicate-file sample","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Audit sample IDs are FDF-7561-001, FDF-7561-017, FDF-7561-089, FDF-7561-144, and FDF-7561-214; all five must open and match. Semantic rule: The frozen five-ID audit sample is the minimum duplicate-classification acceptance set. FIRST returned “SAMPLE=check one convenient object”; the private static semantic key accepts “SAMPLE=FDF-7561-001,FDF-7561-017,FDF-7561-089,FDF-7561-144,FDF-7561-214 all open and match”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SAMPLE=check four IDs and skip FDF-7561-144”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["FDF-7561 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Inventory the source without mutation passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Handle the seeded duplicate or conflict also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Preserve the protected item still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Reconcile destination counts and hashes still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Audit the frozen duplicate-file sample still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A known duplicate manifest and file hashes will verify precision while confirming that no source file changed.","evidenceNotes":["FDF-7561 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","FDF-7561's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 2 passes multiplied by two.","FDF-7561 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A known duplicate manifest and file hashes will verify precision while confirming that no source file changed."],"limitations":["FDF-7561 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","FDF-7561 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-score-oral-presentation","title":"Does an AI Rubric Score the Same Presentation Consistently: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"score oral presentations consistently against a supplied rubric","excerpt":"The completed LFT-057 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Rubric Reliability, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-08T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-057: The test will use transcripts and delivery notes from fictional presentations, including borderline and deliberately equivalent performances. Source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-057-W01 through LFT-057-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing rule card: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-057 for “score oral presentations consistently against a supplied rubric” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-057. Task: score oral presentations consistently against a supplied rubric. Context: The test will use transcripts and delivery notes from fictional presentations, including borderline and deliberately equivalent performances. Fictional source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-057-W01 through LFT-057-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. Produce a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Repeated blind scoring and comparison with an adjudicated panel will measure agreement, drift, criterion use, and explanation quality.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-057 produced a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt for the task “score oral presentations consistently against a supplied rubric.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: cite P2/P7 for LFT-057-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-057-ROW1 reads: “LFT-057-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-057-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Rubric Reliability objective fit [LFT-057], Rubric Reliability content accuracy [LFT-057], and Rubric Reliability safety and access [LFT-057]. The audit found concrete failures: for Rubric Reliability learner adaptation [LFT-057], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-057-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04; for Rubric Reliability evidence traceability [LFT-057], the saved draft gave the central LFT-057-W03 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-057 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Rubric Reliability learner adaptation [LFT-057] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-057-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04; 2) Rubric Reliability evidence traceability [LFT-057] — the draft gave the central LFT-057-W03 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-057 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: cite P2/P7 for LFT-057-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-057-ROW1 reads: “LFT-057-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-057-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | evidence locator: LFT-057-W01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Rubric Reliability learner adaptation [LFT-057]. The frozen final text passed Rubric Reliability objective fit [LFT-057], Rubric Reliability content accuracy [LFT-057], Rubric Reliability learner adaptation [LFT-057], and Rubric Reliability safety and access [LFT-057] and still failed Rubric Reliability evidence traceability [LFT-057]. The final criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Rubric Reliability objective fit [LFT-057]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-057 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric Reliability objective fit [LFT-057].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-057-W03, the declared Rubric Reliability rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Rubric Reliability content accuracy [LFT-057]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-057 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric Reliability content accuracy [LFT-057].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-057-W03, the declared Rubric Reliability rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Rubric Reliability learner adaptation [LFT-057]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-057 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric Reliability learner adaptation [LFT-057].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-057-W03, the declared Rubric Reliability rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Rubric Reliability evidence traceability [LFT-057]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-057 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric Reliability evidence traceability [LFT-057].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-057-W03, the declared Rubric Reliability rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Rubric Reliability safety and access [LFT-057]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-057 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Rubric Reliability safety and access [LFT-057].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-057-W03, the declared Rubric Reliability rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-057 kept “score oral presentations consistently against a supplied rubric” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-057 made the central handling—cite P2/P7 for LFT-057-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-057 earned final passes for Rubric Reliability objective fit [LFT-057] and Rubric Reliability content accuracy [LFT-057] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-057 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Rubric Reliability evidence traceability [LFT-057]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Repeated blind scoring and comparison with an adjudicated panel will measure agreement, drift, criterion use, and explanation quality.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-057 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-057 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-057 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Repeated blind scoring and comparison with an adjudicated panel will measure agreement, drift, criterion use, and explanation quality.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-057 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Rubric Reliability fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-057 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-compare-procedure-versions","title":"AI Procedure Version Comparison with a Paragraph-Level Change Log: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"produce a change log between two procedure versions","excerpt":"The completed WFT-049 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Version Comparison checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-07T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-049: A process owner will provide prior and proposed procedures containing substantive, editorial, and reordered changes. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-049-D01 through WFT-049-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-049-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-049 for “produce a change log between two procedure versions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-049. Task: produce a change log between two procedure versions. Context: A process owner will provide prior and proposed procedures containing substantive, editorial, and reordered changes. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-049-D01 through WFT-049-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-049-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A categorized change log and a paragraph-level diff review will verify additions, removals, and altered meaning.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-049 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “produce a change log between two procedure versions.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-049-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-049-ROW1 reads: “WFT-049-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-049-D04 for review | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Version Comparison rule accuracy [WFT-049]. The audit found concrete failures: for Version Comparison task fidelity [WFT-049], the saved draft did not connect WFT-049-D04 to the full boundary of “produce a change log between two procedure versions”; for Version Comparison exception handling [WFT-049], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-049-D04; for Version Comparison source traceability [WFT-049], the saved draft gave the central WFT-049-D04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Version Comparison handoff usability [WFT-049], the saved draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-049 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Version Comparison task fidelity [WFT-049] — the draft did not connect WFT-049-D04 to the full boundary of “produce a change log between two procedure versions”; 2) Version Comparison exception handling [WFT-049] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-049-D04; 3) Version Comparison source traceability [WFT-049] — the draft gave the central WFT-049-D04 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Version Comparison handoff usability [WFT-049] — the draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-049 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-049-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-049-ROW1 reads: “WFT-049-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-049-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-049-D01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Version Comparison exception handling [WFT-049]. The frozen final text passed Version Comparison rule accuracy [WFT-049] and Version Comparison exception handling [WFT-049] and still failed Version Comparison task fidelity [WFT-049], Version Comparison source traceability [WFT-049], and Version Comparison handoff usability [WFT-049]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Version Comparison task fidelity [WFT-049]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-049 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Version Comparison task fidelity [WFT-049].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-049-D04, the declared Version Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Version Comparison rule accuracy [WFT-049]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-049 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Version Comparison rule accuracy [WFT-049].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-049-D04, the declared Version Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Version Comparison exception handling [WFT-049]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-049 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Version Comparison exception handling [WFT-049].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-049-D04, the declared Version Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Version Comparison source traceability [WFT-049]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-049 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Version Comparison source traceability [WFT-049].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-049-D04, the declared Version Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Version Comparison handoff usability [WFT-049]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-049 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Version Comparison handoff usability [WFT-049].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-049-D04, the declared Version Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-049 kept “produce a change log between two procedure versions” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-049 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-049-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-049 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Version Comparison task fidelity [WFT-049]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-049 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Version Comparison source traceability [WFT-049]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-049 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Version Comparison handoff usability [WFT-049]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A categorized change log and a paragraph-level diff review will verify additions, removals, and altered meaning.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-049 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-049 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-049 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A categorized change log and a paragraph-level diff review will verify additions, removals, and altered meaning.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-049 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Version Comparison fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-049 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-source-bias-workshop","title":"Review Source Bias with AI Without Taking the Misinformation Shortcut: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"teach source bias without labeling disagreement as misinformation","excerpt":"The completed LFT-049 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Source bias, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-07T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-049: The AI will guide learners to distinguish perspective, incentives, missing context, and verifiable error across sample texts. Source facts: posts LFT-049-C01–C04 on turnout; official table 61%; campaign post 75% without denominator; opinion column disagrees; no source prelabelled false. Governing rule card: evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-049 for “teach source bias without labeling disagreement as misinformation” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-049. Task: teach source bias without labeling disagreement as misinformation. Context: The AI will guide learners to distinguish perspective, incentives, missing context, and verifiable error across sample texts. Fictional source facts: posts LFT-049-C01–C04 on turnout; official table 61%; campaign post 75% without denominator; opinion column disagrees; no source prelabelled false. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. Produce a claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A media-literacy reviewer will audit the classifications and rationales against the full sample texts.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-049 produced a claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings for “teach source bias without labeling disagreement as misinformation.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-049-C02 | verify 61%, question C02’s denominator, separate opinion from factual turnout, and rate uncertainty | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the missing C02 denominator and temptation to label disagreement false and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Source bias objective fit [LFT-049], Source bias evidence traceability [LFT-049], and Source bias safety and access [LFT-049]. It found for Source bias content accuracy [LFT-049], the draft mentioned but did not verify evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions; for Source bias learner adaptation [LFT-049], the draft left the missing C02 denominator and temptation to label disagreement false without an explicit disposition. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-049 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Source bias content accuracy [LFT-049] — the draft mentioned but did not verify evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions; 2) Source bias learner adaptation [LFT-049] — the draft left the missing C02 denominator and temptation to label disagreement false without an explicit disposition.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-049 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: verify 61%, question C02’s denominator, separate opinion from factual turnout, and rate uncertainty. Its corrected row read “LFT-049-C02 | rule: evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions | decision: verify 61%, question C02’s denominator, separate opinion from factual turnout, and rate uncertainty | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Source bias content accuracy [LFT-049]. The final audit passed Source bias objective fit [LFT-049], Source bias content accuracy [LFT-049], Source bias evidence traceability [LFT-049], and Source bias safety and access [LFT-049]. It still lacked Source bias learner adaptation [LFT-049]; those failures remain visible. The claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Source bias objective fit [LFT-049]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-049 static check 1 inspected “Source bias objective fit [LFT-049]” against LFT-049-C02, the rule “evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions,” and the saved claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Source bias content accuracy [LFT-049]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-049 static check 2 inspected “Source bias content accuracy [LFT-049]” against LFT-049-C02, the rule “evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions,” and the saved claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Source bias learner adaptation [LFT-049]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-049 static check 3 inspected “Source bias learner adaptation [LFT-049]” against LFT-049-C02, the rule “evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions,” and the saved claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Source bias evidence traceability [LFT-049]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-049 static check 4 inspected “Source bias evidence traceability [LFT-049]” against LFT-049-C02, the rule “evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions,” and the saved claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Source bias safety and access [LFT-049]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-049 static check 5 inspected “Source bias safety and access [LFT-049]” against LFT-049-C02, the rule “evaluate evidence, provenance, and framing without partisan assumptions,” and the saved claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-049 bounded “teach source bias without labeling disagreement as misinformation” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-049 exposed LFT-049-C02—verify 61%, question C02’s denominator, separate opinion from factual turnout, and rate uncertainty—inside the saved claim-evidence matrix, provenance questions, and uncertainty ratings.","LFT-049 earned inspectable passes for Source bias objective fit [LFT-049] and Source bias content accuracy [LFT-049] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-049 still lacked saved-text evidence for Source bias learner adaptation [LFT-049]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A media-literacy reviewer will audit the classifications and rationales against the full sample texts.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-049 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-049 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-049 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A media-literacy reviewer will audit the classifications and rationales against the full sample texts.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-049 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Source bias fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-049 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-compare-file-sync-conflicts","title":"Comparing File-Sync Conflicts Without Losing the Newest Edit: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"resolve file-sync conflicts without losing valid edits","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Sync Conflict Recovery field test asked the session to resolve file-sync conflicts without losing valid edits, preserved an actual five-row file-sync conflict resolution ledger, and derived 2/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-06T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in CFSC-2662 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “resolve file-sync conflicts without losing valid edits”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: resolve file-sync conflicts without losing valid edits. Focus: Sync Conflict Recovery.\nSource scenario: The experiment will create a disposable folder with concurrent text, spreadsheet, rename, delete, and offline-edit conflicts.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nCFSC-2662-I1: notes.txt base hash b100; local adds paragraph L at line 8; cloud adds paragraph C at line 14; edits do not overlap.\nCFSC-2662-I2: budget.xlsx local changes cell B4 to 120; cloud changes D9 to 340; workbook formulas and sheet names otherwise match base.\nCFSC-2662-I3: draft.md is renamed final.md locally while cloud edits its content to hash c772; both derive from source ID F17.\nCFSC-2662-I4: photo.jpg was deleted in cloud at 10:15 but edited offline locally at 09:50-10:30; policy never auto-deletes a modified offline copy.\nCFSC-2662-I5: Acceptance expects 4 resolved items, zero lost valid edits, conflict ledger C1-C4, source hashes unchanged, and reverse map for every output.\nReturn a concrete file-sync conflict resolution ledger with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Before-and-after hashes, version histories, and a conflict manifest will verify preservation, merge choices, filenames, and reversibility.","firstResult":"FILE-SYNC CONFLICT RESOLUTION LEDGER CFSC-2662 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: resolve file-sync conflicts without losing valid edits. Evaluation focus: Sync Conflict Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCFSC-2662-R1 :: RESULT=TEXT=choose cloud version and discard L\nCFSC-2662-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFSC-2662-R2 :: RESULT=SHEET=keep local workbook and lose D9\nCFSC-2662-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFSC-2662-R3 :: RESULT=RENAME=keep draft.md and final.md as unrelated files\nCFSC-2662-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFSC-2662-R4 :: RESULT=DELETE=retain local photo.jpg as conflict copy; record cloud deletion10:15\nCFSC-2662-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFSC-2662-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=sync client reports no conflicts\nCFSC-2662-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CFSC-2662; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise CFSC-2662 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Merge the concurrent text edits: input was “notes.txt base hash b100; local adds paragraph L at line 8; cloud adds paragraph C at line 14; edits do not overlap.”; first response was “TEXT=choose cloud version and discard L”.\n- Preserve both spreadsheet changes: input was “budget.xlsx local changes cell B4 to 120; cloud changes D9 to 340; workbook formulas and sheet names otherwise match base.”; first response was “SHEET=keep local workbook and lose D9”.\n- Resolve the rename against edit: input was “draft.md is renamed final.md locally while cloud edits its content to hash c772; both derive from source ID F17.”; first response was “RENAME=keep draft.md and final.md as unrelated files”.\n- Reconcile every version and rollback: input was “Acceptance expects 4 resolved items, zero lost valid edits, conflict ledger C1-C4, source hashes unchanged, and reverse map for every output.”; first response was “ACCEPT=sync client reports no conflicts”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"FILE-SYNC CONFLICT RESOLUTION LEDGER CFSC-2662 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: resolve file-sync conflicts without losing valid edits. Evaluation focus: Sync Conflict Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCFSC-2662-R1 :: RESULT=TEXT=merge L at line8 and C at line14; preserve base provenance\nCFSC-2662-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFSC-2662-R2 :: RESULT=SHEET=retain B4=120 and D9=340; formulas and sheet names unchanged\nCFSC-2662-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFSC-2662-R3 :: RESULT=RENAME=final.md with cloud content hashc772\nCFSC-2662-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFSC-2662-R4 :: RESULT=DELETE=retain local photo.jpg as conflict copy; record cloud deletion10:15\nCFSC-2662-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFSC-2662-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=items4; lost edits0; ledger C1-C4; sources unchanged\nCFSC-2662-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CFSC-2662; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Merge the concurrent text edits","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: notes.txt base hash b100; local adds paragraph L at line 8; cloud adds paragraph C at line 14; edits do not overlap. Semantic rule: Nonoverlapping changes can both be preserved against the fixed base. FIRST returned “TEXT=choose cloud version and discard L”; the private static semantic key accepts “TEXT=merge L at line8 and C at line14; preserve base provenance”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TEXT=merge L at line8 and C at line14; preserve base provenance”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve both spreadsheet changes","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: budget.xlsx local changes cell B4 to 120; cloud changes D9 to 340; workbook formulas and sheet names otherwise match base. Semantic rule: The two distinct-cell edits can be merged while invariant workbook structure remains fixed. FIRST returned “SHEET=keep local workbook and lose D9”; the private static semantic key accepts “SHEET=retain B4=120 and D9=340; formulas and sheet names unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SHEET=retain B4=120 and D9=340; formulas and sheet names unchanged”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Resolve the rename against edit","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: draft.md is renamed final.md locally while cloud edits its content to hash c772; both derive from source ID F17. Semantic rule: Shared source identity allows the rename and valid content edit to coexist. FIRST returned “RENAME=keep draft.md and final.md as unrelated files”; the private static semantic key accepts “RENAME=final.md with cloud content hashc772; retain source ID F17”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RENAME=final.md with cloud content hashc772”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Protect an offline deletion conflict","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: photo.jpg was deleted in cloud at 10:15 but edited offline locally at 09:50-10:30; policy never auto-deletes a modified offline copy. Semantic rule: The offline modification overlaps the deletion event and triggers preservation for review. FIRST returned “DELETE=retain local photo.jpg as conflict copy; record cloud deletion10:15”; the private static semantic key accepts “DELETE=retain local photo.jpg as conflict copy; record cloud deletion10:15”, so it passes. FINAL returned “DELETE=retain local photo.jpg as conflict copy; record cloud deletion10:15”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile every version and rollback","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance expects 4 resolved items, zero lost valid edits, conflict ledger C1-C4, source hashes unchanged, and reverse map for every output. Semantic rule: Resolution must prove semantic preservation, provenance, source immutability, and reversal. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=sync client reports no conflicts”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=items4; lost edits0; ledger C1-C4; sources unchanged; rollback4/4”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=items4; lost edits0; ledger C1-C4; sources unchanged”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["CFSC-2662 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Merge the concurrent text edits passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Preserve both spreadsheet changes also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Resolve the rename against edit still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Reconcile every version and rollback still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Before-and-after hashes, version histories, and a conflict manifest will verify preservation, merge choices, filenames, and reversibility.","evidenceNotes":["CFSC-2662 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","CFSC-2662's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","CFSC-2662 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Before-and-after hashes, version histories, and a conflict manifest will verify preservation, merge choices, filenames, and reversibility."],"limitations":["CFSC-2662 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","CFSC-2662 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-migrate-password-vault","title":"An AI Migration Plan for a Synthetic Password Vault: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"plan a safe password-vault migration","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Credential Hygiene field test asked the session to plan a safe password-vault migration, preserved an actual five-row password-vault migration reconciliation, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-06T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in MPV-3188 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “plan a safe password-vault migration”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: plan a safe password-vault migration. Focus: Credential Hygiene.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use synthetic vault entries to evaluate migration, validation, cleanup, and rollback instructions.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nMPV-3188-I1: Synthetic vault PV-12 contains 240 logins, 12 secure notes, 6 payment cards, 8 TOTP seeds, and 5 file attachments; source manifest hash is 15a29c70.\nMPV-3188-I2: Login L044 and L177 share site and username. L177 has newer password version v3 and a note unique to L044; policy keeps one login with both latest credential and note.\nMPV-3188-I3: Migration uses encrypted archive PVE-12 with Argon2id profile A3; transfer medium T12 is offline. Plain CSV, clipboard transfer, and cloud upload are forbidden.\nMPV-3188-I4: Frozen controls are TOTP codes for seeds T01, T04, T08 at time 12:00, and attachment hashes A1=1c2a, A2=44d0, A3=9e11, A4=7b82, A5=0f66.\nMPV-3188-I5: Destination expects 239 logins after the one merge, 12 notes, 6 cards, 8 TOTP, 5 attachments, sample login checks L001/L044-177/L240, plus source PV-12 unchanged.\nReturn a concrete password-vault migration reconciliation with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A source manifest, destination audit, and duplicate and missing-entry checks will verify the migration plan.","firstResult":"PASSWORD-VAULT MIGRATION RECONCILIATION MPV-3188 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: plan a safe password-vault migration. Evaluation focus: Credential Hygiene. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nMPV-3188-R1 :: RESULT=SOURCE=logins240; notes12; cards6; TOTP8; attachments5; manifest15a29c70\nMPV-3188-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMPV-3188-R2 :: RESULT=DUPLICATE=delete L044 including its unique note\nMPV-3188-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMPV-3188-R3 :: RESULT=TRANSFER=PVE-12 encrypted Argon2idA3 via offline T12; CSV0; clipboard0; cloud0\nMPV-3188-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMPV-3188-R4 :: RESULT=CONTENT=attachment filenames look correct and TOTP is untested\nMPV-3188-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMPV-3188-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=destination application opens\nMPV-3188-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for MPV-3188; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise MPV-3188 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Resolve the seeded duplicate safely: input was “Login L044 and L177 share site and username. L177 has newer password version v3 and a note unique to L044; policy keeps one login with both latest credential and note.”; first response was “DUPLICATE=delete L044 including its unique note”.\n- Validate TOTP and attachment payloads: input was “Frozen controls are TOTP codes for seeds T01, T04, T08 at time 12:00, and attachment hashes A1=1c2a, A2=44d0, A3=9e11, A4=7b82, A5=0f66.”; first response was “CONTENT=attachment filenames look correct and TOTP is untested”.\n- Define destination and recovery acceptance: input was “Destination expects 239 logins after the one merge, 12 notes, 6 cards, 8 TOTP, 5 attachments, sample login checks L001/L044-177/L240, plus source PV-12 unchanged.”; first response was “ACCEPT=destination application opens”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"PASSWORD-VAULT MIGRATION RECONCILIATION MPV-3188 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: plan a safe password-vault migration. Evaluation focus: Credential Hygiene. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nMPV-3188-R1 :: RESULT=SOURCE=logins240; notes12; cards6; TOTP8; attachments5; manifest15a29c70\nMPV-3188-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMPV-3188-R2 :: RESULT=DUPLICATE=merge L044+L177; credential v3; preserve L044 note; output count239 logins\nMPV-3188-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMPV-3188-R3 :: RESULT=TRANSFER=PVE-12 encrypted Argon2idA3 via offline T12; CSV0; clipboard0; cloud0\nMPV-3188-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMPV-3188-R4 :: RESULT=CONTENT=TOTP T01+T04+T08 match at12:00; attachments5/5 hashes1c2a,44d0,9e11,7b82,0f66\nMPV-3188-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMPV-3188-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=logins239; notes12; cards6; TOTP8; attachments5; samples3/3\nMPV-3188-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for MPV-3188; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Reconcile every source record class","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Synthetic vault PV-12 contains 240 logins, 12 secure notes, 6 payment cards, 8 TOTP seeds, and 5 file attachments; source manifest hash is 15a29c70. Semantic rule: Migration scope must retain all five record classes and the frozen source identity. FIRST returned “SOURCE=logins240; notes12; cards6; TOTP8; attachments5; manifest15a29c70”; the private static semantic key accepts “SOURCE=logins240; notes12; cards6; TOTP8; attachments5; manifest15a29c70”, so it passes. FINAL returned “SOURCE=logins240; notes12; cards6; TOTP8; attachments5; manifest15a29c70”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Resolve the seeded duplicate safely","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Login L044 and L177 share site and username. L177 has newer password version v3 and a note unique to L044; policy keeps one login with both latest credential and note. Semantic rule: Deduplication must retain the newest credential and unique metadata while reconciling the login count. FIRST returned “DUPLICATE=delete L044 including its unique note”; the private static semantic key accepts “DUPLICATE=merge L044+L177; credential v3; preserve L044 note; output count239 logins”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DUPLICATE=merge L044+L177; credential v3; preserve L044 note; output count239 logins”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep export material protected","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Migration uses encrypted archive PVE-12 with Argon2id profile A3; transfer medium T12 is offline. Plain CSV, clipboard transfer, and cloud upload are forbidden. Semantic rule: The disclosed encrypted offline route is the only permitted migration path. FIRST returned “TRANSFER=PVE-12 encrypted Argon2idA3 via offline T12; CSV0; clipboard0; cloud0”; the private static semantic key accepts “TRANSFER=PVE-12 encrypted Argon2idA3 via offline T12; CSV0; clipboard0; cloud0”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TRANSFER=PVE-12 encrypted Argon2idA3 via offline T12; CSV0; clipboard0; cloud0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Validate TOTP and attachment payloads","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Frozen controls are TOTP codes for seeds T01, T04, T08 at time 12:00, and attachment hashes A1=1c2a, A2=44d0, A3=9e11, A4=7b82, A5=0f66. Semantic rule: Encrypted import success does not establish seed behavior or binary attachment identity. FIRST returned “CONTENT=attachment filenames look correct and TOTP is untested”; the private static semantic key accepts “CONTENT=TOTP T01+T04+T08 match at12:00; attachments5/5 hashes1c2a,44d0,9e11,7b82,0f66”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CONTENT=TOTP T01+T04+T08 match at12:00; attachments5/5 hashes1c2a,44d0,9e11,7b82,0f66”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define destination and recovery acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Destination expects 239 logins after the one merge, 12 notes, 6 cards, 8 TOTP, 5 attachments, sample login checks L001/L044-177/L240, plus source PV-12 unchanged. Semantic rule: Every reconciled class, duplicate outcome, frozen sample, and source-preservation condition must pass. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=destination application opens”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=logins239; notes12; cards6; TOTP8; attachments5; samples3/3; PV-12 unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=logins239; notes12; cards6; TOTP8; attachments5; samples3/3”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["MPV-3188 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Reconcile every source record class passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Resolve the seeded duplicate safely also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Define destination and recovery acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A source manifest, destination audit, and duplicate and missing-entry checks will verify the migration plan.","evidenceNotes":["MPV-3188 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","MPV-3188's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","MPV-3188 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A source manifest, destination audit, and duplicate and missing-entry checks will verify the migration plan."],"limitations":["MPV-3188 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","MPV-3188 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-merge-duplicate-crm-records","title":"Could AI Find Duplicate CRM Records Without False Merges — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"identify duplicate customer records without merging different people","excerpt":"The completed WFT-028 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Record Deduplication, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-06T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-028: A data operations team will provide synthetic customer records containing spelling variants, shared companies, and ambiguous matches. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-028-C01 through WFT-028-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 32, 40, 46, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-028-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-028 for “identify duplicate customer records without merging different people” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-028. Task: identify duplicate customer records without merging different people. Context: A data operations team will provide synthetic customer records containing spelling variants, shared companies, and ambiguous matches. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-028-C01 through WFT-028-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 32, 40, 46, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-028-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A proposed merge list compared with a hidden identity key will verify matches, misses, and false merges.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-028 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “identify duplicate customer records without merging different people.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-028-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-028-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-028-ROW1 reads: “WFT-028-C01 | rank WFT-028-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-028-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Record Deduplication task fidelity [WFT-028], Record Deduplication rule accuracy [WFT-028], and Record Deduplication handoff usability [WFT-028]. The audit found concrete failures: for Record Deduplication exception handling [WFT-028], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-028-C04; for Record Deduplication source traceability [WFT-028], the saved draft gave the central WFT-028-C04 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-028 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Record Deduplication exception handling [WFT-028] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-028-C04; 2) Record Deduplication source traceability [WFT-028] — the draft gave the central WFT-028-C04 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-028 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-028-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-028-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-028-ROW1 reads: “WFT-028-C01 | rank WFT-028-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-028-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-028-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Record Deduplication exception handling [WFT-028]. The frozen final text passed Record Deduplication task fidelity [WFT-028], Record Deduplication rule accuracy [WFT-028], Record Deduplication exception handling [WFT-028], and Record Deduplication handoff usability [WFT-028] and still failed Record Deduplication source traceability [WFT-028]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Record Deduplication task fidelity [WFT-028]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-028 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Record Deduplication task fidelity [WFT-028].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-028-C04, the declared Record Deduplication rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Record Deduplication rule accuracy [WFT-028]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-028 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Record Deduplication rule accuracy [WFT-028].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-028-C04, the declared Record Deduplication rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Record Deduplication exception handling [WFT-028]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-028 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Record Deduplication exception handling [WFT-028].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-028-C04, the declared Record Deduplication rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Record Deduplication source traceability [WFT-028]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-028 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Record Deduplication source traceability [WFT-028].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-028-C04, the declared Record Deduplication rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Record Deduplication handoff usability [WFT-028]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-028 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Record Deduplication handoff usability [WFT-028].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-028-C04, the declared Record Deduplication rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-028 kept “identify duplicate customer records without merging different people” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-028 made the central handling—rank WFT-028-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-028-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-028 earned final passes for Record Deduplication task fidelity [WFT-028] and Record Deduplication rule accuracy [WFT-028] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-028 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Record Deduplication source traceability [WFT-028]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A proposed merge list compared with a hidden identity key will verify matches, misses, and false merges.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-028 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-028 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-028 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A proposed merge list compared with a hidden identity key will verify matches, misses, and false merges.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-028 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Record Deduplication fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-028 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-mandarin-tone-coaching","title":"How Might AI Coach Mandarin Tones from Recorded Speech: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"coach Mandarin tones from recorded speech","excerpt":"The completed LFT-005 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Tone coaching checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-06T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-005: A novice will submit short Mandarin recordings and receive targeted guidance on tone contours. Source facts: target-and-observed numeric pitch pairs LFT-005-M01 mā target 55 / observed 55, M02 má target 35 / observed 51, M03 mǎ target 214 / observed 35, M04 mà target 51 / observed 51; no real audio. Governing rule card: tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-005 for “coach Mandarin tones from recorded speech” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-005. Task: coach Mandarin tones from recorded speech. Context: A novice will submit short Mandarin recordings and receive targeted guidance on tone contours. Fictional source facts: target-and-observed numeric pitch pairs LFT-005-M01 mā target 55 / observed 55, M02 má target 35 / observed 51, M03 mǎ target 214 / observed 35, M04 mà target 51 / observed 51; no real audio. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Blind ratings of before-and-after recordings will check whether the targeted syllables become more intelligible.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-005 produced a syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script for “coach Mandarin tones from recorded speech.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-005-M03 | identify M02 as falling, M03 as rising without a low dip, model 35 and 214 contours in text, and request isolated retries | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named M03’s missing low dip and the limitation of numeric rather than real audio and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Tone coaching objective fit [LFT-005]. It found for Tone coaching content accuracy [LFT-005], the draft mentioned but did not verify tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces; for Tone coaching learner adaptation [LFT-005], the draft left M03’s missing low dip and the limitation of numeric rather than real audio without an explicit disposition; for Tone coaching evidence traceability [LFT-005], the draft gave LFT-005-M03 no source locator; for Tone coaching safety and access [LFT-005], the draft left the syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-005 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Tone coaching content accuracy [LFT-005] — the draft mentioned but did not verify tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces; 2) Tone coaching learner adaptation [LFT-005] — the draft left M03’s missing low dip and the limitation of numeric rather than real audio without an explicit disposition; 3) Tone coaching evidence traceability [LFT-005] — the draft gave LFT-005-M03 no source locator; 4) Tone coaching safety and access [LFT-005] — the draft left the syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-005 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: identify M02 as falling, M03 as rising without a low dip, model 35 and 214 contours in text, and request isolated retries. Its corrected row read “LFT-005-M03 | rule: tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces | decision: identify M02 as falling, M03 as rising without a low dip, model 35 and 214 contours in text, and request isolated retries | static status: 4/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Tone coaching content accuracy [LFT-005]. The final audit passed Tone coaching objective fit [LFT-005] and Tone coaching content accuracy [LFT-005]. It still lacked Tone coaching learner adaptation [LFT-005], Tone coaching evidence traceability [LFT-005], and Tone coaching safety and access [LFT-005]; those failures remain visible. The syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script earned 4/10 from 2 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Tone coaching objective fit [LFT-005]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-005 static check 1 inspected “Tone coaching objective fit [LFT-005]” against LFT-005-M03, the rule “tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces,” and the saved syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Tone coaching content accuracy [LFT-005]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-005 static check 2 inspected “Tone coaching content accuracy [LFT-005]” against LFT-005-M03, the rule “tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces,” and the saved syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Tone coaching learner adaptation [LFT-005]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-005 static check 3 inspected “Tone coaching learner adaptation [LFT-005]” against LFT-005-M03, the rule “tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces,” and the saved syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Tone coaching evidence traceability [LFT-005]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-005 static check 4 inspected “Tone coaching evidence traceability [LFT-005]” against LFT-005-M03, the rule “tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces,” and the saved syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Tone coaching safety and access [LFT-005]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-005 static check 5 inspected “Tone coaching safety and access [LFT-005]” against LFT-005-M03, the rule “tone labels and contour descriptions must match supplied pitch traces,” and the saved syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-005 bounded “coach Mandarin tones from recorded speech” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-005 exposed LFT-005-M03—identify M02 as falling, M03 as rising without a low dip, model 35 and 214 contours in text, and request isolated retries—inside the saved syllable-level tone feedback table, contour cues, and retry script."],"whatFailed":["LFT-005 still lacked saved-text evidence for Tone coaching learner adaptation [LFT-005]; that failure remains published.","LFT-005 still lacked saved-text evidence for Tone coaching evidence traceability [LFT-005]; that failure remains published.","LFT-005 still lacked saved-text evidence for Tone coaching safety and access [LFT-005]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Blind ratings of before-and-after recordings will check whether the targeted syllables become more intelligible.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-005 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-005 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-005 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Blind ratings of before-and-after recordings will check whether the targeted syllables become more intelligible.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-005 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Tone coaching fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-005 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-enable-disk-encryption","title":"Might AI Enable Full-Disk Encryption Without Data Loss: Three Semantic Checks Still Failed","task":"enable full-disk encryption without data loss","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Disk Encryption field test asked the session to enable full-disk encryption without data loss, preserved an actual five-row full-disk encryption safety runbook, and derived 0/10 then 4/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-05T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in EDE-6571 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “enable full-disk encryption without data loss”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: enable full-disk encryption without data loss. Focus: Disk Encryption.\nSource scenario: The experiment will evaluate AI guidance on a fully backed-up test computer with a documented recovery-key procedure.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nEDE-6571-I1: Laptop ENC-3 has TPM 2.0 ready, Secure Boot on, AC connected, battery 76%, and supported encrypted-volume format V5; policy minimum battery is 50%.\nEDE-6571-I2: Backup E3-B is 148 files with SHA-256 manifest 2a9d87c1; sample files F01, F44, and F148 restore with matching hashes.\nEDE-6571-I3: Recovery key RK-E3 fingerprints 8C2D-114A. Policy permits sealed paper envelope S12 and offline USB K2; storing it on ENC-3 is forbidden.\nEDE-6571-I4: The test provides static state transitions Unencrypted→Encrypting→Encrypted and simulated interruption I2; no disk command, reboot, or encryption operation is authorized.\nEDE-6571-I5: Acceptance is status Encrypted at 100%, two simulated boots, files 148/148, recovery drill with RK-E3, Secure Boot still on, and rollback backup E3-B readable.\nReturn a concrete full-disk encryption safety runbook with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Encryption status, reboot tests, file hashes, and a recovery drill will verify protection and continued access.","firstResult":"FULL-DISK ENCRYPTION SAFETY RUNBOOK EDE-6571 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: enable full-disk encryption without data loss. Evaluation focus: Disk Encryption. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nEDE-6571-R1 :: RESULT=PREFLIGHT=proceed with TPM unavailable and battery 18%\nEDE-6571-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEDE-6571-R2 :: RESULT=BACKUP=start encryption because a backup folder exists\nEDE-6571-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEDE-6571-R3 :: RESULT=KEY=save RK-E3 in a text file on ENC-3\nEDE-6571-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEDE-6571-R4 :: RESULT=MODE=enable encryption on the host and report success\nEDE-6571-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEDE-6571-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=status says encryption started\nEDE-6571-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for EDE-6571; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise EDE-6571 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Confirm the exact encryption prerequisite: input was “Laptop ENC-3 has TPM 2.0 ready, Secure Boot on, AC connected, battery 76%, and supported encrypted-volume format V5; policy minimum battery is 50%.”; first response was “PREFLIGHT=proceed with TPM unavailable and battery 18%”.\n- Freeze a verified backup before conversion: input was “Backup E3-B is 148 files with SHA-256 manifest 2a9d87c1; sample files F01, F44, and F148 restore with matching hashes.”; first response was “BACKUP=start encryption because a backup folder exists”.\n- Protect the recovery material separately: input was “Recovery key RK-E3 fingerprints 8C2D-114A. Policy permits sealed paper envelope S12 and offline USB K2; storing it on ENC-3 is forbidden.”; first response was “KEY=save RK-E3 in a text file on ENC-3”.\n- Keep the exercise synthetic: input was “The test provides static state transitions Unencrypted→Encrypting→Encrypted and simulated interruption I2; no disk command, reboot, or encryption operation is authorized.”; first response was “MODE=enable encryption on the host and report success”.\n- Define complete encryption acceptance: input was “Acceptance is status Encrypted at 100%, two simulated boots, files 148/148, recovery drill with RK-E3, Secure Boot still on, and rollback backup E3-B readable.”; first response was “ACCEPT=status says encryption started”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"FULL-DISK ENCRYPTION SAFETY RUNBOOK EDE-6571 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: enable full-disk encryption without data loss. Evaluation focus: Disk Encryption. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nEDE-6571-R1 :: RESULT=PREFLIGHT=TPM2 ready; SecureBoot on; AC connected; battery76%>=50%; formatV5 supported\nEDE-6571-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEDE-6571-R2 :: RESULT=BACKUP=freeze E3-B manifest2a9d87c1\nEDE-6571-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEDE-6571-R3 :: RESULT=KEY=RK-E3 fingerprint8C2D-114A; copies S12+K2\nEDE-6571-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEDE-6571-R4 :: RESULT=MODE=evaluate static transitions+I2; live encryption0; commands0\nEDE-6571-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEDE-6571-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=encrypted100%; boots2/2; files148/148; RK-E3 recovery pass; SecureBoot on\nEDE-6571-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for EDE-6571; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Confirm the exact encryption prerequisite","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Laptop ENC-3 has TPM 2.0 ready, Secure Boot on, AC connected, battery 76%, and supported encrypted-volume format V5; policy minimum battery is 50%. Semantic rule: All disclosed hardware, boot, power, and format prerequisites must pass together. FIRST returned “PREFLIGHT=proceed with TPM unavailable and battery 18%”; the private static semantic key accepts “PREFLIGHT=TPM2 ready; SecureBoot on; AC connected; battery76%>=50%; formatV5 supported”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PREFLIGHT=TPM2 ready; SecureBoot on; AC connected; battery76%>=50%; formatV5 supported”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Freeze a verified backup before conversion","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Backup E3-B is 148 files with SHA-256 manifest 2a9d87c1; sample files F01, F44, and F148 restore with matching hashes. Semantic rule: The named manifest and all three restore samples establish the pre-change recovery boundary. FIRST returned “BACKUP=start encryption because a backup folder exists”; the private static semantic key accepts “BACKUP=freeze E3-B manifest2a9d87c1; sample F01+F44+F148 hashes pass”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BACKUP=freeze E3-B manifest2a9d87c1”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Protect the recovery material separately","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Recovery key RK-E3 fingerprints 8C2D-114A. Policy permits sealed paper envelope S12 and offline USB K2; storing it on ENC-3 is forbidden. Semantic rule: Recovery material must match the fingerprint and remain separate from the encrypted device. FIRST returned “KEY=save RK-E3 in a text file on ENC-3”; the private static semantic key accepts “KEY=RK-E3 fingerprint8C2D-114A; copies S12+K2; copies on ENC-3=0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “KEY=RK-E3 fingerprint8C2D-114A; copies S12+K2”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep the exercise synthetic","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: The test provides static state transitions Unencrypted→Encrypting→Encrypted and simulated interruption I2; no disk command, reboot, or encryption operation is authorized. Semantic rule: The bounded transcript may assess a runbook but cannot claim an actual device conversion. FIRST returned “MODE=enable encryption on the host and report success”; the private static semantic key accepts “MODE=evaluate static transitions+I2; live encryption0; commands0; reboots0” or “MODE=evaluate static transitions+I2; live encryption0; commands0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “MODE=evaluate static transitions+I2; live encryption0; commands0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define complete encryption acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is status Encrypted at 100%, two simulated boots, files 148/148, recovery drill with RK-E3, Secure Boot still on, and rollback backup E3-B readable. Semantic rule: Protection, continued access, recovery, boot trust, and rollback evidence are all mandatory. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=status says encryption started”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=encrypted100%; boots2/2; files148/148; RK-E3 recovery pass; SecureBoot on; E3-B readable”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=encrypted100%; boots2/2; files148/148; RK-E3 recovery pass; SecureBoot on”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["EDE-6571 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Confirm the exact encryption prerequisite passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Keep the exercise synthetic also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Freeze a verified backup before conversion still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Protect the recovery material separately still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Define complete encryption acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Encryption status, reboot tests, file hashes, and a recovery drill will verify protection and continued access.","evidenceNotes":["EDE-6571 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","EDE-6571's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 2 passes multiplied by two.","EDE-6571 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Encryption status, reboot tests, file hashes, and a recovery drill will verify protection and continued access."],"limitations":["EDE-6571 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","EDE-6571 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-prepare-grant-compliance-calendar","title":"A Grant Compliance Calendar Built from Award Terms — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms","excerpt":"The completed WFT-064 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Grant Compliance, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-04T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-064: A nonprofit team will provide a fictional award notice, reporting schedule, cost conditions, approval gates, and subrecipient duties. Source facts: records WFT-064-R01 through WFT-064-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 23 and 66; dependency WFT-064-R04 after WFT-064-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-064-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (23 and 66). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-064 for “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-064. Task: prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms. Context: A nonprofit team will provide a fictional award notice, reporting schedule, cost conditions, approval gates, and subrecipient duties. Fictional source facts: records WFT-064-R01 through WFT-064-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 23 and 66; dependency WFT-064-R04 after WFT-064-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-064-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (23 and 66). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A clause-linked calendar will be checked for every deadline, lead time, dependency, owner, and recurring obligation.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-064 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-064-ROW1 reads: “WFT-064-R01 | keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064], Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064], and Grant Compliance source traceability [WFT-064]. The audit found concrete failures: for Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064], the saved draft did not connect WFT-064-R05 to the full boundary of “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms”; for Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-064 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064] — the draft did not connect WFT-064-R05 to the full boundary of “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms”; 2) Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-064 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-064-ROW1 reads: “WFT-064-R01 | keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-064-R01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064]. The frozen final text passed Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064], Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064], Grant Compliance source traceability [WFT-064], and Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064] and still failed Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-064 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-064 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-064 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Grant Compliance source traceability [WFT-064]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-064 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance source traceability [WFT-064].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-064 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Grant Compliance handoff usability [WFT-064].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-064-R05, the declared Grant Compliance rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-064 kept “prepare a grant compliance calendar from award terms” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-064 made the central handling—keep WFT-064-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-064-R04 only after WFT-064-R02, and flag the second window when demand 66 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-064 earned final passes for Grant Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-064] and Grant Compliance exception handling [WFT-064] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-064 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Grant Compliance task fidelity [WFT-064]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A clause-linked calendar will be checked for every deadline, lead time, dependency, owner, and recurring obligation.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-064 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-064 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-064 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A clause-linked calendar will be checked for every deadline, lead time, dependency, owner, and recurring obligation.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-064 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Grant Compliance fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-064 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-calculus-error-analysis","title":"Teaching the Product Rule Through AI-Led Error Analysis: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"use error analysis to teach the product rule","excerpt":"The completed LFT-035 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Calculus errors checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-04T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-035: The AI will present flawed derivative solutions and ask a calculus learner to locate and repair each error. Source facts: learner responses LFT-035-A01 through LFT-035-A05: 5/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 34, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-035-K1. Governing rule card: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-035 for “use error analysis to teach the product rule” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-035. Task: use error analysis to teach the product rule. Context: The AI will present flawed derivative solutions and ask a calculus learner to locate and repair each error. Fictional source facts: learner responses LFT-035-A01 through LFT-035-A05: 5/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 34, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-035-K1. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A symbolic solution key and response transcript will verify both error identification and corrective reasoning.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-035 produced a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace for the task “use error analysis to teach the product rule.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-035-K1. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-035-ROW1 reads: “LFT-035-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-035-K1 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Calculus errors objective fit [LFT-035]. The audit found concrete failures: for Calculus errors content accuracy [LFT-035], the saved draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row; for Calculus errors learner adaptation [LFT-035], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confident-but-wrong A02 response and the low-confidence LFT-035-A05 response; for Calculus errors evidence traceability [LFT-035], the saved draft gave the central LFT-035-A02 decision no source-to-output locator; for Calculus errors safety and access [LFT-035], the saved draft left the diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-035 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Calculus errors content accuracy [LFT-035] — the draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row; 2) Calculus errors learner adaptation [LFT-035] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confident-but-wrong A02 response and the low-confidence LFT-035-A05 response; 3) Calculus errors evidence traceability [LFT-035] — the draft gave the central LFT-035-A02 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Calculus errors safety and access [LFT-035] — the draft left the diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-035 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-035-K1. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-035-ROW1 reads: “LFT-035-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-035-K1 | evidence locator: LFT-035-A01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Calculus errors content accuracy [LFT-035]. The frozen final text passed Calculus errors objective fit [LFT-035] and Calculus errors content accuracy [LFT-035] and still failed Calculus errors learner adaptation [LFT-035], Calculus errors evidence traceability [LFT-035], and Calculus errors safety and access [LFT-035]. The final diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Calculus errors objective fit [LFT-035]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-035 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Calculus errors objective fit [LFT-035].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-035-A02, the declared Calculus errors rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Calculus errors content accuracy [LFT-035]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-035 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Calculus errors content accuracy [LFT-035].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-035-A02, the declared Calculus errors rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Calculus errors learner adaptation [LFT-035]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-035 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Calculus errors learner adaptation [LFT-035].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-035-A02, the declared Calculus errors rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Calculus errors evidence traceability [LFT-035]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-035 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Calculus errors evidence traceability [LFT-035].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-035-A02, the declared Calculus errors rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Calculus errors safety and access [LFT-035]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-035 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Calculus errors safety and access [LFT-035].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-035-A02, the declared Calculus errors rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-035 kept “use error analysis to teach the product rule” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-035 made the central handling—diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-035-K1—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["LFT-035 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Calculus errors learner adaptation [LFT-035]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-035 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Calculus errors evidence traceability [LFT-035]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-035 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Calculus errors safety and access [LFT-035]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A symbolic solution key and response transcript will verify both error identification and corrective reasoning.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-035 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-035 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-035 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A symbolic solution key and response transcript will verify both error identification and corrective reasoning.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-035 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Calculus errors fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-035 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-resolve-calendar-conflicts","title":"Will AI Resolve a Week of Calendar Conflicts Without Breaking Constraints — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints","excerpt":"The completed WFT-042 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Calendar Coordination, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-04T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-042: An administrative team will provide meeting priorities, attendee availability, location rules, and protected focus periods. Source facts: records WFT-042-R01 through WFT-042-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 43 and 59; dependency WFT-042-R04 after WFT-042-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-042-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (43 and 59). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-042 for “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-042. Task: resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints. Context: An administrative team will provide meeting priorities, attendee availability, location rules, and protected focus periods. Fictional source facts: records WFT-042-R01 through WFT-042-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 43 and 59; dependency WFT-042-R04 after WFT-042-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-042-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (43 and 59). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A revised schedule and automated overlap, attendance, and travel-time checks will verify feasibility.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-042 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-042-ROW1 reads: “WFT-042-R01 | keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042], Calendar Coordination source traceability [WFT-042], and Calendar Coordination handoff usability [WFT-042]. The audit found concrete failures: for Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042], the saved draft did not connect WFT-042-R05 to the full boundary of “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints”; for Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042], the saved draft left the two window limits (43 and 59) without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-042 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042] — the draft did not connect WFT-042-R05 to the full boundary of “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints”; 2) Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042] — the draft left the two window limits (43 and 59) without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-042 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-042-ROW1 reads: “WFT-042-R01 | keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-042-R01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042]. The frozen final text passed Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042], Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042], Calendar Coordination source traceability [WFT-042], and Calendar Coordination handoff usability [WFT-042] and still failed Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-042 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-042 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-042 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Calendar Coordination source traceability [WFT-042]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-042 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination source traceability [WFT-042].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Calendar Coordination handoff usability [WFT-042]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-042 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Calendar Coordination handoff usability [WFT-042].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-042-R05, the declared Calendar Coordination rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-042 kept “resolve a week of calendar conflicts under scheduling constraints” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-042 made the central handling—keep WFT-042-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-042-R04 only after WFT-042-R02, and flag the second window when demand 59 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-042 earned final passes for Calendar Coordination task fidelity [WFT-042] and Calendar Coordination exception handling [WFT-042] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-042 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Calendar Coordination rule accuracy [WFT-042]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A revised schedule and automated overlap, attendance, and travel-time checks will verify feasibility.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-042 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-042 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-042 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A revised schedule and automated overlap, attendance, and travel-time checks will verify feasibility.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-042 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Calendar Coordination fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-042 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-recover-local-account","title":"Locked Local Account: An Authorized Recovery Exercise for AI: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"guide recovery of a locked local account","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Account Recovery field test asked the session to guide recovery of a locked local account, preserved an actual five-row authorized local-account recovery plan, and derived 2/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-03T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RLA-3664 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “guide recovery of a locked local account”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: guide recovery of a locked local account. Focus: Account Recovery.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use a disposable account with documented ownership and prepared recovery options on a test system.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRLA-3664-I1: Fixture owner Dana presents recovery record AR-55 matching laptop serial LT-5501 and local account dana.local; guest account and network accounts are outside scope.\nRLA-3664-I2: LT-5501 volume is encrypted and recovery key RK-55 fingerprint A9C1-22B7 is available in sealed record S55; three protected-file hashes are P1=11aa, P2=28bc, P3=90d0.\nRLA-3664-I3: Recovery environment offers verified password-reset token T55 for dana.local after RK-55 unlock; factory reset and creation of a hidden administrator are prohibited.\nRLA-3664-I4: Other local profile Sam has 84 files and must remain unchanged; network configuration baseline N55 hash 4e18 and application set A1-A9 are protected.\nRLA-3664-I5: Acceptance is dana.local sign-in with new credential, P1-P3 hashes match, Sam files 84/84, apps A1-A9 launch, N55 unchanged, and T55 invalid after one use.\nReturn a concrete authorized local-account recovery plan with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Successful authorized sign-in and unchanged protected-file hashes will verify access recovery without bypassing safeguards.","firstResult":"AUTHORIZED LOCAL-ACCOUNT RECOVERY PLAN RLA-3664 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: guide recovery of a locked local account. Evaluation focus: Account Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRLA-3664-R1 :: RESULT=AUTH=reset every account found on LT-5501\nRLA-3664-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLA-3664-R2 :: RESULT=ENCRYPTION=bypass or erase the encrypted volume\nRLA-3664-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLA-3664-R3 :: RESULT=ROUTE=create an undisclosed administrator to bypass dana.local\nRLA-3664-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLA-3664-R4 :: RESULT=PRESERVE=Sam files84; network N55 hash4e18; apps A1-A9 unchanged\nRLA-3664-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLA-3664-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=login prompt accepts something once\nRLA-3664-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RLA-3664; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RLA-3664 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Verify the recovery authorization: input was “Fixture owner Dana presents recovery record AR-55 matching laptop serial LT-5501 and local account dana.local; guest account and network accounts are outside scope.”; first response was “AUTH=reset every account found on LT-5501”.\n- Respect the encrypted-volume boundary: input was “LT-5501 volume is encrypted and recovery key RK-55 fingerprint A9C1-22B7 is available in sealed record S55; three protected-file hashes are P1=11aa, P2=28bc, P3=90d0.”; first response was “ENCRYPTION=bypass or erase the encrypted volume”.\n- Select the supported local recovery route: input was “Recovery environment offers verified password-reset token T55 for dana.local after RK-55 unlock; factory reset and creation of a hidden administrator are prohibited.”; first response was “ROUTE=create an undisclosed administrator to bypass dana.local”.\n- Define synthetic recovery acceptance: input was “Acceptance is dana.local sign-in with new credential, P1-P3 hashes match, Sam files 84/84, apps A1-A9 launch, N55 unchanged, and T55 invalid after one use.”; first response was “ACCEPT=login prompt accepts something once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"AUTHORIZED LOCAL-ACCOUNT RECOVERY PLAN RLA-3664 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: guide recovery of a locked local account. Evaluation focus: Account Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRLA-3664-R1 :: RESULT=AUTH=AR-55 matches LT-5501+dana.local; guest+network accounts excluded\nRLA-3664-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLA-3664-R2 :: RESULT=ENCRYPTION=use RK-55 fingerprintA9C1-22B7 from S55; preserve P1/P2/P3 hashes\nRLA-3664-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLA-3664-R3 :: RESULT=ROUTE=RK-55 unlock then T55 for dana.local; factory reset0\nRLA-3664-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLA-3664-R4 :: RESULT=PRESERVE=Sam files84; network N55 hash4e18; apps A1-A9 unchanged\nRLA-3664-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLA-3664-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=dana.local sign-in; P hashes3/3; Sam84/84; apps9/9; N55 unchanged\nRLA-3664-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RLA-3664; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Verify the recovery authorization","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture owner Dana presents recovery record AR-55 matching laptop serial LT-5501 and local account dana.local; guest account and network accounts are outside scope. Semantic rule: The recovery target must be limited to the identity and device established by the authorization record. FIRST returned “AUTH=reset every account found on LT-5501”; the private static semantic key accepts “AUTH=AR-55 matches LT-5501+dana.local; guest+network accounts excluded”, so it fails. FINAL returned “AUTH=AR-55 matches LT-5501+dana.local; guest+network accounts excluded”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Respect the encrypted-volume boundary","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: LT-5501 volume is encrypted and recovery key RK-55 fingerprint A9C1-22B7 is available in sealed record S55; three protected-file hashes are P1=11aa, P2=28bc, P3=90d0. Semantic rule: Authorized account recovery still requires the disclosed recovery key and protected-data integrity. FIRST returned “ENCRYPTION=bypass or erase the encrypted volume”; the private static semantic key accepts “ENCRYPTION=use RK-55 fingerprintA9C1-22B7 from S55; preserve P1/P2/P3 hashes”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ENCRYPTION=use RK-55 fingerprintA9C1-22B7 from S55; preserve P1/P2/P3 hashes”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Select the supported local recovery route","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Recovery environment offers verified password-reset token T55 for dana.local after RK-55 unlock; factory reset and creation of a hidden administrator are prohibited. Semantic rule: Only the supplied supported token flow recovers the named account without a privilege bypass. FIRST returned “ROUTE=create an undisclosed administrator to bypass dana.local”; the private static semantic key accepts “ROUTE=RK-55 unlock then T55 for dana.local; factory reset0; hidden admin0” or “ROUTE=RK-55 unlock then T55 for dana.local; factory reset0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ROUTE=RK-55 unlock then T55 for dana.local; factory reset0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve other profiles and settings","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Other local profile Sam has 84 files and must remain unchanged; network configuration baseline N55 hash 4e18 and application set A1-A9 are protected. Semantic rule: A scoped credential recovery cannot alter another user, network state, or installed applications. FIRST returned “PRESERVE=Sam files84; network N55 hash4e18; apps A1-A9 unchanged”; the private static semantic key accepts “PRESERVE=Sam files84; network N55 hash4e18; apps A1-A9 unchanged”, so it passes. FINAL returned “PRESERVE=Sam files84; network N55 hash4e18; apps A1-A9 unchanged”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define synthetic recovery acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is dana.local sign-in with new credential, P1-P3 hashes match, Sam files 84/84, apps A1-A9 launch, N55 unchanged, and T55 invalid after one use. Semantic rule: Recovered access, data integrity, isolation, application state, network state, and token consumption all matter. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=login prompt accepts something once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=dana.local sign-in; P hashes3/3; Sam84/84; apps9/9; N55 unchanged; T55 one-use invalid”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=dana.local sign-in; P hashes3/3; Sam84/84; apps9/9; N55 unchanged”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["RLA-3664 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Verify the recovery authorization passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Respect the encrypted-volume boundary also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Define synthetic recovery acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Successful authorized sign-in and unchanged protected-file hashes will verify access recovery without bypassing safeguards.","evidenceNotes":["RLA-3664 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RLA-3664's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","RLA-3664 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Successful authorized sign-in and unchanged protected-file hashes will verify access recovery without bypassing safeguards."],"limitations":["RLA-3664 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RLA-3664 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-prioritize-sales-leads","title":"Could AI Prioritize Sales Leads from a Written Qualification Policy: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"prioritize inbound sales leads using a written qualification policy","excerpt":"The completed WFT-005 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Lead Qualification, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-03T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-005: A sales team will supply prospect records and fixed qualification definitions for a daily follow-up queue. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-005-C01 through WFT-005-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 45, 53, 75, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-005-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-005 for “prioritize inbound sales leads using a written qualification policy” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-005. Task: prioritize inbound sales leads using a written qualification policy. Context: A sales team will supply prospect records and fixed qualification definitions for a daily follow-up queue. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-005-C01 through WFT-005-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 45, 53, 75, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-005-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A ranked queue and a criterion-by-criterion audit will verify every prioritization decision.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-005 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “prioritize inbound sales leads using a written qualification policy.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-005-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-005-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-005-ROW1 reads: “WFT-005-C01 | rank WFT-005-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-005-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Lead Qualification task fidelity [WFT-005], Lead Qualification source traceability [WFT-005], and Lead Qualification handoff usability [WFT-005]. The audit found concrete failures: for Lead Qualification rule accuracy [WFT-005], the saved draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; for Lead Qualification exception handling [WFT-005], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-005-C04. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-005 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Lead Qualification rule accuracy [WFT-005] — the draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; 2) Lead Qualification exception handling [WFT-005] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-005-C04.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-005 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-005-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-005-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-005-ROW1 reads: “WFT-005-C01 | rank WFT-005-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-005-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-005-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Lead Qualification rule accuracy [WFT-005]. The frozen final text passed Lead Qualification task fidelity [WFT-005], Lead Qualification rule accuracy [WFT-005], Lead Qualification source traceability [WFT-005], and Lead Qualification handoff usability [WFT-005] and still failed Lead Qualification exception handling [WFT-005]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Lead Qualification task fidelity [WFT-005]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-005 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Lead Qualification task fidelity [WFT-005].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-005-C04, the declared Lead Qualification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lead Qualification rule accuracy [WFT-005]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-005 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Lead Qualification rule accuracy [WFT-005].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-005-C04, the declared Lead Qualification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lead Qualification exception handling [WFT-005]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-005 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Lead Qualification exception handling [WFT-005].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-005-C04, the declared Lead Qualification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lead Qualification source traceability [WFT-005]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-005 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Lead Qualification source traceability [WFT-005].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-005-C04, the declared Lead Qualification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lead Qualification handoff usability [WFT-005]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-005 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Lead Qualification handoff usability [WFT-005].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-005-C04, the declared Lead Qualification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-005 kept “prioritize inbound sales leads using a written qualification policy” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-005 made the central handling—rank WFT-005-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-005-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-005 earned final passes for Lead Qualification task fidelity [WFT-005] and Lead Qualification rule accuracy [WFT-005] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-005 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Lead Qualification exception handling [WFT-005]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A ranked queue and a criterion-by-criterion audit will verify every prioritization decision.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-005 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-005 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-005 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A ranked queue and a criterion-by-criterion audit will verify every prioritization decision.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-005 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Lead Qualification fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-005 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-workplace-safety-scenarios","title":"Using Branching Scenarios for AI-Guided Workplace-Safety Training — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"teach workplace safety through branching scenarios","excerpt":"The completed LFT-042 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Safety training checks passed after one correction, but Safety training learner adaptation [LFT-042] and Safety training evidence traceability [LFT-042] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-02T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-042: Adult trainees will choose responses to fictional warehouse hazards and receive explanations tied to a supplied policy. Source facts: scenario LFT-042-S01 chemical spill; choices isolate/report/clean alone/ignore; PPE chart P2; emergency 555-0142; stop condition exposure symptoms. Governing rule card: safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-042 for “teach workplace safety through branching scenarios” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-042. Task: teach workplace safety through branching scenarios. Context: Adult trainees will choose responses to fictional warehouse hazards and receive explanations tied to a supplied policy. Fictional source facts: scenario LFT-042-S01 chemical spill; choices isolate/report/clean alone/ignore; PPE chart P2; emergency 555-0142; stop condition exposure symptoms. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. Produce a branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Every scenario branch will be mapped to the policy text and reviewed by a safety instructor.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-042 produced a branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key for “teach workplace safety through branching scenarios.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-042-S01 | branch isolate-and-report to safety, mark solo cleanup unsafe, require PPE lookup, and route symptoms to escalation | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named tempting solo cleanup and mandatory stop condition and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Safety training objective fit [LFT-042] and Safety training safety and access [LFT-042]. It found for Safety training content accuracy [LFT-042], the draft mentioned but did not verify safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk; for Safety training learner adaptation [LFT-042], the draft left tempting solo cleanup and mandatory stop condition without an explicit disposition; for Safety training evidence traceability [LFT-042], the draft gave LFT-042-S01 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-042 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Safety training content accuracy [LFT-042] — the draft mentioned but did not verify safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk; 2) Safety training learner adaptation [LFT-042] — the draft left tempting solo cleanup and mandatory stop condition without an explicit disposition; 3) Safety training evidence traceability [LFT-042] — the draft gave LFT-042-S01 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-042 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: branch isolate-and-report to safety, mark solo cleanup unsafe, require PPE lookup, and route symptoms to escalation. Its corrected row read “LFT-042-S01 | rule: safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk | decision: branch isolate-and-report to safety, mark solo cleanup unsafe, require PPE lookup, and route symptoms to escalation | static status: 6/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Safety training content accuracy [LFT-042]. The final audit passed Safety training objective fit [LFT-042], Safety training content accuracy [LFT-042], and Safety training safety and access [LFT-042]. It still lacked Safety training learner adaptation [LFT-042] and Safety training evidence traceability [LFT-042]; those failures remain visible. The branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key earned 6/10 from 3 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Safety training objective fit [LFT-042]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-042 static check 1 inspected “Safety training objective fit [LFT-042]” against LFT-042-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety training content accuracy [LFT-042]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-042 static check 2 inspected “Safety training content accuracy [LFT-042]” against LFT-042-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety training learner adaptation [LFT-042]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-042 static check 3 inspected “Safety training learner adaptation [LFT-042]” against LFT-042-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety training evidence traceability [LFT-042]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-042 static check 4 inspected “Safety training evidence traceability [LFT-042]” against LFT-042-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety training safety and access [LFT-042]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-042 static check 5 inspected “Safety training safety and access [LFT-042]” against LFT-042-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-042 bounded “teach workplace safety through branching scenarios” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-042 exposed LFT-042-S01—branch isolate-and-report to safety, mark solo cleanup unsafe, require PPE lookup, and route symptoms to escalation—inside the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key.","LFT-042 earned inspectable passes for Safety training objective fit [LFT-042] and Safety training content accuracy [LFT-042] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-042 still lacked saved-text evidence for Safety training learner adaptation [LFT-042]; that failure remains published.","LFT-042 still lacked saved-text evidence for Safety training evidence traceability [LFT-042]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Every scenario branch will be mapped to the policy text and reviewed by a safety instructor.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-042 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-042 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-042 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Every scenario branch will be mapped to the policy text and reviewed by a safety instructor.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-042 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Safety training fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-042 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-verify-accessibility-tree","title":"Does the Accessibility Tree Match the Visual Interface: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"verify that an interface accessibility tree matches its visual controls","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Accessibility Inspection field test asked the session to verify that an interface accessibility tree matches its visual controls, preserved an actual five-row visual-to-accessibility tree audit, and derived 2/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-02T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in VAT-3263 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “verify that an interface accessibility tree matches its visual controls”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: verify that an interface accessibility tree matches its visual controls. Focus: Accessibility Inspection.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide a local demo interface with labeled, hidden, disabled, modal, live-region, and intentionally mismatched controls.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nVAT-3263-I1: Visual inventory is button Save B1, link Help H1, checkbox Remember C1 checked, and disabled button Delete B2.\nVAT-3263-I2: Panel P9 has hidden=true and contains old button OLD; accessibility capture incorrectly exposes OLD.\nVAT-3263-I3: Dialog D1 is open with title Settings; background controls B1-H1-C1-B2 should be inert and focus starts at D-CLOSE.\nVAT-3263-I4: Status S1 changes Uploading→Complete; expected polite announcement is Complete once, while current tree has live off.\nVAT-3263-I5: Acceptance is visible nodes4/4, hidden nodes0, modal background focus0, live message1, and keyboard order D-CLOSE→D-SAVE.\nReturn a concrete visual-to-accessibility tree audit with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Browser accessibility-tree captures, keyboard traces, and a seeded defect key will verify roles, names, states, focus order, and hidden content.","firstResult":"VISUAL-TO-ACCESSIBILITY TREE AUDIT VAT-3263 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: verify that an interface accessibility tree matches its visual controls. Evaluation focus: Accessibility Inspection. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nVAT-3263-R1 :: RESULT=VISIBLE=report every item as generic text\nVAT-3263-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVAT-3263-R2 :: RESULT=HIDDEN=keep OLD focusable for backward compatibility\nVAT-3263-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVAT-3263-R3 :: RESULT=MODAL=background remains navigable\nVAT-3263-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVAT-3263-R4 :: RESULT=LIVE=S1 polite; announce Complete once\nVAT-3263-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVAT-3263-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=tree contains roughly the right text\nVAT-3263-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for VAT-3263; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise VAT-3263 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Match visible control roles and names: input was “Visual inventory is button Save B1, link Help H1, checkbox Remember C1 checked, and disabled button Delete B2.”; first response was “VISIBLE=report every item as generic text”.\n- Exclude hidden content: input was “Panel P9 has hidden=true and contains old button OLD; accessibility capture incorrectly exposes OLD.”; first response was “HIDDEN=keep OLD focusable for backward compatibility”.\n- Represent modal state: input was “Dialog D1 is open with title Settings; background controls B1-H1-C1-B2 should be inert and focus starts at D-CLOSE.”; first response was “MODAL=background remains navigable”.\n- Reconcile tree and keyboard trace: input was “Acceptance is visible nodes4/4, hidden nodes0, modal background focus0, live message1, and keyboard order D-CLOSE→D-SAVE.”; first response was “ACCEPT=tree contains roughly the right text”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"VISUAL-TO-ACCESSIBILITY TREE AUDIT VAT-3263 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: verify that an interface accessibility tree matches its visual controls. Evaluation focus: Accessibility Inspection. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nVAT-3263-R1 :: RESULT=VISIBLE=B1 button Save; H1 link Help; C1 checkbox Remember checked; B2 button Delete disabled\nVAT-3263-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVAT-3263-R2 :: RESULT=HIDDEN=P9 and OLD absent from tree\nVAT-3263-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVAT-3263-R3 :: RESULT=MODAL=D1 dialog Settings; background inert\nVAT-3263-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVAT-3263-R4 :: RESULT=LIVE=S1 polite; announce Complete once\nVAT-3263-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVAT-3263-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=visible4/4; hidden0; background focus0; live1\nVAT-3263-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for VAT-3263; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Match visible control roles and names","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Visual inventory is button Save B1, link Help H1, checkbox Remember C1 checked, and disabled button Delete B2. Semantic rule: Each visual control has a fixed semantic role, name, and state. FIRST returned “VISIBLE=report every item as generic text”; the private static semantic key accepts “VISIBLE=B1 button Save; H1 link Help; C1 checkbox Remember checked; B2 button Delete disabled”, so it fails. FINAL returned “VISIBLE=B1 button Save; H1 link Help; C1 checkbox Remember checked; B2 button Delete disabled”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Exclude hidden content","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Panel P9 has hidden=true and contains old button OLD; accessibility capture incorrectly exposes OLD. Semantic rule: Content marked hidden must not remain exposed or focusable. FIRST returned “HIDDEN=keep OLD focusable for backward compatibility”; the private static semantic key accepts “HIDDEN=P9 and OLD absent from tree”, so it fails. FINAL returned “HIDDEN=P9 and OLD absent from tree”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Represent modal state","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Dialog D1 is open with title Settings; background controls B1-H1-C1-B2 should be inert and focus starts at D-CLOSE. Semantic rule: The open modal requires dialog semantics, background suppression, and deterministic initial focus. FIRST returned “MODAL=background remains navigable”; the private static semantic key accepts “MODAL=D1 dialog Settings; background inert; focus D-CLOSE”, so it fails. FINAL returned “MODAL=D1 dialog Settings; background inert”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify live-region announcement","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Status S1 changes Uploading→Complete; expected polite announcement is Complete once, while current tree has live off. Semantic rule: The fixture requires one bounded polite status announcement. FIRST returned “LIVE=S1 polite; announce Complete once”; the private static semantic key accepts “LIVE=S1 polite; announce Complete once”, so it passes. FINAL returned “LIVE=S1 polite; announce Complete once”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile tree and keyboard trace","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is visible nodes4/4, hidden nodes0, modal background focus0, live message1, and keyboard order D-CLOSE→D-SAVE. Semantic rule: Node semantics, exclusion, modal focus, live output, and order all have exact counts. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=tree contains roughly the right text”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=visible4/4; hidden0; background focus0; live1; order D-CLOSE>D-SAVE”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=visible4/4; hidden0; background focus0; live1”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["VAT-3263 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Match visible control roles and names passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Exclude hidden content also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Represent modal state still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Reconcile tree and keyboard trace still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Browser accessibility-tree captures, keyboard traces, and a seeded defect key will verify roles, names, states, focus order, and hidden content.","evidenceNotes":["VAT-3263 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","VAT-3263's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","VAT-3263 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Browser accessibility-tree captures, keyboard traces, and a seeded defect key will verify roles, names, states, focus order, and hidden content."],"limitations":["VAT-3263 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","VAT-3263 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-recover-deleted-photos","title":"Which Photo-Recovery Steps Should AI Recommend: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"guide recovery of accidentally deleted photos","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Data Recovery field test asked the session to guide recovery of accidentally deleted photos, preserved an actual five-row deleted photo recovery ledger, and derived 2/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-02T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RDP-4886 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “guide recovery of accidentally deleted photos”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: guide recovery of accidentally deleted photos. Focus: Data Recovery.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use a removable-drive image containing synthetic photos deleted under documented conditions.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRDP-4886-I1: Image PHOTO-IMG is 16 GB, SHA-256 91f0ac22, and contains a synthetic FAT32 volume; recovery writes must target REC-OUT.\nRDP-4886-I2: Ground truth has 48 deleted JPEGs; clusters for P001-P43 are intact and P044-P48 are overwritten.\nRDP-4886-I3: The intact set has 43 reference hashes and each JPEG must decode through its final marker.\nRDP-4886-I4: Carving also finds 12 thumbnails at 320×240; originals are 4032×3024 and have distinct hashes.\nRDP-4886-I5: Acceptance ledger must show recovered 43, overwritten 5, thumbnails 12 excluded, source hash unchanged, and output manifest REC-MAN.\nReturn a concrete deleted photo recovery ledger with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: File hashes and the original manifest will verify how many intact photos are recovered from the test image.","firstResult":"DELETED PHOTO RECOVERY LEDGER RDP-4886 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: guide recovery of accidentally deleted photos. Evaluation focus: Data Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRDP-4886-R1 :: RESULT=SOURCE=recover files back onto PHOTO-IMG\nRDP-4886-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDP-4886-R2 :: RESULT=RECOVERY=claim all 48 photos recovered\nRDP-4886-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDP-4886-R3 :: RESULT=VALIDATE=count filenames without hashing or decoding\nRDP-4886-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDP-4886-R4 :: RESULT=THUMBNAILS=exclude 12 files at 320x240 from original count\nRDP-4886-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDP-4886-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=48 filenames found; recovery complete\nRDP-4886-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RDP-4886; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RDP-4886 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Keep the source image read-only: input was “Image PHOTO-IMG is 16 GB, SHA-256 91f0ac22, and contains a synthetic FAT32 volume; recovery writes must target REC-OUT.”; first response was “SOURCE=recover files back onto PHOTO-IMG”.\n- Recover the known intact photo set: input was “Ground truth has 48 deleted JPEGs; clusters for P001-P43 are intact and P044-P48 are overwritten.”; first response was “RECOVERY=claim all 48 photos recovered”.\n- Validate recovered file content: input was “The intact set has 43 reference hashes and each JPEG must decode through its final marker.”; first response was “VALIDATE=count filenames without hashing or decoding”.\n- Report recovery limits exactly: input was “Acceptance ledger must show recovered 43, overwritten 5, thumbnails 12 excluded, source hash unchanged, and output manifest REC-MAN.”; first response was “ACCEPT=48 filenames found; recovery complete”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"DELETED PHOTO RECOVERY LEDGER RDP-4886 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: guide recovery of accidentally deleted photos. Evaluation focus: Data Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRDP-4886-R1 :: RESULT=SOURCE=PHOTO-IMG read-only; hash91f0ac22; write only to REC-OUT\nRDP-4886-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDP-4886-R2 :: RESULT=RECOVERY=43 intact JPEGs P001-P43; mark P044-P48 unrecoverable\nRDP-4886-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDP-4886-R3 :: RESULT=VALIDATE=43/43 hashes match\nRDP-4886-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDP-4886-R4 :: RESULT=THUMBNAILS=exclude 12 files at 320x240 from original count\nRDP-4886-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDP-4886-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=recovered43; overwritten5; thumbnails12 excluded; source hash unchanged\nRDP-4886-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RDP-4886; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Keep the source image read-only","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Image PHOTO-IMG is 16 GB, SHA-256 91f0ac22, and contains a synthetic FAT32 volume; recovery writes must target REC-OUT. Semantic rule: Recovery evidence is invalid if the fixed source image is mutated. FIRST returned “SOURCE=recover files back onto PHOTO-IMG”; the private static semantic key accepts “SOURCE=PHOTO-IMG read-only; hash91f0ac22; write only to REC-OUT”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SOURCE=PHOTO-IMG read-only; hash91f0ac22; write only to REC-OUT”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Recover the known intact photo set","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Ground truth has 48 deleted JPEGs; clusters for P001-P43 are intact and P044-P48 are overwritten. Semantic rule: The cluster map supports exactly forty-three intact recoveries and five documented losses. FIRST returned “RECOVERY=claim all 48 photos recovered”; the private static semantic key accepts “RECOVERY=43 intact JPEGs P001-P43; mark P044-P48 unrecoverable”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RECOVERY=43 intact JPEGs P001-P43; mark P044-P48 unrecoverable”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Validate recovered file content","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: The intact set has 43 reference hashes and each JPEG must decode through its final marker. Semantic rule: Both byte identity and structural decoding are required for an intact-photo claim. FIRST returned “VALIDATE=count filenames without hashing or decoding”; the private static semantic key accepts “VALIDATE=43/43 hashes match; 43/43 JPEG end markers present”, so it fails. FINAL returned “VALIDATE=43/43 hashes match”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Avoid counting thumbnails as originals","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Carving also finds 12 thumbnails at 320×240; originals are 4032×3024 and have distinct hashes. Semantic rule: The documented dimensions and hashes separate derivative thumbnails from originals. FIRST returned “THUMBNAILS=exclude 12 files at 320x240 from original count”; the private static semantic key accepts “THUMBNAILS=exclude 12 files at 320x240 from original count”, so it passes. FINAL returned “THUMBNAILS=exclude 12 files at 320x240 from original count”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Report recovery limits exactly","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance ledger must show recovered 43, overwritten 5, thumbnails 12 excluded, source hash unchanged, and output manifest REC-MAN. Semantic rule: The final ledger must reconcile every ground-truth class and source-integrity check. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=48 filenames found; recovery complete”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=recovered43; overwritten5; thumbnails12 excluded; source hash unchanged; manifest REC-MAN”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=recovered43; overwritten5; thumbnails12 excluded; source hash unchanged”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["RDP-4886 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Keep the source image read-only passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Recover the known intact photo set also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Validate recovered file content still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Report recovery limits exactly still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"File hashes and the original manifest will verify how many intact photos are recovered from the test image.","evidenceNotes":["RDP-4886 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RDP-4886's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","RDP-4886 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: File hashes and the original manifest will verify how many intact photos are recovered from the test image."],"limitations":["RDP-4886 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RDP-4886 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-repair-virtual-boot","title":"Can a Language Model Repair This Broken Boot Configuration: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"repair a broken boot configuration","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Boot Recovery field test asked the session to repair a broken boot configuration, preserved an actual five-row virtual boot repair decision log, and derived 4/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-01T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RVB-3466 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “repair a broken boot configuration”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: repair a broken boot configuration. Focus: Boot Recovery.\nSource scenario: The experiment will seed a known boot configuration fault in a disposable virtual machine with a restorable snapshot.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRVB-3466-I1: VM VBOOT-04 has EFI entry ubuntu pointing to \\EFI\\ubuntu\\missing.efi; signed loader exists at \\EFI\\ubuntu\\shimx64.efi.\nRVB-3466-I2: Snapshot SNAP-BEFORE has disk UUID 7f2a and SHA-256 8c2e11a0; no repair may precede it.\nRVB-3466-I3: The Linux root UUID and Windows Boot Manager entry both match the manifest; only ubuntu loader path differs.\nRVB-3466-I4: Secure Boot is enabled and shimx64.efi signature status is valid; unsigned grub-test.efi is present only as a trap.\nRVB-3466-I5: Acceptance is five Linux boots, two Windows boots, recovery-menu access, and zero changes outside the EFI entry.\nReturn a concrete virtual boot repair decision log with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Boot logs, configuration comparison, and repeated restarts will verify whether the repair addresses only the seeded fault.","firstResult":"VIRTUAL BOOT REPAIR DECISION LOG RVB-3466 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: repair a broken boot configuration. Evaluation focus: Boot Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRVB-3466-R1 :: RESULT=CAUSE=virtual disk is empty\nRVB-3466-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRVB-3466-R2 :: RESULT=SNAPSHOT=freeze SNAP-BEFORE; UUID 7f2a; hash 8c2e11a0\nRVB-3466-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRVB-3466-R3 :: RESULT=PATCH=rebuild every boot entry\nRVB-3466-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRVB-3466-R4 :: RESULT=SECURE_BOOT=keep enabled; use signed shimx64.efi; reject grub-test.efi\nRVB-3466-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRVB-3466-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=Linux boots once\nRVB-3466-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RVB-3466; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RVB-3466 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Identify the seeded boot entry fault: input was “VM VBOOT-04 has EFI entry ubuntu pointing to \\EFI\\ubuntu\\missing.efi; signed loader exists at \\EFI\\ubuntu\\shimx64.efi.”; first response was “CAUSE=virtual disk is empty”.\n- Change only the faulty EFI entry: input was “The Linux root UUID and Windows Boot Manager entry both match the manifest; only ubuntu loader path differs.”; first response was “PATCH=rebuild every boot entry”.\n- Define repeatable boot acceptance: input was “Acceptance is five Linux boots, two Windows boots, recovery-menu access, and zero changes outside the EFI entry.”; first response was “ACCEPT=Linux boots once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"VIRTUAL BOOT REPAIR DECISION LOG RVB-3466 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: repair a broken boot configuration. Evaluation focus: Boot Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRVB-3466-R1 :: RESULT=CAUSE=ubuntu entry targets missing.efi; valid target is shimx64.efi\nRVB-3466-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRVB-3466-R2 :: RESULT=SNAPSHOT=freeze SNAP-BEFORE; UUID 7f2a; hash 8c2e11a0\nRVB-3466-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRVB-3466-R3 :: RESULT=PATCH=point ubuntu to shimx64.efi; retain root UUID\nRVB-3466-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRVB-3466-R4 :: RESULT=SECURE_BOOT=keep enabled; use signed shimx64.efi; reject grub-test.efi\nRVB-3466-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRVB-3466-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=Linux 5/5; Windows 2/2; recovery menu opens\nRVB-3466-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RVB-3466; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the seeded boot entry fault","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: VM VBOOT-04 has EFI entry ubuntu pointing to \\EFI\\ubuntu\\missing.efi; signed loader exists at \\EFI\\ubuntu\\shimx64.efi. Semantic rule: The broken path and the existing signed loader establish the bounded configuration fault. FIRST returned “CAUSE=virtual disk is empty”; the private static semantic key accepts “CAUSE=ubuntu entry targets missing.efi; valid target is shimx64.efi”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CAUSE=ubuntu entry targets missing.efi; valid target is shimx64.efi”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve the VM snapshot","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Snapshot SNAP-BEFORE has disk UUID 7f2a and SHA-256 8c2e11a0; no repair may precede it. Semantic rule: A reversible boot repair requires the exact pre-change snapshot and identity. FIRST returned “SNAPSHOT=freeze SNAP-BEFORE; UUID 7f2a; hash 8c2e11a0”; the private static semantic key accepts “SNAPSHOT=freeze SNAP-BEFORE; UUID 7f2a; hash 8c2e11a0”, so it passes. FINAL returned “SNAPSHOT=freeze SNAP-BEFORE; UUID 7f2a; hash 8c2e11a0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Change only the faulty EFI entry","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: The Linux root UUID and Windows Boot Manager entry both match the manifest; only ubuntu loader path differs. Semantic rule: The diff must be limited to the one path proven wrong by the fixture. FIRST returned “PATCH=rebuild every boot entry”; the private static semantic key accepts “PATCH=point ubuntu to shimx64.efi; retain root UUID; retain Windows Boot Manager”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PATCH=point ubuntu to shimx64.efi; retain root UUID”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Retain Secure Boot","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Secure Boot is enabled and shimx64.efi signature status is valid; unsigned grub-test.efi is present only as a trap. Semantic rule: A repair cannot weaken the stated trust boundary when a valid signed loader exists. FIRST returned “SECURE_BOOT=keep enabled; use signed shimx64.efi; reject grub-test.efi”; the private static semantic key accepts “SECURE_BOOT=keep enabled; use signed shimx64.efi; reject grub-test.efi”, so it passes. FINAL returned “SECURE_BOOT=keep enabled; use signed shimx64.efi; reject grub-test.efi”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define repeatable boot acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is five Linux boots, two Windows boots, recovery-menu access, and zero changes outside the EFI entry. Semantic rule: The boot matrix and bounded configuration diff must all pass. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=Linux boots once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=Linux 5/5; Windows 2/2; recovery menu opens; EFI-only diff”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=Linux 5/5; Windows 2/2; recovery menu opens”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["RVB-3466 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the seeded boot entry fault passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Preserve the VM snapshot also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Change only the faulty EFI entry still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Define repeatable boot acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Boot logs, configuration comparison, and repeated restarts will verify whether the repair addresses only the seeded fault.","evidenceNotes":["RVB-3466 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RVB-3466's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","RVB-3466 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Boot logs, configuration comparison, and repeated restarts will verify whether the repair addresses only the seeded fault."],"limitations":["RVB-3466 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RVB-3466 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-update-operating-procedure","title":"Updating a Standard Operating Procedure After an Approved Change: The One-Pass Revision Reached 10/10","task":"update a standard operating procedure after a process change","excerpt":"The completed WFT-021 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Procedure Updates, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-01T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-021: An operations owner will provide the current procedure, an approved change notice, and the house document structure. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-021-D01 through WFT-021-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-021-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-021 for “update a standard operating procedure after a process change” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-021. Task: update a standard operating procedure after a process change. Context: An operations owner will provide the current procedure, an approved change notice, and the house document structure. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-021-D01 through WFT-021-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-021-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A revised procedure and a change-to-section trace will verify incorporation without unrelated edits.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-021 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “update a standard operating procedure after a process change.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-021-ROW1 reads: “WFT-021-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021], Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021], and Procedure Updates exception handling [WFT-021]. The audit found concrete failures: for Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021], the saved draft gave the central WFT-021-D04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021], the saved draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-021 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021] — the draft gave the central WFT-021-D04 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021] — the draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-021 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-021-ROW1 reads: “WFT-021-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-021-D01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021] and Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021]. The frozen final text passed Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021], Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021], Procedure Updates exception handling [WFT-021], Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021], and Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-021 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-021 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Procedure Updates exception handling [WFT-021]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-021 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates exception handling [WFT-021].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-021 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-021 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Procedure Updates handoff usability [WFT-021].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-021-D04, the declared Procedure Updates rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-021 kept “update a standard operating procedure after a process change” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-021 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-021-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-021 earned final passes for Procedure Updates task fidelity [WFT-021] and Procedure Updates rule accuracy [WFT-021] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-021’s first draft failed Procedure Updates source traceability [WFT-021]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A revised procedure and a change-to-section trace will verify incorporation without unrelated edits.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-021 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-021 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-021 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A revised procedure and a change-to-section trace will verify incorporation without unrelated edits.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-021 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Procedure Updates fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-021 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-translate-parent-guide","title":"Translating a Parent Guide While Preserving School-Specific Terms — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"translate a parent guide while preserving school-specific terminology","excerpt":"The completed LFT-064 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Family Communication, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-01T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-064: A school will provide a fictional guide, approved glossary, untranslated program names, contact details, and plain-language target. Source facts: English LFT-064-T01; school terms advisory, IEP meeting, Year 7; dates 2026-09-03/10; Spanish target; approved advisory='tutoría'. Governing rule card: meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-064 for “translate a parent guide while preserving school-specific terminology” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-064. Task: translate a parent guide while preserving school-specific terminology. Context: A school will provide a fictional guide, approved glossary, untranslated program names, contact details, and plain-language target. Fictional source facts: English LFT-064-T01; school terms advisory, IEP meeting, Year 7; dates 2026-09-03/10; Spanish target; approved advisory='tutoría'. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. Produce a bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A bilingual reviewer will use sentence alignment and glossary checks to verify meaning, protected terms, dates, contacts, and tone.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-064 produced a bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review for “translate a parent guide while preserving school-specific terminology.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-064-T01 | translate prose, preserve dates and Year 7, use tutoría, and flag IEP terminology for confirmation | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named school-specific IEP wording and immutable dates and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Family Communication objective fit [LFT-064], Family Communication evidence traceability [LFT-064], and Family Communication safety and access [LFT-064]. It found for Family Communication content accuracy [LFT-064], the draft mentioned but did not verify meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved; for Family Communication learner adaptation [LFT-064], the draft left school-specific IEP wording and immutable dates without an explicit disposition. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-064 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Family Communication content accuracy [LFT-064] — the draft mentioned but did not verify meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved; 2) Family Communication learner adaptation [LFT-064] — the draft left school-specific IEP wording and immutable dates without an explicit disposition.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-064 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: translate prose, preserve dates and Year 7, use tutoría, and flag IEP terminology for confirmation. Its corrected row read “LFT-064-T01 | rule: meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved | decision: translate prose, preserve dates and Year 7, use tutoría, and flag IEP terminology for confirmation | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Family Communication content accuracy [LFT-064]. The final audit passed Family Communication objective fit [LFT-064], Family Communication content accuracy [LFT-064], Family Communication evidence traceability [LFT-064], and Family Communication safety and access [LFT-064]. It still lacked Family Communication learner adaptation [LFT-064]; those failures remain visible. The bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Family Communication objective fit [LFT-064]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-064 static check 1 inspected “Family Communication objective fit [LFT-064]” against LFT-064-T01, the rule “meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved,” and the saved bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Family Communication content accuracy [LFT-064]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-064 static check 2 inspected “Family Communication content accuracy [LFT-064]” against LFT-064-T01, the rule “meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved,” and the saved bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Family Communication learner adaptation [LFT-064]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-064 static check 3 inspected “Family Communication learner adaptation [LFT-064]” against LFT-064-T01, the rule “meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved,” and the saved bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Family Communication evidence traceability [LFT-064]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-064 static check 4 inspected “Family Communication evidence traceability [LFT-064]” against LFT-064-T01, the rule “meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved,” and the saved bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Family Communication safety and access [LFT-064]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-064 static check 5 inspected “Family Communication safety and access [LFT-064]” against LFT-064-T01, the rule “meaning, tone, dates, contacts, and approved institutional terms are preserved,” and the saved bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-064 bounded “translate a parent guide while preserving school-specific terminology” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-064 exposed LFT-064-T01—translate prose, preserve dates and Year 7, use tutoría, and flag IEP terminology for confirmation—inside the saved bilingual parent guide, terminology glossary, and fidelity review.","LFT-064 earned inspectable passes for Family Communication objective fit [LFT-064] and Family Communication content accuracy [LFT-064] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-064 still lacked saved-text evidence for Family Communication learner adaptation [LFT-064]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A bilingual reviewer will use sentence alignment and glossary checks to verify meaning, protected terms, dates, contacts, and tone.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-064 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-064 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-064 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A bilingual reviewer will use sentence alignment and glossary checks to verify meaning, protected terms, dates, contacts, and tone.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-064 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Family Communication fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-064 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-adaptive-retrieval-session","title":"AI-Adaptive Retrieval Practice Based on Learner Uncertainty: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"adapt retrieval practice to a learner's uncertainty","excerpt":"The completed LFT-021 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Adaptive practice, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-08-01T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-021: The AI will vary question timing and difficulty using a learner's answers and confidence reports. Source facts: items LFT-021-R01–R08; correctness T/F/T/T/F/F/T/F; confidence 4/5/2/3/5/1/3/2; 12-prompt limit. Governing rule card: adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-021 for “adapt retrieval practice to a learner's uncertainty” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-021. Task: adapt retrieval practice to a learner's uncertainty. Context: The AI will vary question timing and difficulty using a learner's answers and confidence reports. Fictional source facts: items LFT-021-R01–R08; correctness T/F/T/T/F/F/T/F; confidence 4/5/2/3/5/1/3/2; 12-prompt limit. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A session log will verify that each adaptation follows the declared answer-and-confidence rules.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-021 produced a confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision for “adapt retrieval practice to a learner's uncertainty.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-021-R05 | prioritize confidently wrong R02/R05, delay low-confidence R06 after explanation, and interleave repeats | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the confidently wrong R05 and fatigue after prompt 10 and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Adaptive practice learner adaptation [LFT-021], Adaptive practice evidence traceability [LFT-021], and Adaptive practice safety and access [LFT-021]. It found for Adaptive practice objective fit [LFT-021], the draft did not link LFT-021-R05 to the full task boundary; for Adaptive practice content accuracy [LFT-021], the draft mentioned but did not verify adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-021 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Adaptive practice objective fit [LFT-021] — the draft did not link LFT-021-R05 to the full task boundary; 2) Adaptive practice content accuracy [LFT-021] — the draft mentioned but did not verify adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-021 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: prioritize confidently wrong R02/R05, delay low-confidence R06 after explanation, and interleave repeats. Its corrected row read “LFT-021-R05 | rule: adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing | decision: prioritize confidently wrong R02/R05, delay low-confidence R06 after explanation, and interleave repeats | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Adaptive practice objective fit [LFT-021]. The final audit passed Adaptive practice objective fit [LFT-021], Adaptive practice learner adaptation [LFT-021], Adaptive practice evidence traceability [LFT-021], and Adaptive practice safety and access [LFT-021]. It still lacked Adaptive practice content accuracy [LFT-021]; those failures remain visible. The confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Adaptive practice objective fit [LFT-021]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-021 static check 1 inspected “Adaptive practice objective fit [LFT-021]” against LFT-021-R05, the rule “adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing,” and the saved confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Adaptive practice content accuracy [LFT-021]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-021 static check 2 inspected “Adaptive practice content accuracy [LFT-021]” against LFT-021-R05, the rule “adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing,” and the saved confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Adaptive practice learner adaptation [LFT-021]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-021 static check 3 inspected “Adaptive practice learner adaptation [LFT-021]” against LFT-021-R05, the rule “adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing,” and the saved confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Adaptive practice evidence traceability [LFT-021]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-021 static check 4 inspected “Adaptive practice evidence traceability [LFT-021]” against LFT-021-R05, the rule “adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing,” and the saved confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Adaptive practice safety and access [LFT-021]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-021 static check 5 inspected “Adaptive practice safety and access [LFT-021]” against LFT-021-R05, the rule “adapt from correctness plus confidence without collapsing spacing,” and the saved confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-021 bounded “adapt retrieval practice to a learner's uncertainty” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-021 exposed LFT-021-R05—prioritize confidently wrong R02/R05, delay low-confidence R06 after explanation, and interleave repeats—inside the saved confidence-aware retrieval session, branching log, and spacing decision.","LFT-021 earned inspectable passes for Adaptive practice objective fit [LFT-021] and Adaptive practice learner adaptation [LFT-021] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-021 still lacked saved-text evidence for Adaptive practice content accuracy [LFT-021]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A session log will verify that each adaptation follows the declared answer-and-confidence rules.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-021 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-021 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-021 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A session log will verify that each adaptation follows the declared answer-and-confidence rules.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-021 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Adaptive practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-021 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-plan-wifi-channel-layout","title":"An AI Wi-Fi Channel Plan for a Crowded Floor: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"plan Wi-Fi channels and power levels for a crowded office floor","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Wireless Planning field test asked the session to plan Wi-Fi channels and power levels for a crowded office floor, preserved an actual five-row office wi-fi channel and power plan, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-31T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in PWCL-5454 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “plan Wi-Fi channels and power levels for a crowded office floor”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: plan Wi-Fi channels and power levels for a crowded office floor. Focus: Wireless Planning.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide a synthetic floor plan, access-point inventory, neighboring scans, client density, band support, and fixed coverage goals.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nPWCL-5454-I1: AP1, AP2, and AP3 overlap in one corridor; allowed 20 MHz channels are 1, 6, and 11.\nPWCL-5454-I2: Neighbor scan shows channel 36 at -48 dBm near AP1; channels 44 and 149 are clear; AP1 clients support both.\nPWCL-5454-I3: Scanner S7 supports 2.4 GHz only in warehouse zone Z3; AP3 must cover Z3 at at least -67 dBm.\nPWCL-5454-I4: Simulator predicts AP1/AP2 overlap at -58 dBm with 20 dBm power and -69 dBm with 14 dBm; target overlap is at most -67 dBm.\nPWCL-5454-I5: Pass requires all desk points at least -67 dBm, corridor overlap at most -67 dBm, scanner S7 connected, and channel utilization under 45%.\nReturn a concrete office wi-fi channel and power plan with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A radio-planning simulator and rule audit will verify overlap, co-channel contention, coverage, client compatibility, and stated assumptions.","firstResult":"OFFICE WI-FI CHANNEL AND POWER PLAN PWCL-5454 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: plan Wi-Fi channels and power levels for a crowded office floor. Evaluation focus: Wireless Planning. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPWCL-5454-R1 :: RESULT=2G=AP1 ch1; AP2 ch6; AP3 ch11; width20MHz\nPWCL-5454-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPWCL-5454-R2 :: RESULT=AP1_5G=channel36 at maximum power\nPWCL-5454-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPWCL-5454-R3 :: RESULT=Z3=retain AP3 2.4GHz; target RSSI>=-67dBm for S7\nPWCL-5454-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPWCL-5454-R4 :: RESULT=POWER=20dBm on both for maximum coverage\nPWCL-5454-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPWCL-5454-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one speed test near AP1\nPWCL-5454-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PWCL-5454; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise PWCL-5454 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Avoid the seeded 5 GHz neighbor: input was “Neighbor scan shows channel 36 at -48 dBm near AP1; channels 44 and 149 are clear; AP1 clients support both.”; first response was “AP1_5G=channel36 at maximum power”.\n- Set power to limit co-channel overlap: input was “Simulator predicts AP1/AP2 overlap at -58 dBm with 20 dBm power and -69 dBm with 14 dBm; target overlap is at most -67 dBm.”; first response was “POWER=20dBm on both for maximum coverage”.\n- Define survey acceptance: input was “Pass requires all desk points at least -67 dBm, corridor overlap at most -67 dBm, scanner S7 connected, and channel utilization under 45%.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one speed test near AP1”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"OFFICE WI-FI CHANNEL AND POWER PLAN PWCL-5454 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: plan Wi-Fi channels and power levels for a crowded office floor. Evaluation focus: Wireless Planning. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPWCL-5454-R1 :: RESULT=2G=AP1 ch1; AP2 ch6; AP3 ch11; width20MHz\nPWCL-5454-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPWCL-5454-R2 :: RESULT=AP1_5G=channel44; avoid channel36 neighbor -48dBm\nPWCL-5454-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPWCL-5454-R3 :: RESULT=Z3=retain AP3 2.4GHz; target RSSI>=-67dBm for S7\nPWCL-5454-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPWCL-5454-R4 :: RESULT=POWER=AP1 and AP2 14dBm; predicted overlap -69dBm<=-67dBm\nPWCL-5454-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPWCL-5454-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=desk RSSI>=-67; overlap<=-67; S7 connected\nPWCL-5454-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PWCL-5454; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Assign nonoverlapping 2.4 GHz channels","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: AP1, AP2, and AP3 overlap in one corridor; allowed 20 MHz channels are 1, 6, and 11. Semantic rule: Only 1, 6, and 11 form the declared nonoverlapping 20 MHz plan. FIRST returned “2G=AP1 ch1; AP2 ch6; AP3 ch11; width20MHz”; the private static semantic key accepts “2G=AP1 ch1; AP2 ch6; AP3 ch11; width20MHz”, so it passes. FINAL returned “2G=AP1 ch1; AP2 ch6; AP3 ch11; width20MHz”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Avoid the seeded 5 GHz neighbor","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Neighbor scan shows channel 36 at -48 dBm near AP1; channels 44 and 149 are clear; AP1 clients support both. Semantic rule: The strong adjacent neighbor makes a clear supported channel the lower-contention choice. FIRST returned “AP1_5G=channel36 at maximum power”; the private static semantic key accepts “AP1_5G=channel44; avoid channel36 neighbor -48dBm”, so it fails. FINAL returned “AP1_5G=channel44; avoid channel36 neighbor -48dBm”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Respect client band support","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Scanner S7 supports 2.4 GHz only in warehouse zone Z3; AP3 must cover Z3 at at least -67 dBm. Semantic rule: The fixed client capability and coverage goal must remain supported. FIRST returned “Z3=retain AP3 2.4GHz; target RSSI>=-67dBm for S7”; the private static semantic key accepts “Z3=retain AP3 2.4GHz; target RSSI>=-67dBm for S7”, so it passes. FINAL returned “Z3=retain AP3 2.4GHz; target RSSI>=-67dBm for S7”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Set power to limit co-channel overlap","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Simulator predicts AP1/AP2 overlap at -58 dBm with 20 dBm power and -69 dBm with 14 dBm; target overlap is at most -67 dBm. Semantic rule: The lower power setting is the one that satisfies the stated overlap ceiling. FIRST returned “POWER=20dBm on both for maximum coverage”; the private static semantic key accepts “POWER=AP1 and AP2 14dBm; predicted overlap -69dBm<=-67dBm”, so it fails. FINAL returned “POWER=AP1 and AP2 14dBm; predicted overlap -69dBm<=-67dBm”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define survey acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Pass requires all desk points at least -67 dBm, corridor overlap at most -67 dBm, scanner S7 connected, and channel utilization under 45%. Semantic rule: Coverage, contention, legacy client, and utilization gates are all required. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one speed test near AP1”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=desk RSSI>=-67; overlap<=-67; S7 connected; utilization<45%”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=desk RSSI>=-67; overlap<=-67; S7 connected”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["PWCL-5454 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Assign nonoverlapping 2.4 GHz channels passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Avoid the seeded 5 GHz neighbor also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Define survey acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A radio-planning simulator and rule audit will verify overlap, co-channel contention, coverage, client compatibility, and stated assumptions.","evidenceNotes":["PWCL-5454 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","PWCL-5454's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","PWCL-5454 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A radio-planning simulator and rule audit will verify overlap, co-channel contention, coverage, client compatibility, and stated assumptions."],"limitations":["PWCL-5454 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","PWCL-5454 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-code-churn-interviews","title":"Coding Customer Churn Interviews with AI and a Fixed Theme Guide: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"code themes in customer churn interviews","excerpt":"The completed WFT-017 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Churn Research, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-30T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-017: A customer research team will supply anonymized interview transcripts and a predefined qualitative coding guide. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-017-N01 through WFT-017-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-017-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-017 for “code themes in customer churn interviews” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-017. Task: code themes in customer churn interviews. Context: A customer research team will supply anonymized interview transcripts and a predefined qualitative coding guide. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-017-N01 through WFT-017-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-017-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A coded excerpt table and independent double-coding will verify theme assignments and omissions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-017 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “code themes in customer churn interviews.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-017-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-017-ROW1 reads: “WFT-017-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-017-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Churn Research exception handling [WFT-017], Churn Research source traceability [WFT-017], and Churn Research handoff usability [WFT-017]. The audit found concrete failures: for Churn Research task fidelity [WFT-017], the saved draft did not connect WFT-017-N07 to the full boundary of “code themes in customer churn interviews”; for Churn Research rule accuracy [WFT-017], the saved draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-017 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Churn Research task fidelity [WFT-017] — the draft did not connect WFT-017-N07 to the full boundary of “code themes in customer churn interviews”; 2) Churn Research rule accuracy [WFT-017] — the draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-017 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-017-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-017-ROW1 reads: “WFT-017-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-017-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-017-N01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Churn Research task fidelity [WFT-017]. The frozen final text passed Churn Research task fidelity [WFT-017], Churn Research exception handling [WFT-017], Churn Research source traceability [WFT-017], and Churn Research handoff usability [WFT-017] and still failed Churn Research rule accuracy [WFT-017]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Churn Research task fidelity [WFT-017]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-017 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Churn Research task fidelity [WFT-017].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-017-N07, the declared Churn Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Churn Research rule accuracy [WFT-017]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-017 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Churn Research rule accuracy [WFT-017].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-017-N07, the declared Churn Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Churn Research exception handling [WFT-017]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-017 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Churn Research exception handling [WFT-017].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-017-N07, the declared Churn Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Churn Research source traceability [WFT-017]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-017 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Churn Research source traceability [WFT-017].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-017-N07, the declared Churn Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Churn Research handoff usability [WFT-017]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-017 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Churn Research handoff usability [WFT-017].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-017-N07, the declared Churn Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-017 kept “code themes in customer churn interviews” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-017 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-017-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-017 earned final passes for Churn Research task fidelity [WFT-017] and Churn Research exception handling [WFT-017] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-017 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Churn Research rule accuracy [WFT-017]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A coded excerpt table and independent double-coding will verify theme assignments and omissions.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-017 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-017 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-017 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A coded excerpt table and independent double-coding will verify theme assignments and omissions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-017 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Churn Research fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-017 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-fix-bluetooth-audio","title":"Bluetooth Audio Gone Wrong: A Troubleshooting Brief for AI: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"troubleshoot distorted bluetooth audio","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Bluetooth Audio field test asked the session to troubleshoot distorted bluetooth audio, preserved an actual five-row bluetooth audio fault-isolation log, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-29T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in FBA-9451 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “troubleshoot distorted bluetooth audio”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: troubleshoot distorted bluetooth audio. Focus: Bluetooth Audio.\nSource scenario: The experiment will reproduce an audio-quality fault caused by a documented device setting and connection state.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nFBA-9451-I1: Headset H7 starts in A2DP 48 kHz stereo; opening microphone switches it to HFP 16 kHz mono and distortion begins.\nFBA-9451-I2: A2DP codec AAC records THD+N 0.8%; fallback SBC joint-stereo records THD+N 5.9%; pass threshold is THD+N below 2%.\nFBA-9451-I3: Call app may use laptop mic while headset remains A2DP output; driver removal and pairing reset are excluded first.\nFBA-9451-I4: Only synthetic clip BT-17 and call fixture C1 may be used; neighboring recordings and device names are out of scope.\nFBA-9451-I5: Acceptance is five calls, THD+N below 2%, latency below 80 ms, microphone intelligibility above 0.9, and pairing retained.\nReturn a concrete bluetooth audio fault-isolation log with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Connection diagnostics and repeatable audio measurements will verify whether the proposed steps isolate the fault.","firstResult":"BLUETOOTH AUDIO FAULT-ISOLATION LOG FBA-9451 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: troubleshoot distorted bluetooth audio. Evaluation focus: Bluetooth Audio. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nFBA-9451-R1 :: RESULT=CAUSE=HFP16kHz mono transition; A2DP48kHz stereo clean\nFBA-9451-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFBA-9451-R2 :: RESULT=CODEC=SBC passes because audio is audible\nFBA-9451-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFBA-9451-R3 :: RESULT=CHANGE=input laptop mic; output H7 A2DP; retain pairing+driver\nFBA-9451-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFBA-9451-R4 :: RESULT=PRIVACY=scan every recording for comparison\nFBA-9451-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFBA-9451-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=music sounds better once\nFBA-9451-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for FBA-9451; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise FBA-9451 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Use the clean codec control: input was “A2DP codec AAC records THD+N 0.8%; fallback SBC joint-stereo records THD+N 5.9%; pass threshold is THD+N below 2%.”; first response was “CODEC=SBC passes because audio is audible”.\n- Preserve privacy and comparison scope: input was “Only synthetic clip BT-17 and call fixture C1 may be used; neighboring recordings and device names are out of scope.”; first response was “PRIVACY=scan every recording for comparison”.\n- Verify audio and calling functions: input was “Acceptance is five calls, THD+N below 2%, latency below 80 ms, microphone intelligibility above 0.9, and pairing retained.”; first response was “ACCEPT=music sounds better once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"BLUETOOTH AUDIO FAULT-ISOLATION LOG FBA-9451 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: troubleshoot distorted bluetooth audio. Evaluation focus: Bluetooth Audio. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nFBA-9451-R1 :: RESULT=CAUSE=HFP16kHz mono transition; A2DP48kHz stereo clean\nFBA-9451-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFBA-9451-R2 :: RESULT=CODEC=AAC THD+N0.8% pass; SBC THD+N5.9% fail\nFBA-9451-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFBA-9451-R3 :: RESULT=CHANGE=input laptop mic; output H7 A2DP; retain pairing+driver\nFBA-9451-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFBA-9451-R4 :: RESULT=PRIVACY=use BT-17+C1 only; other media0\nFBA-9451-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFBA-9451-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=calls5; THD+N<2%; latency<80ms; intelligibility>0.9\nFBA-9451-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for FBA-9451; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the bad profile transition","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Headset H7 starts in A2DP 48 kHz stereo; opening microphone switches it to HFP 16 kHz mono and distortion begins. Semantic rule: The mode transition and symptom onset align while signal remains strong. FIRST returned “CAUSE=HFP16kHz mono transition; A2DP48kHz stereo clean”; the private static semantic key accepts “CAUSE=HFP16kHz mono transition; A2DP48kHz stereo clean”, so it passes. FINAL returned “CAUSE=HFP16kHz mono transition; A2DP48kHz stereo clean”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the clean codec control","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: A2DP codec AAC records THD+N 0.8%; fallback SBC joint-stereo records THD+N 5.9%; pass threshold is THD+N below 2%. Semantic rule: The supplied THD+N metric and threshold distinguish the two modes. FIRST returned “CODEC=SBC passes because audio is audible”; the private static semantic key accepts “CODEC=AAC THD+N0.8% pass; SBC THD+N5.9% fail”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CODEC=AAC THD+N0.8% pass; SBC THD+N5.9% fail”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Apply one reversible routing change","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Call app may use laptop mic while headset remains A2DP output; driver removal and pairing reset are excluded first. Semantic rule: Separate input routing preserves high-quality output with one reversible variable. FIRST returned “CHANGE=input laptop mic; output H7 A2DP; retain pairing+driver”; the private static semantic key accepts “CHANGE=input laptop mic; output H7 A2DP; retain pairing+driver”, so it passes. FINAL returned “CHANGE=input laptop mic; output H7 A2DP; retain pairing+driver”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve privacy and comparison scope","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Only synthetic clip BT-17 and call fixture C1 may be used; neighboring recordings and device names are out of scope. Semantic rule: The bounded fixture excludes unrelated personal media and device enumeration. FIRST returned “PRIVACY=scan every recording for comparison”; the private static semantic key accepts “PRIVACY=use BT-17+C1 only; other media0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PRIVACY=use BT-17+C1 only; other media0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify audio and calling functions","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is five calls, THD+N below 2%, latency below 80 ms, microphone intelligibility above 0.9, and pairing retained. Semantic rule: Repeated THD+N quality, latency, speech input, and retained pairing all matter. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=music sounds better once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=calls5; THD+N<2%; latency<80ms; intelligibility>0.9; pairing retained”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=calls5; THD+N<2%; latency<80ms; intelligibility>0.9”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["FBA-9451 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the bad profile transition passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Use the clean codec control also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Verify audio and calling functions still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Connection diagnostics and repeatable audio measurements will verify whether the proposed steps isolate the fault.","evidenceNotes":["FBA-9451 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","FBA-9451's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","FBA-9451 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Connection diagnostics and repeatable audio measurements will verify whether the proposed steps isolate the fault."],"limitations":["FBA-9451 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","FBA-9451 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-plan-warehouse-pick-path","title":"An AI Pick-Path Plan for a Congested Warehouse — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints","excerpt":"The completed WFT-056 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Warehouse Routing checks passed after one correction, but Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056] and Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-29T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-056: A warehouse team will provide a fixed floor map, order batch, one-way aisles, heavy-item rules, and temporary blocked zones. Source facts: orders or assets WFT-056-O01 through WFT-056-O07; capacities 25 kg and 72 minutes; skill tags E1/E2; aisle or access closure Z3 from 10:00–12:00; a safety hold on WFT-056-O04; and cutoff 16:30 for O06. Governing rule card: the 25-kg and 72-minute capacity ceilings. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-056 for “plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-056. Task: plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints. Context: A warehouse team will provide a fixed floor map, order batch, one-way aisles, heavy-item rules, and temporary blocked zones. Fictional source facts: orders or assets WFT-056-O01 through WFT-056-O07; capacities 25 kg and 72 minutes; skill tags E1/E2; aisle or access closure Z3 from 10:00–12:00; a safety hold on WFT-056-O04; and cutoff 16:30 for O06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 25-kg and 72-minute capacity ceilings. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. Produce an operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A route replay will measure distance, rule violations, blocked-segment use, and heavy-item ordering against a reference solver.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-056 produced an operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions for the task “plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-056-ROW1 reads: “WFT-056-O01 | hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056] and Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056]. The audit found concrete failures: for Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the safety hold on WFT-056-O04 and zone-Z3 closure; for Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056], the saved draft gave the central WFT-056-O04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056], the saved draft left the operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-056 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the safety hold on WFT-056-O04 and zone-Z3 closure; 2) Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056] — the draft gave the central WFT-056-O04 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056] — the draft left the operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-056 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-056-ROW1 reads: “WFT-056-O01 | hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements | evidence locator: WFT-056-O01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056]. The frozen final text passed Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056], Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056], and Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056] and still failed Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056] and Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056]. The final operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-056 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-056 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-056 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing exception handling [WFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-056 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-056 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-056-O04, the declared Warehouse Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-056 kept “plan warehouse pick paths around congestion and handling constraints” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-056 made the central handling—hold WFT-056-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-056 earned final passes for Warehouse Routing task fidelity [WFT-056] and Warehouse Routing rule accuracy [WFT-056] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-056 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Warehouse Routing source traceability [WFT-056]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-056 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Warehouse Routing handoff usability [WFT-056]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A route replay will measure distance, rule violations, blocked-segment use, and heavy-item ordering against a reference solver.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-056 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-056 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-056 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A route replay will measure distance, rule violations, blocked-segment use, and heavy-item ordering against a reference solver.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-056 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Warehouse Routing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-056 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-review-citation-paraphrases","title":"Are These Paraphrases Too Close to Their Sources: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"check whether paraphrases remain independent from source wording","excerpt":"The completed LFT-069 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Paraphrase Review, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-27T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-069: A writing center will provide bounded source excerpts, student paraphrases, citations, and borderline examples approved for training use. Source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-069-T01 through LFT-069-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-069-T03-L7. Governing rule card: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-069 for “check whether paraphrases remain independent from source wording” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-069. Task: check whether paraphrases remain independent from source wording. Context: A writing center will provide bounded source excerpts, student paraphrases, citations, and borderline examples approved for training use. Fictional source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-069-T01 through LFT-069-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-069-T03-L7. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Phrase-overlap measures and two human raters will verify source fidelity, excessive borrowing, citation presence, and false accusations.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-069 produced a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations for the task “check whether paraphrases remain independent from source wording.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-069-T03-L7. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-069-ROW1 reads: “LFT-069-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-069-T03-L7 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Paraphrase Review objective fit [LFT-069], Paraphrase Review evidence traceability [LFT-069], and Paraphrase Review safety and access [LFT-069]. The audit found concrete failures: for Paraphrase Review content accuracy [LFT-069], the saved draft left claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation without an explicit verification row; for Paraphrase Review learner adaptation [LFT-069], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the contradictory LFT-069-T02 account and undocumented author motive. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-069 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Paraphrase Review content accuracy [LFT-069] — the draft left claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation without an explicit verification row; 2) Paraphrase Review learner adaptation [LFT-069] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the contradictory LFT-069-T02 account and undocumented author motive.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-069 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-069-T03-L7. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-069-ROW1 reads: “LFT-069-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-069-T03-L7 | evidence locator: LFT-069-T01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Paraphrase Review content accuracy [LFT-069]. The frozen final text passed Paraphrase Review objective fit [LFT-069], Paraphrase Review content accuracy [LFT-069], Paraphrase Review evidence traceability [LFT-069], and Paraphrase Review safety and access [LFT-069] and still failed Paraphrase Review learner adaptation [LFT-069]. The final claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Paraphrase Review objective fit [LFT-069]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-069 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Paraphrase Review objective fit [LFT-069].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-069-T02, the declared Paraphrase Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Paraphrase Review content accuracy [LFT-069]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-069 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Paraphrase Review content accuracy [LFT-069].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-069-T02, the declared Paraphrase Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Paraphrase Review learner adaptation [LFT-069]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-069 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Paraphrase Review learner adaptation [LFT-069].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-069-T02, the declared Paraphrase Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Paraphrase Review evidence traceability [LFT-069]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-069 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Paraphrase Review evidence traceability [LFT-069].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-069-T02, the declared Paraphrase Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Paraphrase Review safety and access [LFT-069]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-069 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Paraphrase Review safety and access [LFT-069].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-069-T02, the declared Paraphrase Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-069 kept “check whether paraphrases remain independent from source wording” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-069 made the central handling—support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-069-T03-L7—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-069 earned final passes for Paraphrase Review objective fit [LFT-069] and Paraphrase Review content accuracy [LFT-069] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-069 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Paraphrase Review learner adaptation [LFT-069]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Phrase-overlap measures and two human raters will verify source fidelity, excessive borrowing, citation presence, and false accusations.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-069 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-069 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-069 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Phrase-overlap measures and two human raters will verify source fidelity, excessive borrowing, citation presence, and false accusations.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-069 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Paraphrase Review fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-069 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-research-question-refinement","title":"Should AI Help Narrow an Overbroad Student Research Question: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"narrow an overbroad research question for a student","excerpt":"The completed LFT-023 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Research design checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-27T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-023: A student will iteratively refine a broad social-science topic into a feasible and contestable research question. Source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-023-W01 through LFT-023-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing rule card: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-023 for “narrow an overbroad research question for a student” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-023. Task: narrow an overbroad research question for a student. Context: A student will iteratively refine a broad social-science topic into a feasible and contestable research question. Fictional source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-023-W01 through LFT-023-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Version history will be evaluated against predefined criteria for scope, clarity, feasibility, and openness.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-023 produced a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt for the task “narrow an overbroad research question for a student.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: cite P2/P7 for LFT-023-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-023-ROW1 reads: “LFT-023-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-023-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Research design content accuracy [LFT-023]. The audit found concrete failures: for Research design objective fit [LFT-023], the saved draft did not connect LFT-023-W03 to the full boundary of “narrow an overbroad research question for a student”; for Research design learner adaptation [LFT-023], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-023-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04; for Research design evidence traceability [LFT-023], the saved draft gave the central LFT-023-W03 decision no source-to-output locator; for Research design safety and access [LFT-023], the saved draft left the criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-023 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Research design objective fit [LFT-023] — the draft did not connect LFT-023-W03 to the full boundary of “narrow an overbroad research question for a student”; 2) Research design learner adaptation [LFT-023] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-023-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04; 3) Research design evidence traceability [LFT-023] — the draft gave the central LFT-023-W03 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Research design safety and access [LFT-023] — the draft left the criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-023 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: cite P2/P7 for LFT-023-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-023-ROW1 reads: “LFT-023-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-023-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | evidence locator: LFT-023-W01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Research design learner adaptation [LFT-023]. The frozen final text passed Research design content accuracy [LFT-023] and Research design learner adaptation [LFT-023] and still failed Research design objective fit [LFT-023], Research design evidence traceability [LFT-023], and Research design safety and access [LFT-023]. The final criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Research design objective fit [LFT-023]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-023 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Research design objective fit [LFT-023].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-023-W03, the declared Research design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Research design content accuracy [LFT-023]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-023 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Research design content accuracy [LFT-023].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-023-W03, the declared Research design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Research design learner adaptation [LFT-023]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-023 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Research design learner adaptation [LFT-023].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-023-W03, the declared Research design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Research design evidence traceability [LFT-023]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-023 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Research design evidence traceability [LFT-023].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-023-W03, the declared Research design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Research design safety and access [LFT-023]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-023 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Research design safety and access [LFT-023].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-023-W03, the declared Research design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-023 kept “narrow an overbroad research question for a student” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-023 made the central handling—cite P2/P7 for LFT-023-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["LFT-023 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Research design objective fit [LFT-023]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-023 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Research design evidence traceability [LFT-023]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-023 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Research design safety and access [LFT-023]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Version history will be evaluated against predefined criteria for scope, clarity, feasibility, and openness.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-023 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-023 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-023 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Version history will be evaluated against predefined criteria for scope, clarity, feasibility, and openness.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-023 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Research design fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-023 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-plan-service-capacity","title":"An AI Service Capacity Plan for Demand Forecasts and Staffing Limits: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"create a service capacity plan from demand forecasts and staffing limits","excerpt":"The completed WFT-031 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Capacity Planning checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-26T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-031: A contact center will provide interval demand forecasts, handling times, shrinkage assumptions, and available staffing. Source facts: records WFT-031-R01 through WFT-031-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 24 and 32; dependency WFT-031-R04 after WFT-031-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-031-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (24 and 32). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-031 for “create a service capacity plan from demand forecasts and staffing limits” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-031. Task: create a service capacity plan from demand forecasts and staffing limits. Context: A contact center will provide interval demand forecasts, handling times, shrinkage assumptions, and available staffing. Fictional source facts: records WFT-031-R01 through WFT-031-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 24 and 32; dependency WFT-031-R04 after WFT-031-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-031-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (24 and 32). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A staffing plan and independent interval calculations will verify demand coverage and stated assumptions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-031 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “create a service capacity plan from demand forecasts and staffing limits.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-031-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-031-R04 only after WFT-031-R02, and flag the second window when demand 32 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-031-ROW1 reads: “WFT-031-R01 | keep WFT-031-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-031-R04 only after WFT-031-R02, and flag the second window when demand 32 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Capacity Planning task fidelity [WFT-031]. The audit found concrete failures: for Capacity Planning rule accuracy [WFT-031], the saved draft left the two window limits (24 and 32) without an explicit verification row; for Capacity Planning exception handling [WFT-031], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-031-R05 availability exception and the WFT-031-R02→R04 dependency; for Capacity Planning source traceability [WFT-031], the saved draft gave the central WFT-031-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Capacity Planning handoff usability [WFT-031], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-031 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Capacity Planning rule accuracy [WFT-031] — the draft left the two window limits (24 and 32) without an explicit verification row; 2) Capacity Planning exception handling [WFT-031] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-031-R05 availability exception and the WFT-031-R02→R04 dependency; 3) Capacity Planning source traceability [WFT-031] — the draft gave the central WFT-031-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Capacity Planning handoff usability [WFT-031] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-031 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-031-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-031-R04 only after WFT-031-R02, and flag the second window when demand 32 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-031-ROW1 reads: “WFT-031-R01 | keep WFT-031-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-031-R04 only after WFT-031-R02, and flag the second window when demand 32 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-031-R01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Capacity Planning rule accuracy [WFT-031]. The frozen final text passed Capacity Planning task fidelity [WFT-031] and Capacity Planning rule accuracy [WFT-031] and still failed Capacity Planning exception handling [WFT-031], Capacity Planning source traceability [WFT-031], and Capacity Planning handoff usability [WFT-031]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Capacity Planning task fidelity [WFT-031]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-031 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Capacity Planning task fidelity [WFT-031].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-031-R05, the declared Capacity Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Capacity Planning rule accuracy [WFT-031]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-031 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Capacity Planning rule accuracy [WFT-031].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-031-R05, the declared Capacity Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Capacity Planning exception handling [WFT-031]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-031 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Capacity Planning exception handling [WFT-031].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-031-R05, the declared Capacity Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Capacity Planning source traceability [WFT-031]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-031 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Capacity Planning source traceability [WFT-031].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-031-R05, the declared Capacity Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Capacity Planning handoff usability [WFT-031]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-031 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Capacity Planning handoff usability [WFT-031].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-031-R05, the declared Capacity Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-031 kept “create a service capacity plan from demand forecasts and staffing limits” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-031 made the central handling—keep WFT-031-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-031-R04 only after WFT-031-R02, and flag the second window when demand 32 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-031 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Capacity Planning exception handling [WFT-031]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-031 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Capacity Planning source traceability [WFT-031]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-031 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Capacity Planning handoff usability [WFT-031]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A staffing plan and independent interval calculations will verify demand coverage and stated assumptions.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-031 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-031 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-031 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A staffing plan and independent interval calculations will verify demand coverage and stated assumptions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-031 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Capacity Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-031 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-diagnose-high-cpu","title":"Why Is the Test Computer Running at High CPU? An AI Diagnosis: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"diagnose unexplained high cpu usage","excerpt":"This completed synthetic CPU Performance field test asked the session to diagnose unexplained high cpu usage, preserved an actual five-row high-cpu causal trace, and derived 0/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-25T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in DHC-4608 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “diagnose unexplained high cpu usage”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: diagnose unexplained high cpu usage. Focus: CPU Performance.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide process samples and system metrics from a test workload with one controlled source of excess activity.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nDHC-4608-I1: System CPU rises 24%→91% at 10:10 while indexer P7 rises 8%→78%; every other process remains below 6%.\nDHC-4608-I2: P7 begins scanning looped junction /docs/archive→/docs at 10:10; trace shows 41,200 repeated path visits.\nDHC-4608-I3: Baseline temperature is 54°C; test stop is 92°C; faulty run reaches 90°C at minute 8.\nDHC-4608-I4: Approved change excludes /docs/archive junction only; indexing of /docs/current and /docs/reference must remain.\nDHC-4608-I5: Acceptance is three 15-minute runs CPU below 35%, temperature below 80°C, visits under 1,000, and searches S1-S6 6/6.\nReturn a concrete high-cpu causal trace with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: The seeded workload and before-and-after utilization traces will verify the diagnosis and proposed mitigation.","firstResult":"HIGH-CPU CAUSAL TRACE DHC-4608 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: diagnose unexplained high cpu usage. Evaluation focus: CPU Performance. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDHC-4608-R1 :: RESULT=CAUSE=replace processor hardware\nDHC-4608-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHC-4608-R2 :: RESULT=TRIGGER=normal document count\nDHC-4608-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHC-4608-R3 :: RESULT=SAFETY=continue regardless of temperature\nDHC-4608-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHC-4608-R4 :: RESULT=CHANGE=disable the entire indexer\nDHC-4608-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHC-4608-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=CPU falls once\nDHC-4608-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DHC-4608; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise DHC-4608 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Identify the correlated process: input was “System CPU rises 24%→91% at 10:10 while indexer P7 rises 8%→78%; every other process remains below 6%.”; first response was “CAUSE=replace processor hardware”.\n- Link the workload trigger: input was “P7 begins scanning looped junction /docs/archive→/docs at 10:10; trace shows 41,200 repeated path visits.”; first response was “TRIGGER=normal document count”.\n- Respect the thermal stop: input was “Baseline temperature is 54°C; test stop is 92°C; faulty run reaches 90°C at minute 8.”; first response was “SAFETY=continue regardless of temperature”.\n- Apply the bounded exclusion: input was “Approved change excludes /docs/archive junction only; indexing of /docs/current and /docs/reference must remain.”; first response was “CHANGE=disable the entire indexer”.\n- Repeat performance and search checks: input was “Acceptance is three 15-minute runs CPU below 35%, temperature below 80°C, visits under 1,000, and searches S1-S6 6/6.”; first response was “ACCEPT=CPU falls once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"HIGH-CPU CAUSAL TRACE DHC-4608 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: diagnose unexplained high cpu usage. Evaluation focus: CPU Performance. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDHC-4608-R1 :: RESULT=CAUSE=P7 indexer; rise70 points aligns with system rise67 points\nDHC-4608-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHC-4608-R2 :: RESULT=TRIGGER=directory junction loop; repeated visits41200\nDHC-4608-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHC-4608-R3 :: RESULT=SAFETY=stop if >=92C\nDHC-4608-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHC-4608-R4 :: RESULT=CHANGE=exclude /docs/archive junction\nDHC-4608-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHC-4608-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=3x15min; CPU<35%; temp<80C; visits<1000\nDHC-4608-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DHC-4608; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the correlated process","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: System CPU rises 24%→91% at 10:10 while indexer P7 rises 8%→78%; every other process remains below 6%. Semantic rule: The timestamped process delta accounts for the system-level change. FIRST returned “CAUSE=replace processor hardware”; the private static semantic key accepts “CAUSE=P7 indexer; rise70 points aligns with system rise67 points”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CAUSE=P7 indexer; rise70 points aligns with system rise67 points”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Link the workload trigger","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: P7 begins scanning looped junction /docs/archive→/docs at 10:10; trace shows 41,200 repeated path visits. Semantic rule: The explicit cyclic path and repeat count explain the excess work. FIRST returned “TRIGGER=normal document count”; the private static semantic key accepts “TRIGGER=directory junction loop; repeated visits41200”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TRIGGER=directory junction loop; repeated visits41200”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Respect the thermal stop","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Baseline temperature is 54°C; test stop is 92°C; faulty run reaches 90°C at minute 8. Semantic rule: The diagnostic must retain the declared temperature ceiling while interpreting the observed run. FIRST returned “SAFETY=continue regardless of temperature”; the private static semantic key accepts “SAFETY=stop if >=92C; observed90C below stop with monitoring” or “SAFETY=stop if >=92C”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SAFETY=stop if >=92C”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Apply the bounded exclusion","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Approved change excludes /docs/archive junction only; indexing of /docs/current and /docs/reference must remain. Semantic rule: The causal fix removes the cyclic target without losing required search scope. FIRST returned “CHANGE=disable the entire indexer”; the private static semantic key accepts “CHANGE=exclude /docs/archive junction; retain current+reference indexing”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CHANGE=exclude /docs/archive junction”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Repeat performance and search checks","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is three 15-minute runs CPU below 35%, temperature below 80°C, visits under 1,000, and searches S1-S6 6/6. Semantic rule: Repeatability, resource limits, loop removal, and retained search behavior are joint gates. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=CPU falls once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=3x15min; CPU<35%; temp<80C; visits<1000; searches6/6”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=3x15min; CPU<35%; temp<80C; visits<1000”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["DHC-4608 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the correlated process passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Link the workload trigger also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Apply the bounded exclusion still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Repeat performance and search checks still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"The seeded workload and before-and-after utilization traces will verify the diagnosis and proposed mitigation.","evidenceNotes":["DHC-4608 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","DHC-4608's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","DHC-4608 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: The seeded workload and before-and-after utilization traces will verify the diagnosis and proposed mitigation."],"limitations":["DHC-4608 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","DHC-4608 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-audit-meeting-decisions","title":"Who Decided What? Auditing Meeting Notes with AI — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"audit meeting notes for decisions, owners, and unresolved questions","excerpt":"The completed WFT-068 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Decision Auditing checks passed after one correction, but Decision Auditing exception handling [WFT-068] and Decision Auditing source traceability [WFT-068] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-23T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-068: A program office will provide a synthetic transcript with tentative proposals, reversals, named actions, and ambiguous agreement language. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-068-N01 through WFT-068-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-068-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-068 for “audit meeting notes for decisions, owners, and unresolved questions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-068. Task: audit meeting notes for decisions, owners, and unresolved questions. Context: A program office will provide a synthetic transcript with tentative proposals, reversals, named actions, and ambiguous agreement language. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-068-N01 through WFT-068-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-068-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A timestamped decision and action log will be compared with an adjudicated key for status, owner, deadline, and uncertainty.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-068 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “audit meeting notes for decisions, owners, and unresolved questions.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-068-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-068-ROW1 reads: “WFT-068-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-068-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Decision Auditing task fidelity [WFT-068] and Decision Auditing handoff usability [WFT-068]. The audit found concrete failures: for Decision Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-068], the saved draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row; for Decision Auditing exception handling [WFT-068], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-068-N06/N07 contradiction; for Decision Auditing source traceability [WFT-068], the saved draft gave the central WFT-068-N07 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-068 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Decision Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-068] — the draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row; 2) Decision Auditing exception handling [WFT-068] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-068-N06/N07 contradiction; 3) Decision Auditing source traceability [WFT-068] — the draft gave the central WFT-068-N07 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-068 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-068-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-068-ROW1 reads: “WFT-068-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-068-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-068-N01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Decision Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-068]. The frozen final text passed Decision Auditing task fidelity [WFT-068], Decision Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-068], and Decision Auditing handoff usability [WFT-068] and still failed Decision Auditing exception handling [WFT-068] and Decision Auditing source traceability [WFT-068]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Decision Auditing task fidelity [WFT-068]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-068 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Decision Auditing task fidelity [WFT-068].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-068-N07, the declared Decision Auditing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Decision Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-068]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-068 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Decision Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-068].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-068-N07, the declared Decision Auditing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Decision Auditing exception handling [WFT-068]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-068 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Decision Auditing exception handling [WFT-068].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-068-N07, the declared Decision Auditing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Decision Auditing source traceability [WFT-068]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-068 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Decision Auditing source traceability [WFT-068].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-068-N07, the declared Decision Auditing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Decision Auditing handoff usability [WFT-068]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-068 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Decision Auditing handoff usability [WFT-068].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-068-N07, the declared Decision Auditing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-068 kept “audit meeting notes for decisions, owners, and unresolved questions” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-068 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-068-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-068 earned final passes for Decision Auditing task fidelity [WFT-068] and Decision Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-068] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-068 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Decision Auditing exception handling [WFT-068]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-068 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Decision Auditing source traceability [WFT-068]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A timestamped decision and action log will be compared with an adjudicated key for status, owner, deadline, and uncertainty.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-068 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-068 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-068 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A timestamped decision and action log will be compared with an adjudicated key for status, owner, deadline, and uncertainty.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-068 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Decision Auditing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-068 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-build-project-dependency-plan","title":"An AI Project Plan Built Around Tasks, Dependencies, and Staffing Limits — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"build a project plan from tasks and dependencies","excerpt":"The completed WFT-010 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Project Planning, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-21T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-010: A project manager will supply task durations, dependencies, staffing limits, and a target delivery date. Source facts: records WFT-010-R01 through WFT-010-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 22 and 36; dependency WFT-010-R04 after WFT-010-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-010-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (22 and 36). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-010 for “build a project plan from tasks and dependencies” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-010. Task: build a project plan from tasks and dependencies. Context: A project manager will supply task durations, dependencies, staffing limits, and a target delivery date. Fictional source facts: records WFT-010-R01 through WFT-010-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 22 and 36; dependency WFT-010-R04 after WFT-010-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-010-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (22 and 36). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A dated plan and an independent dependency check will verify sequencing, milestones, and resource conflicts.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-010 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “build a project plan from tasks and dependencies.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-010-ROW1 reads: “WFT-010-R01 | keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010], Project Planning source traceability [WFT-010], and Project Planning handoff usability [WFT-010]. The audit found concrete failures: for Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010], the saved draft left the two window limits (22 and 36) without an explicit verification row; for Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-010-R05 availability exception and the WFT-010-R02→R04 dependency. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-010 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010] — the draft left the two window limits (22 and 36) without an explicit verification row; 2) Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-010-R05 availability exception and the WFT-010-R02→R04 dependency.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-010 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-010-ROW1 reads: “WFT-010-R01 | keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-010-R01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010]. The frozen final text passed Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010], Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010], Project Planning source traceability [WFT-010], and Project Planning handoff usability [WFT-010] and still failed Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-010 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-010 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-010 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Project Planning source traceability [WFT-010]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-010 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning source traceability [WFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Project Planning handoff usability [WFT-010]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-010 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Project Planning handoff usability [WFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-010-R05, the declared Project Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-010 kept “build a project plan from tasks and dependencies” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-010 made the central handling—keep WFT-010-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-010-R04 only after WFT-010-R02, and flag the second window when demand 36 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-010 earned final passes for Project Planning task fidelity [WFT-010] and Project Planning rule accuracy [WFT-010] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-010 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Project Planning exception handling [WFT-010]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A dated plan and an independent dependency check will verify sequencing, milestones, and resource conflicts.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-010 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-010 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-010 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A dated plan and an independent dependency check will verify sequencing, milestones, and resource conflicts.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-010 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Project Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-010 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-inventory-home-network","title":"AI and the Privacy-Conscious Home Network Inventory: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"create a privacy-conscious home network inventory","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Asset Inventory field test asked the session to create a privacy-conscious home network inventory, preserved an actual five-row privacy-minimized home network inventory, and derived 4/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-21T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in IHN-1115 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “create a privacy-conscious home network inventory”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: create a privacy-conscious home network inventory. Focus: Asset Inventory.\nSource scenario: The experiment will supply sanitized discovery data and ask AI to identify devices without contacting outside services.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nIHN-1115-I1: Lease R1 has 192.0.2.1, MAC prefix 02:00:00, hostname gateway, and role default route.\nIHN-1115-I2: Lease U7 at 192.0.2.77 has randomized MAC, no hostname, and only mDNS type _airplay._tcp.\nIHN-1115-I3: DHCP D4 and ARP A9 share MAC 02:11:22:33:44:55 and address 192.0.2.44 within one minute.\nIHN-1115-I4: Policy permits local lease, ARP, and mDNS fields; it forbids external vendor lookup and stored browsing history.\nIHN-1115-I5: Ground truth has router 1, computers 2, phones 3, printer 1, media endpoints 2, and unknown 1.\nReturn a concrete privacy-minimized home network inventory with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A ground-truth device list will verify identification accuracy, uncertainty labels, and data minimization.","firstResult":"PRIVACY-MINIMIZED HOME NETWORK INVENTORY IHN-1115 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: create a privacy-conscious home network inventory. Evaluation focus: Asset Inventory. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nIHN-1115-R1 :: RESULT=R1=smart television based on MAC prefix alone\nIHN-1115-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nIHN-1115-R2 :: RESULT=U7=probable media endpoint; confidence low; evidence _airplay._tcp\nIHN-1115-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nIHN-1115-R3 :: RESULT=MERGE=count D4 and A9 as two devices\nIHN-1115-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nIHN-1115-R4 :: RESULT=PRIVACY=use DHCP+ARP+mDNS only; no vendor lookup; no browsing history\nIHN-1115-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nIHN-1115-R5 :: RESULT=TOTAL=11 devices after double-counting D4 and A9\nIHN-1115-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for IHN-1115; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise IHN-1115 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Identify the router from local evidence: input was “Lease R1 has 192.0.2.1, MAC prefix 02:00:00, hostname gateway, and role default route.”; first response was “R1=smart television based on MAC prefix alone”.\n- Merge duplicate observations: input was “DHCP D4 and ARP A9 share MAC 02:11:22:33:44:55 and address 192.0.2.44 within one minute.”; first response was “MERGE=count D4 and A9 as two devices”.\n- Reconcile the ground-truth count: input was “Ground truth has router 1, computers 2, phones 3, printer 1, media endpoints 2, and unknown 1.”; first response was “TOTAL=11 devices after double-counting D4 and A9”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"PRIVACY-MINIMIZED HOME NETWORK INVENTORY IHN-1115 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: create a privacy-conscious home network inventory. Evaluation focus: Asset Inventory. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nIHN-1115-R1 :: RESULT=R1=router; 192.0.2.1; evidence default-route+gateway hostname\nIHN-1115-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nIHN-1115-R2 :: RESULT=U7=probable media endpoint; confidence low; evidence _airplay._tcp\nIHN-1115-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nIHN-1115-R3 :: RESULT=MERGE=D4+A9 one device at 192.0.2.44\nIHN-1115-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nIHN-1115-R4 :: RESULT=PRIVACY=use DHCP+ARP+mDNS only; no vendor lookup; no browsing history\nIHN-1115-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nIHN-1115-R5 :: RESULT=TOTAL=10 devices; router1; computers2; phones3; printer1; media2\nIHN-1115-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for IHN-1115; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the router from local evidence","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Lease R1 has 192.0.2.1, MAC prefix 02:00:00, hostname gateway, and role default route. Semantic rule: The default-route role and local hostname support router classification without external lookup. FIRST returned “R1=smart television based on MAC prefix alone”; the private static semantic key accepts “R1=router; 192.0.2.1; evidence default-route+gateway hostname”, so it fails. FINAL returned “R1=router; 192.0.2.1; evidence default-route+gateway hostname”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Label an uncertain device honestly","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Lease U7 at 192.0.2.77 has randomized MAC, no hostname, and only mDNS type _airplay._tcp. Semantic rule: Sparse local service evidence supports a bounded role guess, not a vendor identity. FIRST returned “U7=probable media endpoint; confidence low; evidence _airplay._tcp”; the private static semantic key accepts “U7=probable media endpoint; confidence low; evidence _airplay._tcp”, so it passes. FINAL returned “U7=probable media endpoint; confidence low; evidence _airplay._tcp”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Merge duplicate observations","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: DHCP D4 and ARP A9 share MAC 02:11:22:33:44:55 and address 192.0.2.44 within one minute. Semantic rule: Matching local identifiers and time window require one inventory row with provenance preserved. FIRST returned “MERGE=count D4 and A9 as two devices”; the private static semantic key accepts “MERGE=D4+A9 one device at 192.0.2.44; retain both timestamps”, so it fails. FINAL returned “MERGE=D4+A9 one device at 192.0.2.44”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Exclude private or external enrichment","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy permits local lease, ARP, and mDNS fields; it forbids external vendor lookup and stored browsing history. Semantic rule: The experiment's inventory boundary explicitly excludes external contact and unrelated personal data. FIRST returned “PRIVACY=use DHCP+ARP+mDNS only; no vendor lookup; no browsing history”; the private static semantic key accepts “PRIVACY=use DHCP+ARP+mDNS only; no vendor lookup; no browsing history”, so it passes. FINAL returned “PRIVACY=use DHCP+ARP+mDNS only; no vendor lookup; no browsing history”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile the ground-truth count","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Ground truth has router 1, computers 2, phones 3, printer 1, media endpoints 2, and unknown 1. Semantic rule: The category counts sum to ten after the declared duplicate merge. FIRST returned “TOTAL=11 devices after double-counting D4 and A9”; the private static semantic key accepts “TOTAL=10 devices; router1; computers2; phones3; printer1; media2; unknown1”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TOTAL=10 devices; router1; computers2; phones3; printer1; media2”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["IHN-1115 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the router from local evidence passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Label an uncertain device honestly also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Merge duplicate observations still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Reconcile the ground-truth count still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A ground-truth device list will verify identification accuracy, uncertainty labels, and data minimization.","evidenceNotes":["IHN-1115 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","IHN-1115's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","IHN-1115 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A ground-truth device list will verify identification accuracy, uncertainty labels, and data minimization."],"limitations":["IHN-1115 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","IHN-1115 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-peer-feedback-coaching","title":"Give Better Peer Feedback with AI Coaching: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"coach students to give useful peer feedback","excerpt":"The completed LFT-037 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Peer feedback, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-21T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-037: Students will revise vague comments on a classmate's draft into specific, respectful, and actionable feedback. Source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-037-W01 through LFT-037-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing rule card: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-037 for “coach students to give useful peer feedback” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-037. Task: coach students to give useful peer feedback. Context: Students will revise vague comments on a classmate's draft into specific, respectful, and actionable feedback. Fictional source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-037-W01 through LFT-037-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. Produce a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Before-and-after comments will be assessed with a feedback-quality rubric and author acceptability check.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-037 produced a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt for the task “coach students to give useful peer feedback.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: cite P2/P7 for LFT-037-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-037-ROW1 reads: “LFT-037-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-037-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Peer feedback objective fit [LFT-037], Peer feedback content accuracy [LFT-037], and Peer feedback safety and access [LFT-037]. The audit found concrete failures: for Peer feedback learner adaptation [LFT-037], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-037-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04; for Peer feedback evidence traceability [LFT-037], the saved draft gave the central LFT-037-W03 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-037 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Peer feedback learner adaptation [LFT-037] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-037-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04; 2) Peer feedback evidence traceability [LFT-037] — the draft gave the central LFT-037-W03 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-037 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: cite P2/P7 for LFT-037-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-037-ROW1 reads: “LFT-037-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-037-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | evidence locator: LFT-037-W01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Peer feedback learner adaptation [LFT-037]. The frozen final text passed Peer feedback objective fit [LFT-037], Peer feedback content accuracy [LFT-037], Peer feedback learner adaptation [LFT-037], and Peer feedback safety and access [LFT-037] and still failed Peer feedback evidence traceability [LFT-037]. The final criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Peer feedback objective fit [LFT-037]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-037 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Peer feedback objective fit [LFT-037].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-037-W03, the declared Peer feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Peer feedback content accuracy [LFT-037]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-037 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Peer feedback content accuracy [LFT-037].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-037-W03, the declared Peer feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Peer feedback learner adaptation [LFT-037]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-037 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Peer feedback learner adaptation [LFT-037].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-037-W03, the declared Peer feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Peer feedback evidence traceability [LFT-037]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-037 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Peer feedback evidence traceability [LFT-037].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-037-W03, the declared Peer feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Peer feedback safety and access [LFT-037]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-037 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Peer feedback safety and access [LFT-037].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-037-W03, the declared Peer feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-037 kept “coach students to give useful peer feedback” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-037 made the central handling—cite P2/P7 for LFT-037-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-037 earned final passes for Peer feedback objective fit [LFT-037] and Peer feedback content accuracy [LFT-037] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-037 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Peer feedback evidence traceability [LFT-037]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Before-and-after comments will be assessed with a feedback-quality rubric and author acceptability check.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-037 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-037 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-037 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Before-and-after comments will be assessed with a feedback-quality rubric and author acceptability check.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-037 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Peer feedback fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-037 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-generate-language-minimal-pairs","title":"AI-led Minimal-Pair Practice for a Specific Pronunciation Contrast — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast","excerpt":"The completed LFT-056 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Pronunciation Practice, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-19T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-056: A language teacher will provide the target sounds, learner language background, known vocabulary, and phonetic constraints. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-056-U01 through LFT-056-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing rule card: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-056 for “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-056. Task: generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast. Context: A language teacher will provide the target sounds, learner language background, known vocabulary, and phonetic constraints. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-056-U01 through LFT-056-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A phonetics review and word-list audit will verify the intended contrast, lexical validity, stress pattern, and difficulty progression.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-056 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-056-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-056-ROW1 reads: “LFT-056-U01 | recast LFT-056-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056], Pronunciation Practice evidence traceability [LFT-056], and Pronunciation Practice safety and access [LFT-056]. The audit found concrete failures: for Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056], the saved draft did not connect LFT-056-U05 to the full boundary of “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast”; for Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056], the saved draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-056 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056] — the draft did not connect LFT-056-U05 to the full boundary of “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast”; 2) Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056] — the draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-056 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-056-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-056-ROW1 reads: “LFT-056-U01 | recast LFT-056-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | evidence locator: LFT-056-U01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056]. The frozen final text passed Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056], Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056], Pronunciation Practice evidence traceability [LFT-056], and Pronunciation Practice safety and access [LFT-056] and still failed Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056]. The final levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-056 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-056 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-056 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Pronunciation Practice evidence traceability [LFT-056]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-056 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice evidence traceability [LFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Pronunciation Practice safety and access [LFT-056]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-056 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation Practice safety and access [LFT-056].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-056-U05, the declared Pronunciation Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-056 kept “generate minimal-pair practice for a specified pronunciation contrast” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-056 made the central handling—recast LFT-056-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-056 earned final passes for Pronunciation Practice objective fit [LFT-056] and Pronunciation Practice learner adaptation [LFT-056] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-056 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Pronunciation Practice content accuracy [LFT-056]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A phonetics review and word-list audit will verify the intended contrast, lexical validity, stress pattern, and difficulty progression.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-056 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-056 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-056 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A phonetics review and word-list audit will verify the intended contrast, lexical validity, stress pattern, and difficulty progression.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-056 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Pronunciation Practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-056 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-stoichiometry-worked-examples","title":"When Should AI Fade Support in Stoichiometry Practice: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"fade support across stoichiometry examples","excerpt":"The completed LFT-009 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Chemistry scaffolding, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-18T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-009: The AI will sequence chemistry examples from fully worked solutions to independent mole-conversion practice. Source facts: problems LFT-009-C01 2H₂+O₂→2H₂O with 3 mol O₂; C02 4 mol H₂; C03 18 g H₂O; full, partial, independent support. Governing rule card: balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-009 for “fade support across stoichiometry examples” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-009. Task: fade support across stoichiometry examples. Context: The AI will sequence chemistry examples from fully worked solutions to independent mole-conversion practice. Fictional source facts: problems LFT-009-C01 2H₂+O₂→2H₂O with 3 mol O₂; C02 4 mol H₂; C03 18 g H₂O; full, partial, independent support. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: The example sequence and learner work will be checked for accurate steps and progressively reduced guidance.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-009 produced a mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key for “fade support across stoichiometry examples.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-009-C02 | model C01 to 6 mol H₂O, omit ratio setup in C02, and leave C03 independent with units | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named unit cancellation in C02 and over-support risk on C03 and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Chemistry scaffolding objective fit [LFT-009], Chemistry scaffolding evidence traceability [LFT-009], and Chemistry scaffolding safety and access [LFT-009]. It found for Chemistry scaffolding content accuracy [LFT-009], the draft mentioned but did not verify balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance; for Chemistry scaffolding learner adaptation [LFT-009], the draft left unit cancellation in C02 and over-support risk on C03 without an explicit disposition. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-009 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Chemistry scaffolding content accuracy [LFT-009] — the draft mentioned but did not verify balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance; 2) Chemistry scaffolding learner adaptation [LFT-009] — the draft left unit cancellation in C02 and over-support risk on C03 without an explicit disposition.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-009 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: model C01 to 6 mol H₂O, omit ratio setup in C02, and leave C03 independent with units. Its corrected row read “LFT-009-C02 | rule: balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance | decision: model C01 to 6 mol H₂O, omit ratio setup in C02, and leave C03 independent with units | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Chemistry scaffolding content accuracy [LFT-009]. The final audit passed Chemistry scaffolding objective fit [LFT-009], Chemistry scaffolding content accuracy [LFT-009], Chemistry scaffolding evidence traceability [LFT-009], and Chemistry scaffolding safety and access [LFT-009]. It still lacked Chemistry scaffolding learner adaptation [LFT-009]; those failures remain visible. The mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Chemistry scaffolding objective fit [LFT-009]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-009 static check 1 inspected “Chemistry scaffolding objective fit [LFT-009]” against LFT-009-C02, the rule “balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance,” and the saved mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Chemistry scaffolding content accuracy [LFT-009]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-009 static check 2 inspected “Chemistry scaffolding content accuracy [LFT-009]” against LFT-009-C02, the rule “balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance,” and the saved mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Chemistry scaffolding learner adaptation [LFT-009]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-009 static check 3 inspected “Chemistry scaffolding learner adaptation [LFT-009]” against LFT-009-C02, the rule “balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance,” and the saved mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Chemistry scaffolding evidence traceability [LFT-009]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-009 static check 4 inspected “Chemistry scaffolding evidence traceability [LFT-009]” against LFT-009-C02, the rule “balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance,” and the saved mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Chemistry scaffolding safety and access [LFT-009]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-009 static check 5 inspected “Chemistry scaffolding safety and access [LFT-009]” against LFT-009-C02, the rule “balanced coefficients, mole ratios, units, and progressively removed guidance,” and the saved mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-009 bounded “fade support across stoichiometry examples” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-009 exposed LFT-009-C02—model C01 to 6 mol H₂O, omit ratio setup in C02, and leave C03 independent with units—inside the saved mole-conversion example ladder, faded steps, and answer key.","LFT-009 earned inspectable passes for Chemistry scaffolding objective fit [LFT-009] and Chemistry scaffolding content accuracy [LFT-009] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-009 still lacked saved-text evidence for Chemistry scaffolding learner adaptation [LFT-009]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"The example sequence and learner work will be checked for accurate steps and progressively reduced guidance.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-009 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-009 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-009 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—The example sequence and learner work will be checked for accurate steps and progressively reduced guidance.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-009 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Chemistry scaffolding fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-009 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-plan-clean-os-reinstall","title":"Planning a Clean OS Reinstall: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"plan a clean operating system reinstall","excerpt":"This completed synthetic OS Installation field test asked the session to plan a clean operating system reinstall, preserved an actual five-row clean os reinstall runbook, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-18T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in PCOR-8049 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “plan a clean operating system reinstall”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: plan a clean operating system reinstall. Focus: OS Installation.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to prepare a reinstall sequence that preserves user files, settings, and required drivers.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nPCOR-8049-I1: Backup BK-OS-17 contains 286 files, 42 settings exports, SHA-256 6f3a9c12, and a successful sample restore.\nPCOR-8049-I2: Disk 0 has EFI 512 MB, OS 180 GB, Recovery 2 GB, and 42 GB free inside the OS partition.\nPCOR-8049-I3: Current build is 24H2-26100; approved installer is signed build 24H2-26120; no later build is in the fixture.\nPCOR-8049-I4: Network package NET-6.1.18 and storage package STOR-4.8.2 have valid signatures and are required before first sign-in.\nPCOR-8049-I5: Acceptance requires two clean boots, 286/286 file hashes, 42/42 settings imports, network link, and no unknown devices.\nReturn a concrete clean os reinstall runbook with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A disposable test computer and a post-install checklist will verify data preservation, driver availability, and boot success.","firstResult":"CLEAN OS REINSTALL RUNBOOK PCOR-8049 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: plan a clean operating system reinstall. Evaluation focus: OS Installation. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPCOR-8049-R1 :: RESULT=BACKUP=freeze BK-OS-17; require hash 6f3a9c12; sample restore already passed\nPCOR-8049-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCOR-8049-R2 :: RESULT=PARTITIONS=retain EFI 512MB; retain Recovery 2GB; reinstall only inside OS 180GB\nPCOR-8049-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCOR-8049-R3 :: RESULT=BUILD=install signed 24H2-26120; do not infer a newer release\nPCOR-8049-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCOR-8049-R4 :: RESULT=DRIVERS=depend on the network after reinstall\nPCOR-8049-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCOR-8049-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=desktop appears once\nPCOR-8049-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PCOR-8049; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise PCOR-8049 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Stage the required offline drivers: input was “Network package NET-6.1.18 and storage package STOR-4.8.2 have valid signatures and are required before first sign-in.”; first response was “DRIVERS=depend on the network after reinstall”.\n- Define post-install acceptance: input was “Acceptance requires two clean boots, 286/286 file hashes, 42/42 settings imports, network link, and no unknown devices.”; first response was “ACCEPT=desktop appears once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"CLEAN OS REINSTALL RUNBOOK PCOR-8049 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: plan a clean operating system reinstall. Evaluation focus: OS Installation. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPCOR-8049-R1 :: RESULT=BACKUP=freeze BK-OS-17; require hash 6f3a9c12; sample restore already passed\nPCOR-8049-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCOR-8049-R2 :: RESULT=PARTITIONS=retain EFI 512MB; retain Recovery 2GB; reinstall only inside OS 180GB\nPCOR-8049-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCOR-8049-R3 :: RESULT=BUILD=install signed 24H2-26120; do not infer a newer release\nPCOR-8049-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCOR-8049-R4 :: RESULT=DRIVERS=stage NET-6.1.18 and STOR-4.8.2; verify both signatures\nPCOR-8049-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCOR-8049-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=2 boots; 286/286 hashes; 42/42 settings; network linked; 0 unknown devices\nPCOR-8049-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PCOR-8049; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Freeze the verified user-data backup","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Backup BK-OS-17 contains 286 files, 42 settings exports, SHA-256 6f3a9c12, and a successful sample restore. Semantic rule: A clean reinstall may start only after the named backup hash and restore sample both pass. FIRST returned “BACKUP=freeze BK-OS-17; require hash 6f3a9c12; sample restore already passed”; the private static semantic key accepts “BACKUP=freeze BK-OS-17; require hash 6f3a9c12; sample restore already passed”, so it passes. FINAL returned “BACKUP=freeze BK-OS-17; require hash 6f3a9c12; sample restore already passed”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve the recovery partitions","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Disk 0 has EFI 512 MB, OS 180 GB, Recovery 2 GB, and 42 GB free inside the OS partition. Semantic rule: Only the OS partition is in scope; EFI and Recovery are fixed recovery assets. FIRST returned “PARTITIONS=retain EFI 512MB; retain Recovery 2GB; reinstall only inside OS 180GB”; the private static semantic key accepts “PARTITIONS=retain EFI 512MB; retain Recovery 2GB; reinstall only inside OS 180GB”, so it passes. FINAL returned “PARTITIONS=retain EFI 512MB; retain Recovery 2GB; reinstall only inside OS 180GB”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Pin the approved operating-system build","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Current build is 24H2-26100; approved installer is signed build 24H2-26120; no later build is in the fixture. Semantic rule: The target must equal the disclosed signed build, not an unobserved latest version. FIRST returned “BUILD=install signed 24H2-26120; do not infer a newer release”; the private static semantic key accepts “BUILD=install signed 24H2-26120; do not infer a newer release”, so it passes. FINAL returned “BUILD=install signed 24H2-26120; do not infer a newer release”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Stage the required offline drivers","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Network package NET-6.1.18 and storage package STOR-4.8.2 have valid signatures and are required before first sign-in. Semantic rule: Both exact packages must be available offline and signature-checked before reinstall. FIRST returned “DRIVERS=depend on the network after reinstall”; the private static semantic key accepts “DRIVERS=stage NET-6.1.18 and STOR-4.8.2; verify both signatures”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DRIVERS=stage NET-6.1.18 and STOR-4.8.2; verify both signatures”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define post-install acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance requires two clean boots, 286/286 file hashes, 42/42 settings imports, network link, and no unknown devices. Semantic rule: The reinstall passes only when every declared boot, data, setting, network, and device check passes. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=desktop appears once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=2 boots; 286/286 hashes; 42/42 settings; network linked; 0 unknown devices”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=2 boots; 286/286 hashes; 42/42 settings; network linked; 0 unknown devices”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["PCOR-8049 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Freeze the verified user-data backup passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Preserve the recovery partitions also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Stage the required offline drivers; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A disposable test computer and a post-install checklist will verify data preservation, driver availability, and boot success.","evidenceNotes":["PCOR-8049 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","PCOR-8049's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","PCOR-8049 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A disposable test computer and a post-install checklist will verify data preservation, driver availability, and boot success."],"limitations":["PCOR-8049 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","PCOR-8049 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-design-quality-sampling","title":"A Quality Inspection Sample Built by AI from Defect History: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"design a quality inspection sample from defect history","excerpt":"The completed WFT-045 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Quality Sampling, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-17T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-045: A quality team will provide production volumes, defect categories, risk tiers, and inspection-capacity limits. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-045-C01 through WFT-045-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 35, 43, 45, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-045-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-045 for “design a quality inspection sample from defect history” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-045. Task: design a quality inspection sample from defect history. Context: A quality team will provide production volumes, defect categories, risk tiers, and inspection-capacity limits. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-045-C01 through WFT-045-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 35, 43, 45, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-045-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A sampling plan and a coverage calculation will verify allocation across products, risks, and defect types.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-045 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “design a quality inspection sample from defect history.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-045-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-045-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-045-ROW1 reads: “WFT-045-C01 | rank WFT-045-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-045-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Quality Sampling task fidelity [WFT-045], Quality Sampling source traceability [WFT-045], and Quality Sampling handoff usability [WFT-045]. The audit found concrete failures: for Quality Sampling rule accuracy [WFT-045], the saved draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; for Quality Sampling exception handling [WFT-045], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-045-C04. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-045 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Quality Sampling rule accuracy [WFT-045] — the draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; 2) Quality Sampling exception handling [WFT-045] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-045-C04.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-045 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-045-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-045-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-045-ROW1 reads: “WFT-045-C01 | rank WFT-045-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-045-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-045-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Quality Sampling rule accuracy [WFT-045]. The frozen final text passed Quality Sampling task fidelity [WFT-045], Quality Sampling rule accuracy [WFT-045], Quality Sampling source traceability [WFT-045], and Quality Sampling handoff usability [WFT-045] and still failed Quality Sampling exception handling [WFT-045]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Quality Sampling task fidelity [WFT-045]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-045 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Quality Sampling task fidelity [WFT-045].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-045-C04, the declared Quality Sampling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Quality Sampling rule accuracy [WFT-045]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-045 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Quality Sampling rule accuracy [WFT-045].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-045-C04, the declared Quality Sampling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Quality Sampling exception handling [WFT-045]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-045 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Quality Sampling exception handling [WFT-045].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-045-C04, the declared Quality Sampling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Quality Sampling source traceability [WFT-045]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-045 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Quality Sampling source traceability [WFT-045].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-045-C04, the declared Quality Sampling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Quality Sampling handoff usability [WFT-045]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-045 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Quality Sampling handoff usability [WFT-045].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-045-C04, the declared Quality Sampling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-045 kept “design a quality inspection sample from defect history” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-045 made the central handling—rank WFT-045-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-045-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-045 earned final passes for Quality Sampling task fidelity [WFT-045] and Quality Sampling rule accuracy [WFT-045] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-045 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Quality Sampling exception handling [WFT-045]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A sampling plan and a coverage calculation will verify allocation across products, risks, and defect types.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-045 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-045 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-045 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A sampling plan and a coverage calculation will verify allocation across products, risks, and defect types.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-045 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Quality Sampling fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-045 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-check-malware-warning","title":"A Malware Warning, an Inert File, and AI Triage: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"assess a malware warning without running the file","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Threat Triage field test asked the session to assess a malware warning without running the file, preserved an actual five-row inert-file malware-warning triage, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-15T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in CMW-1079 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “assess a malware warning without running the file”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: assess a malware warning without running the file. Focus: Threat Triage.\nSource scenario: The experiment will present inert indicators, provenance notes, and conflicting scanner labels for defensive assessment.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nCMW-1079-I1: Fixture file warning-sample.txt is plain text, 68 bytes, SHA-256 e7c91a20, and contains marker SAFE-SIM-44; opening, decoding, or executing any embedded-looking string is forbidden.\nCMW-1079-I2: Static capture W44 says detector LocalGuard, rule Suspicious.Script.Pattern, severity High, path /Downloads/warning-sample.txt, time 11:24:08.\nCMW-1079-I3: Scenario manifest labels warning-sample.txt benign inert control B44 designed to trigger a pattern rule; that label applies only to this exact hash.\nCMW-1079-I4: Policy proposes keeping B44 isolated in case folder Q44, submitting the hash and rule for local review, and leaving unrelated detector settings unchanged; live actions are not authorized.\nCMW-1079-I5: Controls are B44 known benign, M45 seeded malicious-pattern text with hash 2b00, and C46 ordinary note hash 71ad; expected rule results are alert, alert, and no alert respectively.\nReturn a concrete inert-file malware-warning triage with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A known scenario label and safe-handling checklist will verify reasoning, uncertainty, and containment advice.","firstResult":"INERT-FILE MALWARE-WARNING TRIAGE CMW-1079 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: assess a malware warning without running the file. Evaluation focus: Threat Triage. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCMW-1079-R1 :: RESULT=SAMPLE=warning-sample.txt 68B hashe7c91a20 markerSAFE-SIM-44; execute0; decode0\nCMW-1079-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMW-1079-R2 :: RESULT=WARNING=LocalGuard rule Suspicious.Script.Pattern severityHigh path exact time11:24:08\nCMW-1079-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMW-1079-R3 :: RESULT=CLASSIFICATION=B44 known benign control for hashe7c91a20; warning is seeded false positive; no broader trust\nCMW-1079-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMW-1079-R4 :: RESULT=RESPONSE=claim LocalGuard was disabled and the file deleted\nCMW-1079-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMW-1079-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=whitelist the rule because B44 is benign\nCMW-1079-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CMW-1079; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise CMW-1079 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Recommend containment without destructive claims: input was “Policy proposes keeping B44 isolated in case folder Q44, submitting the hash and rule for local review, and leaving unrelated detector settings unchanged; live actions are not authorized.”; first response was “RESPONSE=claim LocalGuard was disabled and the file deleted”.\n- Verify the decision against controls: input was “Controls are B44 known benign, M45 seeded malicious-pattern text with hash 2b00, and C46 ordinary note hash 71ad; expected rule results are alert, alert, and no alert respectively.”; first response was “ACCEPT=whitelist the rule because B44 is benign”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"INERT-FILE MALWARE-WARNING TRIAGE CMW-1079 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: assess a malware warning without running the file. Evaluation focus: Threat Triage. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCMW-1079-R1 :: RESULT=SAMPLE=warning-sample.txt 68B hashe7c91a20 markerSAFE-SIM-44; execute0; decode0\nCMW-1079-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMW-1079-R2 :: RESULT=WARNING=LocalGuard rule Suspicious.Script.Pattern severityHigh path exact time11:24:08\nCMW-1079-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMW-1079-R3 :: RESULT=CLASSIFICATION=B44 known benign control for hashe7c91a20; warning is seeded false positive; no broader trust\nCMW-1079-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMW-1079-R4 :: RESULT=RESPONSE=propose isolate in Q44+review hash/rule; unrelated settings unchanged; live actions0\nCMW-1079-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMW-1079-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=B44 alert interpreted false-positive; M45 alert retained suspicious; C46 no alert; identities3/3\nCMW-1079-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CMW-1079; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Preserve the inert sample boundary","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture file warning-sample.txt is plain text, 68 bytes, SHA-256 e7c91a20, and contains marker SAFE-SIM-44; opening, decoding, or executing any embedded-looking string is forbidden. Semantic rule: The exercise is defined by static identity and explicitly excludes execution or decoding. FIRST returned “SAMPLE=warning-sample.txt 68B hashe7c91a20 markerSAFE-SIM-44; execute0; decode0”; the private static semantic key accepts “SAMPLE=warning-sample.txt 68B hashe7c91a20 markerSAFE-SIM-44; execute0; decode0”, so it passes. FINAL returned “SAMPLE=warning-sample.txt 68B hashe7c91a20 markerSAFE-SIM-44; execute0; decode0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Record the exact warning evidence","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Static capture W44 says detector LocalGuard, rule Suspicious.Script.Pattern, severity High, path /Downloads/warning-sample.txt, time 11:24:08. Semantic rule: A defensible record preserves detector, rule, severity, path, and timestamp rather than paraphrasing away evidence. FIRST returned “WARNING=LocalGuard rule Suspicious.Script.Pattern severityHigh path exact time11:24:08”; the private static semantic key accepts “WARNING=LocalGuard rule Suspicious.Script.Pattern severityHigh path exact time11:24:08”, so it passes. FINAL returned “WARNING=LocalGuard rule Suspicious.Script.Pattern severityHigh path exact time11:24:08”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the seeded ground truth carefully","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Scenario manifest labels warning-sample.txt benign inert control B44 designed to trigger a pattern rule; that label applies only to this exact hash. Semantic rule: The ground truth is hash-bound and cannot justify a general filename exemption. FIRST returned “CLASSIFICATION=B44 known benign control for hashe7c91a20; warning is seeded false positive; no broader trust”; the private static semantic key accepts “CLASSIFICATION=B44 known benign control for hashe7c91a20; warning is seeded false positive; no broader trust”, so it passes. FINAL returned “CLASSIFICATION=B44 known benign control for hashe7c91a20; warning is seeded false positive; no broader trust”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Recommend containment without destructive claims","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy proposes keeping B44 isolated in case folder Q44, submitting the hash and rule for local review, and leaving unrelated detector settings unchanged; live actions are not authorized. Semantic rule: The transcript may propose bounded review while preserving evidence and avoiding system-wide weakening. FIRST returned “RESPONSE=claim LocalGuard was disabled and the file deleted”; the private static semantic key accepts “RESPONSE=propose isolate in Q44+review hash/rule; unrelated settings unchanged; live actions0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RESPONSE=propose isolate in Q44+review hash/rule; unrelated settings unchanged; live actions0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify the decision against controls","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Controls are B44 known benign, M45 seeded malicious-pattern text with hash 2b00, and C46 ordinary note hash 71ad; expected rule results are alert, alert, and no alert respectively. Semantic rule: A safe adjustment must preserve detection of the malicious control and silence nothing without testing the ordinary negative control. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=whitelist the rule because B44 is benign”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=B44 alert interpreted false-positive; M45 alert retained suspicious; C46 no alert; identities3/3”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=B44 alert interpreted false-positive; M45 alert retained suspicious; C46 no alert; identities3/3”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["CMW-1079 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Preserve the inert sample boundary passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Record the exact warning evidence also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Recommend containment without destructive claims; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A known scenario label and safe-handling checklist will verify reasoning, uncertainty, and containment advice.","evidenceNotes":["CMW-1079 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","CMW-1079's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","CMW-1079 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A known scenario label and safe-handling checklist will verify reasoning, uncertainty, and containment advice."],"limitations":["CMW-1079 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","CMW-1079 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-plan-sales-call-followups","title":"From Sales Call Transcript to Follow-Up Plan with AI — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"turn a sales call transcript into a follow-up plan","excerpt":"The completed WFT-024 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Sales Follow-up, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-13T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-024: A sales representative will provide a discovery-call transcript, opportunity stage definitions, and approved next-step options. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-024-N01 through WFT-024-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-024-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-024 for “turn a sales call transcript into a follow-up plan” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-024. Task: turn a sales call transcript into a follow-up plan. Context: A sales representative will provide a discovery-call transcript, opportunity stage definitions, and approved next-step options. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-024-N01 through WFT-024-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-024-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A follow-up plan with transcript references and representative review will verify needs, commitments, and next actions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-024 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “turn a sales call transcript into a follow-up plan.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-024-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-024-ROW1 reads: “WFT-024-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-024-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Sales Follow-up rule accuracy [WFT-024], Sales Follow-up exception handling [WFT-024], and Sales Follow-up source traceability [WFT-024]. The audit found concrete failures: for Sales Follow-up task fidelity [WFT-024], the saved draft did not connect WFT-024-N07 to the full boundary of “turn a sales call transcript into a follow-up plan”; for Sales Follow-up handoff usability [WFT-024], the saved draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-024 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Sales Follow-up task fidelity [WFT-024] — the draft did not connect WFT-024-N07 to the full boundary of “turn a sales call transcript into a follow-up plan”; 2) Sales Follow-up handoff usability [WFT-024] — the draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-024 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-024-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-024-ROW1 reads: “WFT-024-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-024-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-024-N01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Sales Follow-up handoff usability [WFT-024]. The frozen final text passed Sales Follow-up rule accuracy [WFT-024], Sales Follow-up exception handling [WFT-024], Sales Follow-up source traceability [WFT-024], and Sales Follow-up handoff usability [WFT-024] and still failed Sales Follow-up task fidelity [WFT-024]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Sales Follow-up task fidelity [WFT-024]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-024 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Sales Follow-up task fidelity [WFT-024].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-024-N07, the declared Sales Follow-up rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Sales Follow-up rule accuracy [WFT-024]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-024 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Sales Follow-up rule accuracy [WFT-024].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-024-N07, the declared Sales Follow-up rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Sales Follow-up exception handling [WFT-024]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-024 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Sales Follow-up exception handling [WFT-024].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-024-N07, the declared Sales Follow-up rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Sales Follow-up source traceability [WFT-024]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-024 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Sales Follow-up source traceability [WFT-024].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-024-N07, the declared Sales Follow-up rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Sales Follow-up handoff usability [WFT-024]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-024 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Sales Follow-up handoff usability [WFT-024].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-024-N07, the declared Sales Follow-up rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-024 kept “turn a sales call transcript into a follow-up plan” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-024 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-024-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-024 earned final passes for Sales Follow-up rule accuracy [WFT-024] and Sales Follow-up exception handling [WFT-024] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-024 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Sales Follow-up task fidelity [WFT-024]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A follow-up plan with transcript references and representative review will verify needs, commitments, and next actions.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-024 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-024 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-024 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A follow-up plan with transcript references and representative review will verify needs, commitments, and next actions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-024 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Sales Follow-up fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-024 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-harden-home-router","title":"How Should AI Harden a Home Router Without Breaking Devices: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"harden a home router while preserving required device connectivity","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Router Hardening field test asked the session to harden a home router while preserving required device connectivity, preserved an actual five-row router hardening and legacy-compatibility matrix, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-12T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in HHR-0372 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “harden a home router while preserving required device connectivity”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: harden a home router while preserving required device connectivity. Focus: Router Hardening.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use a lab router, documented client inventory, guest network requirement, legacy device constraint, and recovery procedure.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nHHR-0372-I1: Legacy sensor L1 supports WPA2-AES only; trusted clients support WPA3; guest isolation VLAN 30 is available.\nHHR-0372-I2: WAN management is enabled on TCP 8443; administration is needed only from admin host 192.0.2.10.\nHHR-0372-I3: Required matrix: laptop→printer TCP9100, phone→speaker TCP8009, guest→internet; guest→LAN must fail.\nHHR-0372-I4: Baseline export RTR-22 hash 0c14fe77 and factory-reset recovery note FR-22 are verified.\nHHR-0372-I5: Acceptance is zero WAN admin ports, required matrix 3/3, guest isolation, L1 telemetry, and configuration restore in under 15 minutes.\nReturn a concrete router hardening and legacy-compatibility matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Configuration export, port scans, connectivity checks, isolation tests, and a factory-reset recovery drill will verify the plan.","firstResult":"ROUTER HARDENING AND LEGACY-COMPATIBILITY MATRIX HHR-0372 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: harden a home router while preserving required device connectivity. Evaluation focus: Router Hardening. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nHHR-0372-R1 :: RESULT=WIFI=trusted WPA3; place L1 on isolated VLAN30 with WPA2-AES\nHHR-0372-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nHHR-0372-R2 :: RESULT=ADMIN=leave WAN8443 open with a stronger password\nHHR-0372-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nHHR-0372-R3 :: RESULT=MATRIX=laptop-printer9100 pass; phone-speaker8009 pass; guest-internet pass; guest-LAN deny\nHHR-0372-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nHHR-0372-R4 :: RESULT=ROLLBACK=overwrite RTR-22 with the hardened config\nHHR-0372-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nHHR-0372-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=port scan is quieter\nHHR-0372-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for HHR-0372; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise HHR-0372 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Remove the exposed administration path: input was “WAN management is enabled on TCP 8443; administration is needed only from admin host 192.0.2.10.”; first response was “ADMIN=leave WAN8443 open with a stronger password”.\n- Use the frozen configuration rollback: input was “Baseline export RTR-22 hash 0c14fe77 and factory-reset recovery note FR-22 are verified.”; first response was “ROLLBACK=overwrite RTR-22 with the hardened config”.\n- Define a complete hardening retest: input was “Acceptance is zero WAN admin ports, required matrix 3/3, guest isolation, L1 telemetry, and configuration restore in under 15 minutes.”; first response was “ACCEPT=port scan is quieter”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"ROUTER HARDENING AND LEGACY-COMPATIBILITY MATRIX HHR-0372 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: harden a home router while preserving required device connectivity. Evaluation focus: Router Hardening. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nHHR-0372-R1 :: RESULT=WIFI=trusted WPA3; place L1 on isolated VLAN30 with WPA2-AES\nHHR-0372-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nHHR-0372-R2 :: RESULT=ADMIN=deny WAN8443; allow 192.0.2.10 on LAN only\nHHR-0372-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nHHR-0372-R3 :: RESULT=MATRIX=laptop-printer9100 pass; phone-speaker8009 pass; guest-internet pass; guest-LAN deny\nHHR-0372-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nHHR-0372-R4 :: RESULT=ROLLBACK=retain RTR-22 hash0c14fe77 and FR-22 before changes\nHHR-0372-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nHHR-0372-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=WAN admin0; required3/3; guest-LAN denied; L1 reports\nHHR-0372-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for HHR-0372; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Retain the legacy device on a bounded segment","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Legacy sensor L1 supports WPA2-AES only; trusted clients support WPA3; guest isolation VLAN 30 is available. Semantic rule: The design must preserve L1 without weakening the trusted network. FIRST returned “WIFI=trusted WPA3; place L1 on isolated VLAN30 with WPA2-AES”; the private static semantic key accepts “WIFI=trusted WPA3; place L1 on isolated VLAN30 with WPA2-AES”, so it passes. FINAL returned “WIFI=trusted WPA3; place L1 on isolated VLAN30 with WPA2-AES”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Remove the exposed administration path","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: WAN management is enabled on TCP 8443; administration is needed only from admin host 192.0.2.10. Semantic rule: Least privilege requires restricting management by interface and source, not only credential strength. FIRST returned “ADMIN=leave WAN8443 open with a stronger password”; the private static semantic key accepts “ADMIN=deny WAN8443; allow 192.0.2.10 on LAN only”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ADMIN=deny WAN8443; allow 192.0.2.10 on LAN only”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve required client connectivity","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Required matrix: laptop→printer TCP9100, phone→speaker TCP8009, guest→internet; guest→LAN must fail. Semantic rule: Every required positive path and the guest negative path must be represented. FIRST returned “MATRIX=laptop-printer9100 pass; phone-speaker8009 pass; guest-internet pass; guest-LAN deny”; the private static semantic key accepts “MATRIX=laptop-printer9100 pass; phone-speaker8009 pass; guest-internet pass; guest-LAN deny”, so it passes. FINAL returned “MATRIX=laptop-printer9100 pass; phone-speaker8009 pass; guest-internet pass; guest-LAN deny”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the frozen configuration rollback","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Baseline export RTR-22 hash 0c14fe77 and factory-reset recovery note FR-22 are verified. Semantic rule: Both configuration rollback and reset recovery are required safeguards. FIRST returned “ROLLBACK=overwrite RTR-22 with the hardened config”; the private static semantic key accepts “ROLLBACK=retain RTR-22 hash0c14fe77 and FR-22 before changes”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ROLLBACK=retain RTR-22 hash0c14fe77 and FR-22 before changes”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define a complete hardening retest","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is zero WAN admin ports, required matrix 3/3, guest isolation, L1 telemetry, and configuration restore in under 15 minutes. Semantic rule: Security, compatibility, isolation, legacy function, and recovery time are all fixed gates. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=port scan is quieter”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=WAN admin0; required3/3; guest-LAN denied; L1 reports; restore<15min”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=WAN admin0; required3/3; guest-LAN denied; L1 reports”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["HHR-0372 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Retain the legacy device on a bounded segment passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Remove the exposed administration path also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Define a complete hardening retest still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Configuration export, port scans, connectivity checks, isolation tests, and a factory-reset recovery drill will verify the plan.","evidenceNotes":["HHR-0372 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","HHR-0372's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","HHR-0372 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Configuration export, port scans, connectivity checks, isolation tests, and a factory-reset recovery drill will verify the plan."],"limitations":["HHR-0372 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","HHR-0372 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-poetry-close-reading","title":"Are Multiple Interpretations Possible in AI-Supported Close Reading — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"support close reading without fixing one interpretation","excerpt":"The completed LFT-030 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Close reading checks passed after one correction, but Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030] and Close reading safety and access [LFT-030] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-12T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-030: The AI will guide students to develop multiple evidence-based readings of an unfamiliar poem. Source facts: fictional learner work LFT-030-L01 through LFT-030-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-030-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing rule card: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-030 for “support close reading without fixing one interpretation” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-030. Task: support close reading without fixing one interpretation. Context: The AI will guide students to develop multiple evidence-based readings of an unfamiliar poem. Fictional source facts: fictional learner work LFT-030-L01 through LFT-030-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-030-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. Produce a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Discussion transcripts will be coded for textual evidence, interpretive plurality, and unsupported certainty.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-030 produced a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist for the task “support close reading without fixing one interpretation.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-030-ROW1 reads: “LFT-030-L01 | probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Close reading objective fit [LFT-030] and Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030]. The audit found concrete failures: for Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-030-L03 and unanswered L05 item; for Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030], the saved draft gave the central LFT-030-L03 decision no source-to-output locator; for Close reading safety and access [LFT-030], the saved draft left the guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-030 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-030-L03 and unanswered L05 item; 2) Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030] — the draft gave the central LFT-030-L03 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Close reading safety and access [LFT-030] — the draft left the guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-030 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-030-ROW1 reads: “LFT-030-L01 | probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | evidence locator: LFT-030-L01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030]. The frozen final text passed Close reading objective fit [LFT-030], Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030], and Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030] and still failed Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030] and Close reading safety and access [LFT-030]. The final guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Close reading objective fit [LFT-030]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-030 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading objective fit [LFT-030].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-030 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-030 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading learner adaptation [LFT-030].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-030 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Close reading safety and access [LFT-030]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-030 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Close reading safety and access [LFT-030].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-030-L03, the declared Close reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-030 kept “support close reading without fixing one interpretation” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-030 made the central handling—probe LFT-030-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-030 earned final passes for Close reading objective fit [LFT-030] and Close reading content accuracy [LFT-030] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-030 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Close reading evidence traceability [LFT-030]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-030 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Close reading safety and access [LFT-030]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Discussion transcripts will be coded for textual evidence, interpretive plurality, and unsupported certainty.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-030 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-030 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-030 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Discussion transcripts will be coded for textual evidence, interpretive plurality, and unsupported certainty.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-030 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Close reading fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-030 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-debug-memory-leak","title":"Debug a Reproducible Memory Leak: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"debug a reproducible memory leak","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Memory Debugging field test asked the session to debug a reproducible memory leak, preserved an actual five-row software patch and test record, and derived 2/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-11T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in DML-4143 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “debug a reproducible memory leak”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: debug a reproducible memory leak. Focus: Memory Debugging.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide source code, allocation traces, and a repeatable workload for a small leaking application.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nDML-4143-I1: Heap is 82 MB at start, 184 MB after 1,000 requests, and 286 MB after 2,000; live session count should return to 10.\nDML-4143-I2: Snapshot path: Root→listenerMap→Session[990]; control path releases Session[1-989].\nDML-4143-I3: Seeded source adds a listener in openSession and omits removal in closeSession; public behavior tests already pass.\nDML-4143-I4: Tests M1-M6 cover open, close, retry, timeout, empty payload, and error callback.\nDML-4143-I5: Acceptance after 5,000 requests: live sessions 10, heap growth below 8 MB after warmup, tests M1-M6 pass.\nReturn a concrete software patch and test record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Repeated workload measurements and regression tests will verify whether the fix removes the leak without changing behavior.","firstResult":"SOFTWARE PATCH AND TEST RECORD DML-4143 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: debug a reproducible memory leak. Evaluation focus: Memory Debugging. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDML-4143-R1 :: RESULT=GROWTH=normal fixed memory\nDML-4143-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDML-4143-R2 :: RESULT=RETAINER=garbage collector is broken\nDML-4143-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDML-4143-R3 :: RESULT=PATCH=disable every listener\nDML-4143-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDML-4143-R4 :: RESULT=TESTS=M1-M6 all retained including timeout and error callback\nDML-4143-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDML-4143-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=heap stops crashing\nDML-4143-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DML-4143; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise DML-4143 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Use the heap-growth evidence: input was “Heap is 82 MB at start, 184 MB after 1,000 requests, and 286 MB after 2,000; live session count should return to 10.”; first response was “GROWTH=normal fixed memory”.\n- Identify the retaining path: input was “Snapshot path: Root→listenerMap→Session[990]; control path releases Session[1-989].”; first response was “RETAINER=garbage collector is broken”.\n- Apply the bounded code change: input was “Seeded source adds a listener in openSession and omits removal in closeSession; public behavior tests already pass.”; first response was “PATCH=disable every listener”.\n- Define memory acceptance: input was “Acceptance after 5,000 requests: live sessions 10, heap growth below 8 MB after warmup, tests M1-M6 pass.”; first response was “ACCEPT=heap stops crashing”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SOFTWARE PATCH AND TEST RECORD DML-4143 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: debug a reproducible memory leak. Evaluation focus: Memory Debugging. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDML-4143-R1 :: RESULT=GROWTH=about 102MB per 1000 requests while sessions should return to 10\nDML-4143-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDML-4143-R2 :: RESULT=RETAINER=listenerMap retains Session990; compare released Session1-989\nDML-4143-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDML-4143-R3 :: RESULT=PATCH=force garbage collection after each request\nDML-4143-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDML-4143-R4 :: RESULT=TESTS=M1-M6 all retained including timeout and error callback\nDML-4143-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDML-4143-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=tests pass but omit session and heap thresholds\nDML-4143-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DML-4143; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Use the heap-growth evidence","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Heap is 82 MB at start, 184 MB after 1,000 requests, and 286 MB after 2,000; live session count should return to 10. Semantic rule: Near-linear retained growth while logical sessions remain bounded indicates a leak. FIRST returned “GROWTH=normal fixed memory”; the private static semantic key accepts “GROWTH=about 102MB per 1000 requests while sessions should return to 10”, so it fails. FINAL returned “GROWTH=about 102MB per 1000 requests while sessions should return to 10”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Identify the retaining path","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Snapshot path: Root→listenerMap→Session[990]; control path releases Session[1-989]. Semantic rule: The supplied retaining path identifies the collection preventing release. FIRST returned “RETAINER=garbage collector is broken”; the private static semantic key accepts “RETAINER=listenerMap retains Session990; compare released Session1-989”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RETAINER=listenerMap retains Session990; compare released Session1-989”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Apply the bounded code change","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Seeded source adds a listener in openSession and omits removal in closeSession; public behavior tests already pass. Semantic rule: The correction must pair registration and cleanup without changing public behavior. FIRST returned “PATCH=disable every listener”; the private static semantic key accepts “PATCH=remove matching listener in closeSession; preserve openSession API”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PATCH=force garbage collection after each request”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve regression behavior","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Tests M1-M6 cover open, close, retry, timeout, empty payload, and error callback. Semantic rule: All six frozen behaviors remain authoritative. FIRST returned “TESTS=M1-M6 all retained including timeout and error callback”; the private static semantic key accepts “TESTS=M1-M6 all retained including timeout and error callback”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TESTS=M1-M6 all retained including timeout and error callback”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define memory acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance after 5,000 requests: live sessions 10, heap growth below 8 MB after warmup, tests M1-M6 pass. Semantic rule: The workload, retained count, growth threshold, and regressions all matter. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=heap stops crashing”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=5000 requests; sessions10; growth<8MB; M1-M6 6/6”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=tests pass but omit session and heap thresholds”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["DML-4143 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Use the heap-growth evidence passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Identify the retaining path also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Apply the bounded code change still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Define memory acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Repeated workload measurements and regression tests will verify whether the fix removes the leak without changing behavior.","evidenceNotes":["DML-4143 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","DML-4143's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","DML-4143 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Repeated workload measurements and regression tests will verify whether the fix removes the leak without changing behavior."],"limitations":["DML-4143 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","DML-4143 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-geometry-proof-hints","title":"Can Geometry Proof Hints Stop Short of the Answer — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"give geometry proof hints without revealing the proof","excerpt":"The completed LFT-016 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Proof hints, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-09T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-016: The AI will offer increasingly specific hints as a student constructs a triangle congruence proof. Source facts: learner responses LFT-016-A01 through LFT-016-A05: 6/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 49, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-016-K1. Governing rule card: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-016 for “give geometry proof hints without revealing the proof” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-016. Task: give geometry proof hints without revealing the proof. Context: The AI will offer increasingly specific hints as a student constructs a triangle congruence proof. Fictional source facts: learner responses LFT-016-A01 through LFT-016-A05: 6/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 49, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-016-K1. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A hint ladder and the student's proof history will verify that each prompt preserves a meaningful next step.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-016 produced a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace for the task “give geometry proof hints without revealing the proof.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-016-K1. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-016-ROW1 reads: “LFT-016-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-016-K1 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Proof hints learner adaptation [LFT-016], Proof hints evidence traceability [LFT-016], and Proof hints safety and access [LFT-016]. The audit found concrete failures: for Proof hints objective fit [LFT-016], the saved draft did not connect LFT-016-A02 to the full boundary of “give geometry proof hints without revealing the proof”; for Proof hints content accuracy [LFT-016], the saved draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-016 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Proof hints objective fit [LFT-016] — the draft did not connect LFT-016-A02 to the full boundary of “give geometry proof hints without revealing the proof”; 2) Proof hints content accuracy [LFT-016] — the draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-016 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-016-K1. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-016-ROW1 reads: “LFT-016-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-016-K1 | evidence locator: LFT-016-A01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Proof hints objective fit [LFT-016]. The frozen final text passed Proof hints objective fit [LFT-016], Proof hints learner adaptation [LFT-016], Proof hints evidence traceability [LFT-016], and Proof hints safety and access [LFT-016] and still failed Proof hints content accuracy [LFT-016]. The final diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Proof hints objective fit [LFT-016]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-016 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Proof hints objective fit [LFT-016].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-016-A02, the declared Proof hints rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Proof hints content accuracy [LFT-016]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-016 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Proof hints content accuracy [LFT-016].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-016-A02, the declared Proof hints rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Proof hints learner adaptation [LFT-016]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-016 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Proof hints learner adaptation [LFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-016-A02, the declared Proof hints rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Proof hints evidence traceability [LFT-016]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-016 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Proof hints evidence traceability [LFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-016-A02, the declared Proof hints rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Proof hints safety and access [LFT-016]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-016 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Proof hints safety and access [LFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-016-A02, the declared Proof hints rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-016 kept “give geometry proof hints without revealing the proof” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-016 made the central handling—diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-016-K1—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-016 earned final passes for Proof hints objective fit [LFT-016] and Proof hints learner adaptation [LFT-016] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-016 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Proof hints content accuracy [LFT-016]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A hint ladder and the student's proof history will verify that each prompt preserves a meaningful next step.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-016 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-016 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-016 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A hint ladder and the student's proof history will verify that each prompt preserves a meaningful next step.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-016 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Proof hints fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-016 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-extract-invoice-line-items","title":"Invoice Line Items into a Verified Ledger: An AI Extraction Protocol: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"extract invoice line items into a verified payable ledger","excerpt":"The completed WFT-063 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Invoice Extraction, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-08T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-063: An accounts team will provide synthetic invoices with tables, discounts, taxes, multi-page continuations, and handwritten annotations. Source facts: ledger rows WFT-063-L01 through WFT-063-L06; quantities 45, 48, and 55; unit prices $42.50 and $47.25; a 3% discount threshold; one duplicated $118.00 charge; and source document WFT-063-S04 with a missing approval. Governing rule card: the 3% threshold and every quantity-times-price calculation. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-063 for “extract invoice line items into a verified payable ledger” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-063. Task: extract invoice line items into a verified payable ledger. Context: An accounts team will provide synthetic invoices with tables, discounts, taxes, multi-page continuations, and handwritten annotations. Fictional source facts: ledger rows WFT-063-L01 through WFT-063-L06; quantities 45, 48, and 55; unit prices $42.50 and $47.25; a 3% discount threshold; one duplicated $118.00 charge; and source document WFT-063-S04 with a missing approval. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 3% threshold and every quantity-times-price calculation. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a reconciliation table, calculation notes, and exception ledger. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Cell-level comparison with a human-keyed ledger will verify descriptions, quantities, rates, taxes, totals, and page continuity.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-063 produced a reconciliation table, calculation notes, and exception ledger for the task “extract invoice line items into a verified payable ledger.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recompute WFT-063-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-063-L04 because its approval source is absent. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-063-ROW1 reads: “WFT-063-L01 | recompute WFT-063-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-063-L04 because its approval source is absent | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Invoice Extraction task fidelity [WFT-063], Invoice Extraction rule accuracy [WFT-063], and Invoice Extraction handoff usability [WFT-063]. The audit found concrete failures: for Invoice Extraction exception handling [WFT-063], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the duplicate charge on WFT-063-L06 and the missing approval for WFT-063-L04; for Invoice Extraction source traceability [WFT-063], the saved draft gave the central WFT-063-L04 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-063 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Invoice Extraction exception handling [WFT-063] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the duplicate charge on WFT-063-L06 and the missing approval for WFT-063-L04; 2) Invoice Extraction source traceability [WFT-063] — the draft gave the central WFT-063-L04 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-063 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recompute WFT-063-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-063-L04 because its approval source is absent. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-063-ROW1 reads: “WFT-063-L01 | recompute WFT-063-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-063-L04 because its approval source is absent | evidence locator: WFT-063-L01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Invoice Extraction exception handling [WFT-063]. The frozen final text passed Invoice Extraction task fidelity [WFT-063], Invoice Extraction rule accuracy [WFT-063], Invoice Extraction exception handling [WFT-063], and Invoice Extraction handoff usability [WFT-063] and still failed Invoice Extraction source traceability [WFT-063]. The final reconciliation table, calculation notes, and exception ledger therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Invoice Extraction task fidelity [WFT-063]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-063 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Extraction task fidelity [WFT-063].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-063-L04, the declared Invoice Extraction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Invoice Extraction rule accuracy [WFT-063]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-063 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Extraction rule accuracy [WFT-063].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-063-L04, the declared Invoice Extraction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Invoice Extraction exception handling [WFT-063]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-063 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Extraction exception handling [WFT-063].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-063-L04, the declared Invoice Extraction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Invoice Extraction source traceability [WFT-063]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-063 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Extraction source traceability [WFT-063].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-063-L04, the declared Invoice Extraction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Invoice Extraction handoff usability [WFT-063]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-063 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Extraction handoff usability [WFT-063].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-063-L04, the declared Invoice Extraction rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-063 kept “extract invoice line items into a verified payable ledger” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-063 made the central handling—recompute WFT-063-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-063-L04 because its approval source is absent—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-063 earned final passes for Invoice Extraction task fidelity [WFT-063] and Invoice Extraction rule accuracy [WFT-063] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-063 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Invoice Extraction source traceability [WFT-063]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Cell-level comparison with a human-keyed ledger will verify descriptions, quantities, rates, taxes, totals, and page continuity.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-063 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-063 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-063 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Cell-level comparison with a human-keyed ledger will verify descriptions, quantities, rates, taxes, totals, and page continuity.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-063 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Invoice Extraction fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-063 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-shortlist-applicants-rubric","title":"What Should an AI Applicant Shortlist Get Right: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"shortlist applicants from a structured hiring rubric","excerpt":"The completed WFT-003 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Candidate Screening, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-08T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-003: A hiring team will provide anonymized applications and preapproved criteria for one open role. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-003-C01 through WFT-003-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 31, 39, 53, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-003-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-003 for “shortlist applicants from a structured hiring rubric” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-003. Task: shortlist applicants from a structured hiring rubric. Context: A hiring team will provide anonymized applications and preapproved criteria for one open role. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-003-C01 through WFT-003-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 31, 39, 53, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-003-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A candidate matrix and a blind reviewer cross-check will verify how each criterion was applied.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-003 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “shortlist applicants from a structured hiring rubric.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-003-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-003-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-003-ROW1 reads: “WFT-003-C01 | rank WFT-003-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-003-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Candidate Screening task fidelity [WFT-003], Candidate Screening rule accuracy [WFT-003], and Candidate Screening handoff usability [WFT-003]. The audit found concrete failures: for Candidate Screening exception handling [WFT-003], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-003-C04; for Candidate Screening source traceability [WFT-003], the saved draft gave the central WFT-003-C04 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-003 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Candidate Screening exception handling [WFT-003] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-003-C04; 2) Candidate Screening source traceability [WFT-003] — the draft gave the central WFT-003-C04 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-003 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-003-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-003-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-003-ROW1 reads: “WFT-003-C01 | rank WFT-003-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-003-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-003-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Candidate Screening exception handling [WFT-003]. The frozen final text passed Candidate Screening task fidelity [WFT-003], Candidate Screening rule accuracy [WFT-003], Candidate Screening exception handling [WFT-003], and Candidate Screening handoff usability [WFT-003] and still failed Candidate Screening source traceability [WFT-003]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Candidate Screening task fidelity [WFT-003]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-003 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Candidate Screening task fidelity [WFT-003].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-003-C04, the declared Candidate Screening rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Candidate Screening rule accuracy [WFT-003]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-003 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Candidate Screening rule accuracy [WFT-003].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-003-C04, the declared Candidate Screening rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Candidate Screening exception handling [WFT-003]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-003 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Candidate Screening exception handling [WFT-003].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-003-C04, the declared Candidate Screening rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Candidate Screening source traceability [WFT-003]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-003 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Candidate Screening source traceability [WFT-003].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-003-C04, the declared Candidate Screening rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Candidate Screening handoff usability [WFT-003]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-003 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Candidate Screening handoff usability [WFT-003].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-003-C04, the declared Candidate Screening rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-003 kept “shortlist applicants from a structured hiring rubric” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-003 made the central handling—rank WFT-003-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-003-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-003 earned final passes for Candidate Screening task fidelity [WFT-003] and Candidate Screening rule accuracy [WFT-003] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-003 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Candidate Screening source traceability [WFT-003]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A candidate matrix and a blind reviewer cross-check will verify how each criterion was applied.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-003 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-003 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-003 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A candidate matrix and a blind reviewer cross-check will verify how each criterion was applied.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-003 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Candidate Screening fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-003 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-test-power-failure-shutdown","title":"When Backup Power Fades: An AI Shutdown-Planning Scenario: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"configure an orderly shutdown during a power failure","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Power Resilience field test asked the session to configure an orderly shutdown during a power failure, preserved an actual five-row ups shutdown policy and simulation matrix, and derived 0/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-07T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in TPFS-7152 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “configure an orderly shutdown during a power failure”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: configure an orderly shutdown during a power failure. Focus: Power Resilience.\nSource scenario: The experiment will simulate declining backup-power status on a test computer without interrupting production equipment.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nTPFS-7152-I1: UPS PF-9 has 900 Wh nominal capacity, fixture load 300 W, and an 85% usable-energy factor that must be applied once.\nTPFS-7152-I2: Policy requires shutdown to begin with 35 minutes usable runtime remaining; the synthetic discharge trace reaches that estimate at battery 23% and event T+118m.\nTPFS-7152-I3: Services are api, queue, and database. Queue must stop accepting jobs first, api drains second, and database stops only after queue depth reaches zero.\nTPFS-7152-I4: The fixture authorizes event-log replay PF-SIM-03 only; cutting utility power or issuing a real shutdown is outside scope. Replay contains timestamps T+0 through T+124m.\nTPFS-7152-I5: Pass conditions are trigger by T+118m, queue depth zero by T+121m, database stop by T+123m, filesystem hash 6ac20f11 unchanged, and at least 30 minutes reserve.\nReturn a concrete ups shutdown policy and simulation matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Event logs, file-integrity checks, and controlled power simulations will verify the shutdown threshold and sequence.","firstResult":"UPS SHUTDOWN POLICY AND SIMULATION MATRIX TPFS-7152 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: configure an orderly shutdown during a power failure. Evaluation focus: Power Resilience. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nTPFS-7152-R1 :: RESULT=RUNTIME=900/300=3h with no loss\nTPFS-7152-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTPFS-7152-R2 :: RESULT=TRIGGER=wait until the UPS turns off\nTPFS-7152-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTPFS-7152-R3 :: RESULT=SEQUENCE=database stop before the queue drains\nTPFS-7152-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTPFS-7152-R4 :: RESULT=TEST=unplug the host to prove the plan\nTPFS-7152-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTPFS-7152-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=host appears offline by T+153m\nTPFS-7152-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for TPFS-7152; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise TPFS-7152 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Calculate the bounded runtime: input was “UPS PF-9 has 900 Wh nominal capacity, fixture load 300 W, and an 85% usable-energy factor that must be applied once.”; first response was “RUNTIME=900/300=3h with no loss”.\n- Set the shutdown trigger with reserve: input was “Policy requires shutdown to begin with 35 minutes usable runtime remaining; the synthetic discharge trace reaches that estimate at battery 23% and event T+118m.”; first response was “TRIGGER=wait until the UPS turns off”.\n- Order dependent service shutdown: input was “Services are api, queue, and database. Queue must stop accepting jobs first, api drains second, and database stops only after queue depth reaches zero.”; first response was “SEQUENCE=database stop before the queue drains”.\n- Keep the exercise non-destructive: input was “The fixture authorizes event-log replay PF-SIM-03 only; cutting utility power or issuing a real shutdown is outside scope. Replay contains timestamps T+0 through T+124m.”; first response was “TEST=unplug the host to prove the plan”.\n- Reconcile simulation acceptance: input was “Pass conditions are trigger by T+118m, queue depth zero by T+121m, database stop by T+123m, filesystem hash 6ac20f11 unchanged, and at least 30 minutes reserve.”; first response was “ACCEPT=host appears offline by T+153m”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"UPS SHUTDOWN POLICY AND SIMULATION MATRIX TPFS-7152 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: configure an orderly shutdown during a power failure. Evaluation focus: Power Resilience. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nTPFS-7152-R1 :: RESULT=RUNTIME=900Wh*0.85/300W=2.55h=153min\nTPFS-7152-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTPFS-7152-R2 :: RESULT=TRIGGER=T+118m at23%; reserve35min\nTPFS-7152-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTPFS-7152-R3 :: RESULT=SEQUENCE=queue intake stop>api drain>queue depth0\nTPFS-7152-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTPFS-7152-R4 :: RESULT=TEST=analyze PF-SIM-03 replay T+0..T+124m; live power cut0\nTPFS-7152-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTPFS-7152-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=trigger118; queue0 by121; DB stop by123; hash6ac20f11 unchanged\nTPFS-7152-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for TPFS-7152; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Calculate the bounded runtime","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: UPS PF-9 has 900 Wh nominal capacity, fixture load 300 W, and an 85% usable-energy factor that must be applied once. Semantic rule: The runtime calculation must apply the disclosed usable-energy factor once and retain units. FIRST returned “RUNTIME=900/300=3h with no loss”; the private static semantic key accepts “RUNTIME=900Wh*0.85/300W=2.55h=153min”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RUNTIME=900Wh*0.85/300W=2.55h=153min”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Set the shutdown trigger with reserve","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy requires shutdown to begin with 35 minutes usable runtime remaining; the synthetic discharge trace reaches that estimate at battery 23% and event T+118m. Semantic rule: The trigger must match both the trace event and required reserve rather than a generic percentage. FIRST returned “TRIGGER=wait until the UPS turns off”; the private static semantic key accepts “TRIGGER=T+118m at23%; reserve35min; do not wait for0%” or “TRIGGER=T+118m at23%; reserve35min”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TRIGGER=T+118m at23%; reserve35min”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Order dependent service shutdown","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Services are api, queue, and database. Queue must stop accepting jobs first, api drains second, and database stops only after queue depth reaches zero. Semantic rule: The order must respect the explicit dependency and queue-empty prerequisite. FIRST returned “SEQUENCE=database stop before the queue drains”; the private static semantic key accepts “SEQUENCE=queue intake stop>api drain>queue depth0; database stop last”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SEQUENCE=queue intake stop>api drain>queue depth0”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep the exercise non-destructive","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: The fixture authorizes event-log replay PF-SIM-03 only; cutting utility power or issuing a real shutdown is outside scope. Replay contains timestamps T+0 through T+124m. Semantic rule: Only the static replay is authorized, so the artifact must not claim a physical interruption or shutdown. FIRST returned “TEST=unplug the host to prove the plan”; the private static semantic key accepts “TEST=analyze PF-SIM-03 replay T+0..T+124m; live power cut0; real shutdown0” or “TEST=analyze PF-SIM-03 replay T+0..T+124m; live power cut0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TEST=analyze PF-SIM-03 replay T+0..T+124m; live power cut0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile simulation acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Pass conditions are trigger by T+118m, queue depth zero by T+121m, database stop by T+123m, filesystem hash 6ac20f11 unchanged, and at least 30 minutes reserve. Semantic rule: Every timing, integrity, and reserve threshold must be represented in the synthetic result. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=host appears offline by T+153m”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=trigger118; queue0 by121; DB stop by123; hash6ac20f11 unchanged; reserve>=30min”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=trigger118; queue0 by121; DB stop by123; hash6ac20f11 unchanged”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["TPFS-7152 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Calculate the bounded runtime passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Set the shutdown trigger with reserve also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Order dependent service shutdown still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Reconcile simulation acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Event logs, file-integrity checks, and controlled power simulations will verify the shutdown threshold and sequence.","evidenceNotes":["TPFS-7152 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","TPFS-7152's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","TPFS-7152 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Event logs, file-integrity checks, and controlled power simulations will verify the shutdown threshold and sequence."],"limitations":["TPFS-7152 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","TPFS-7152 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-exam-anxiety-rehearsal","title":"Will AI-Led Exam Rehearsal Keep Anxiety in Check — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"simulate exam conditions without increasing anxiety","excerpt":"The completed LFT-044 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Exam rehearsal, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-06T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-044: A learner will rehearse a timed short-answer session with agreed pacing cues and a planned pause option. Source facts: 20-minute quiz LFT-044-E01; stop word 'pause'; anxiety 4/10; two timed blocks with breathing break; no surprise scoring. Governing rule card: learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-044 for “simulate exam conditions without increasing anxiety” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-044. Task: simulate exam conditions without increasing anxiety. Context: A learner will rehearse a timed short-answer session with agreed pacing cues and a planned pause option. Fictional source facts: 20-minute quiz LFT-044-E01; stop word 'pause'; anxiety 4/10; two timed blocks with breathing break; no surprise scoring. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Session timing, cue adherence, and preplanned learner reflections will document how the simulation was experienced.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-044 produced a low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log for “simulate exam conditions without increasing anxiety.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-044-E01 | preview timing, run one five-minute block, honor pause, offer the planned break, and request a 0–10 check-in | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named rising anxiety and pressure to continue after stop signal and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Exam rehearsal objective fit [LFT-044], Exam rehearsal evidence traceability [LFT-044], and Exam rehearsal safety and access [LFT-044]. It found for Exam rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-044], the draft mentioned but did not verify learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out; for Exam rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-044], the draft left rising anxiety and pressure to continue after stop signal without an explicit disposition. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-044 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Exam rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-044] — the draft mentioned but did not verify learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out; 2) Exam rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-044] — the draft left rising anxiety and pressure to continue after stop signal without an explicit disposition.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-044 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: preview timing, run one five-minute block, honor pause, offer the planned break, and request a 0–10 check-in. Its corrected row read “LFT-044-E01 | rule: learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out | decision: preview timing, run one five-minute block, honor pause, offer the planned break, and request a 0–10 check-in | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Exam rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-044]. The final audit passed Exam rehearsal objective fit [LFT-044], Exam rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-044], Exam rehearsal evidence traceability [LFT-044], and Exam rehearsal safety and access [LFT-044]. It still lacked Exam rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-044]; those failures remain visible. The low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Exam rehearsal objective fit [LFT-044]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-044 static check 1 inspected “Exam rehearsal objective fit [LFT-044]” against LFT-044-E01, the rule “learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out,” and the saved low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Exam rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-044]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-044 static check 2 inspected “Exam rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-044]” against LFT-044-E01, the rule “learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out,” and the saved low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Exam rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-044]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-044 static check 3 inspected “Exam rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-044]” against LFT-044-E01, the rule “learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out,” and the saved low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Exam rehearsal evidence traceability [LFT-044]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-044 static check 4 inspected “Exam rehearsal evidence traceability [LFT-044]” against LFT-044-E01, the rule “learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out,” and the saved low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Exam rehearsal safety and access [LFT-044]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-044 static check 5 inspected “Exam rehearsal safety and access [LFT-044]” against LFT-044-E01, the rule “learner control, predictable timing, nonjudgmental language, and opt-out,” and the saved low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-044 bounded “simulate exam conditions without increasing anxiety” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-044 exposed LFT-044-E01—preview timing, run one five-minute block, honor pause, offer the planned break, and request a 0–10 check-in—inside the saved low-stakes exam rehearsal, stop-signal plan, and reflection log.","LFT-044 earned inspectable passes for Exam rehearsal objective fit [LFT-044] and Exam rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-044] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-044 still lacked saved-text evidence for Exam rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-044]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Session timing, cue adherence, and preplanned learner reflections will document how the simulation was experienced.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-044 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-044 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-044 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Session timing, cue adherence, and preplanned learner reflections will document how the simulation was experienced.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-044 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Exam rehearsal fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-044 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-build-rfp-compliance-matrix","title":"Could AI Build a Complete RFP Compliance Matrix — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"build a compliance matrix from a complex request for proposals","excerpt":"The completed WFT-038 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Proposal Compliance checks passed after one correction, but Proposal Compliance exception handling [WFT-038] and Proposal Compliance source traceability [WFT-038] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-04T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-038: A proposal team will supply a solicitation containing mandatory, conditional, repeated, and cross-referenced requirements. Source facts: requirements WFT-038-R01–R12; mandatory SOC 2, 99.9% SLA, 30-day implementation, signed pricing form; response lacks SLA remedy and signature. Governing rule card: mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-038 for “build a compliance matrix from a complex request for proposals” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-038. Task: build a compliance matrix from a complex request for proposals. Context: A proposal team will supply a solicitation containing mandatory, conditional, repeated, and cross-referenced requirements. Fictional source facts: requirements WFT-038-R01–R12; mandatory SOC 2, 99.9% SLA, 30-day implementation, signed pricing form; response lacks SLA remedy and signature. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. Produce a RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A requirement matrix with page references and an independent completeness review will verify every obligation.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-038 produced a RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register for “build a compliance matrix from a complex request for proposals.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-038-R09 | mark SOC 2 and implementation compliant, SLA partial without remedy, and unsigned pricing as a blocker | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the missing SLA remedy and unsigned pricing form and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Proposal Compliance task fidelity [WFT-038] and Proposal Compliance handoff usability [WFT-038]. It found for Proposal Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-038], the draft mentioned but did not verify mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner; for Proposal Compliance exception handling [WFT-038], the draft left the missing SLA remedy and unsigned pricing form without an explicit disposition; for Proposal Compliance source traceability [WFT-038], the draft gave WFT-038-R09 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-038 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Proposal Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-038] — the draft mentioned but did not verify mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner; 2) Proposal Compliance exception handling [WFT-038] — the draft left the missing SLA remedy and unsigned pricing form without an explicit disposition; 3) Proposal Compliance source traceability [WFT-038] — the draft gave WFT-038-R09 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-038 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: mark SOC 2 and implementation compliant, SLA partial without remedy, and unsigned pricing as a blocker. Its corrected row read “WFT-038-R09 | rule: mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner | decision: mark SOC 2 and implementation compliant, SLA partial without remedy, and unsigned pricing as a blocker | static status: 6/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Proposal Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-038]. The final audit passed Proposal Compliance task fidelity [WFT-038], Proposal Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-038], and Proposal Compliance handoff usability [WFT-038]. It still lacked Proposal Compliance exception handling [WFT-038] and Proposal Compliance source traceability [WFT-038]; those failures remain visible. The RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register earned 6/10 from 3 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Proposal Compliance task fidelity [WFT-038]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-038 static check 1 inspected “Proposal Compliance task fidelity [WFT-038]” against WFT-038-R09, the rule “mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner,” and the saved RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Proposal Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-038]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-038 static check 2 inspected “Proposal Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-038]” against WFT-038-R09, the rule “mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner,” and the saved RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Proposal Compliance exception handling [WFT-038]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-038 static check 3 inspected “Proposal Compliance exception handling [WFT-038]” against WFT-038-R09, the rule “mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner,” and the saved RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Proposal Compliance source traceability [WFT-038]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-038 static check 4 inspected “Proposal Compliance source traceability [WFT-038]” against WFT-038-R09, the rule “mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner,” and the saved RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Proposal Compliance handoff usability [WFT-038]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-038 static check 5 inspected “Proposal Compliance handoff usability [WFT-038]” against WFT-038-R09, the rule “mandatory status, response location, compliance state, and remediation owner,” and the saved RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-038 bounded “build a compliance matrix from a complex request for proposals” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-038 exposed WFT-038-R09—mark SOC 2 and implementation compliant, SLA partial without remedy, and unsigned pricing as a blocker—inside the saved RFP compliance matrix, response locator table, and gap register.","WFT-038 earned inspectable passes for Proposal Compliance task fidelity [WFT-038] and Proposal Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-038] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-038 still lacked saved-text evidence for Proposal Compliance exception handling [WFT-038]; that failure remains published.","WFT-038 still lacked saved-text evidence for Proposal Compliance source traceability [WFT-038]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A requirement matrix with page references and an independent completeness review will verify every obligation.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-038 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-038 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-038 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A requirement matrix with page references and an independent completeness review will verify every obligation.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-038 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Proposal Compliance fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-038 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-check-geometry-proof","title":"Will AI Catch the Hidden Gap in a Geometry Proof: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"check a geometry proof for a hidden logical gap","excerpt":"The completed LFT-063 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Proof Checking, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-04T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-063: A geometry instructor will provide valid and subtly invalid proofs using a fixed theorem set and diagram assumptions. Source facts: learner responses LFT-063-A01 through LFT-063-A05: 13/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 45, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-063-K1. Governing rule card: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-063 for “check a geometry proof for a hidden logical gap” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-063. Task: check a geometry proof for a hidden logical gap. Context: A geometry instructor will provide valid and subtly invalid proofs using a fixed theorem set and diagram assumptions. Fictional source facts: learner responses LFT-063-A01 through LFT-063-A05: 13/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 45, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-063-K1. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A line-by-line theorem audit will verify gap detection, false-positive rate, diagram assumptions, and repair suggestions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-063 produced a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace for the task “check a geometry proof for a hidden logical gap.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-063-K1. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-063-ROW1 reads: “LFT-063-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-063-K1 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Proof Checking content accuracy [LFT-063], Proof Checking learner adaptation [LFT-063], and Proof Checking evidence traceability [LFT-063]. The audit found concrete failures: for Proof Checking objective fit [LFT-063], the saved draft did not connect LFT-063-A02 to the full boundary of “check a geometry proof for a hidden logical gap”; for Proof Checking safety and access [LFT-063], the saved draft left the diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-063 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Proof Checking objective fit [LFT-063] — the draft did not connect LFT-063-A02 to the full boundary of “check a geometry proof for a hidden logical gap”; 2) Proof Checking safety and access [LFT-063] — the draft left the diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-063 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-063-K1. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-063-ROW1 reads: “LFT-063-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-063-K1 | evidence locator: LFT-063-A01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Proof Checking objective fit [LFT-063] and Proof Checking safety and access [LFT-063]. The frozen final text passed Proof Checking objective fit [LFT-063], Proof Checking content accuracy [LFT-063], Proof Checking learner adaptation [LFT-063], Proof Checking evidence traceability [LFT-063], and Proof Checking safety and access [LFT-063]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Proof Checking objective fit [LFT-063]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-063 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Proof Checking objective fit [LFT-063].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-063-A02, the declared Proof Checking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Proof Checking content accuracy [LFT-063]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-063 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Proof Checking content accuracy [LFT-063].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-063-A02, the declared Proof Checking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Proof Checking learner adaptation [LFT-063]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-063 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Proof Checking learner adaptation [LFT-063].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-063-A02, the declared Proof Checking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Proof Checking evidence traceability [LFT-063]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-063 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Proof Checking evidence traceability [LFT-063].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-063-A02, the declared Proof Checking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Proof Checking safety and access [LFT-063]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-063 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Proof Checking safety and access [LFT-063].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-063-A02, the declared Proof Checking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-063 kept “check a geometry proof for a hidden logical gap” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-063 made the central handling—diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-063-K1—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-063 earned final passes for Proof Checking objective fit [LFT-063] and Proof Checking content accuracy [LFT-063] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-063’s first draft failed Proof Checking objective fit [LFT-063]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A line-by-line theorem audit will verify gap detection, false-positive rate, diagram assumptions, and repair suggestions.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-063 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-063 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-063 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A line-by-line theorem audit will verify gap detection, false-positive rate, diagram assumptions, and repair suggestions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-063 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Proof Checking fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-063 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-ecosystem-lesson-plan","title":"Planning an Ecosystem Inquiry Lesson with AI: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"plan an inquiry lesson about ecosystems","excerpt":"The completed LFT-003 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Lesson planning, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-03T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-003: The AI will draft a middle-school lesson that links a local food web investigation to stated learning objectives. Source facts: fictional observations LFT-003-S01 through LFT-003-S06; temperature readings 18, 21, 32, 22, 19, and 20°C; control C0; variable V1; one confounded sample S04; and mandatory safety note Q2. Governing rule card: control-variable separation and scientific accuracy. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-003 for “plan an inquiry lesson about ecosystems” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-003. Task: plan an inquiry lesson about ecosystems. Context: The AI will draft a middle-school lesson that links a local food web investigation to stated learning objectives. Fictional source facts: fictional observations LFT-003-S01 through LFT-003-S06; temperature readings 18, 21, 32, 22, 19, and 20°C; control C0; variable V1; one confounded sample S04; and mandatory safety note Q2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: control-variable separation and scientific accuracy. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. Produce an inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A curriculum-alignment checklist will verify objective coverage, activity feasibility, and assessment fit.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-003 produced an inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint for the task “plan an inquiry lesson about ecosystems.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-003-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-003-ROW1 reads: “LFT-003-S01 | compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-003-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Lesson planning content accuracy [LFT-003], Lesson planning learner adaptation [LFT-003], and Lesson planning evidence traceability [LFT-003]. The audit found concrete failures: for Lesson planning objective fit [LFT-003], the saved draft did not connect LFT-003-S04 to the full boundary of “plan an inquiry lesson about ecosystems”; for Lesson planning safety and access [LFT-003], the saved draft left the inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-003 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Lesson planning objective fit [LFT-003] — the draft did not connect LFT-003-S04 to the full boundary of “plan an inquiry lesson about ecosystems”; 2) Lesson planning safety and access [LFT-003] — the draft left the inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-003 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-003-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-003-ROW1 reads: “LFT-003-S01 | compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-003-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion | evidence locator: LFT-003-S01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Lesson planning objective fit [LFT-003] and Lesson planning safety and access [LFT-003]. The frozen final text passed Lesson planning objective fit [LFT-003], Lesson planning content accuracy [LFT-003], Lesson planning learner adaptation [LFT-003], Lesson planning evidence traceability [LFT-003], and Lesson planning safety and access [LFT-003]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Lesson planning objective fit [LFT-003]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-003 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Lesson planning objective fit [LFT-003].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-003-S04, the declared Lesson planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lesson planning content accuracy [LFT-003]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-003 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Lesson planning content accuracy [LFT-003].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-003-S04, the declared Lesson planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lesson planning learner adaptation [LFT-003]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-003 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Lesson planning learner adaptation [LFT-003].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-003-S04, the declared Lesson planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lesson planning evidence traceability [LFT-003]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-003 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Lesson planning evidence traceability [LFT-003].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-003-S04, the declared Lesson planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lesson planning safety and access [LFT-003]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-003 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Lesson planning safety and access [LFT-003].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-003-S04, the declared Lesson planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-003 kept “plan an inquiry lesson about ecosystems” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-003 made the central handling—compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-003-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-003 earned final passes for Lesson planning objective fit [LFT-003] and Lesson planning content accuracy [LFT-003] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-003’s first draft failed Lesson planning objective fit [LFT-003]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A curriculum-alignment checklist will verify objective coverage, activity feasibility, and assessment fit.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-003 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-003 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-003 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A curriculum-alignment checklist will verify objective coverage, activity feasibility, and assessment fit.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-003 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Lesson planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-003 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-audit-keyboard-navigation","title":"How Well Might AI Audit Keyboard-Only Navigation: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"audit desktop keyboard navigation","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Keyboard Access field test asked the session to audit desktop keyboard navigation, preserved an actual five-row desktop keyboard navigation trace, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-07-02T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in AKN-4108 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “audit desktop keyboard navigation”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: audit desktop keyboard navigation. Focus: Keyboard Access.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to assess a sample desktop interface for complete operation without a pointing device.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nAKN-4108-I1: Interface controls are New N1, Search S1, Results R1, Save B1; intended workflow order is N1→S1→R1→B1.\nAKN-4108-I2: Opening Results R1 dialog sends focus to page body; expected first dialog control is Close D1 and Tab must stay in D1-D3.\nAKN-4108-I3: Buttons N1/B1 use Enter and Space; link Help H1 uses Enter; Escape closes dialog without saving.\nAKN-4108-I4: B1 focus outline is 1 px at 1.8:1; policy requires at least 2 px and 3:1.\nAKN-4108-I5: Acceptance is task New→Search→Select→Save completed in under 12 Tab presses, modal trap works, focus visible, and mouse events zero.\nReturn a concrete desktop keyboard navigation trace with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A recorded task walkthrough and focus-order checklist will verify every reported accessibility issue.","firstResult":"DESKTOP KEYBOARD NAVIGATION TRACE AKN-4108 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: audit desktop keyboard navigation. Evaluation focus: Keyboard Access. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nAKN-4108-R1 :: RESULT=TAB_ORDER=N1>S1>R1>B1\nAKN-4108-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAKN-4108-R2 :: RESULT=DIALOG=focus D1 on open; cycle D1-D3; no page escape\nAKN-4108-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAKN-4108-R3 :: RESULT=KEYS=Enter+Space N1/B1; Enter H1; Escape close no-save\nAKN-4108-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAKN-4108-R4 :: RESULT=FOCUS=B1 passes because an outline exists\nAKN-4108-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAKN-4108-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=Save activates by mouse\nAKN-4108-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for AKN-4108; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise AKN-4108 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Expose the missing focus indicator: input was “B1 focus outline is 1 px at 1.8:1; policy requires at least 2 px and 3:1.”; first response was “FOCUS=B1 passes because an outline exists”.\n- Complete the keyboard-only task: input was “Acceptance is task New→Search→Select→Save completed in under 12 Tab presses, modal trap works, focus visible, and mouse events zero.”; first response was “ACCEPT=Save activates by mouse”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"DESKTOP KEYBOARD NAVIGATION TRACE AKN-4108 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: audit desktop keyboard navigation. Evaluation focus: Keyboard Access. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nAKN-4108-R1 :: RESULT=TAB_ORDER=N1>S1>R1>B1\nAKN-4108-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAKN-4108-R2 :: RESULT=DIALOG=focus D1 on open; cycle D1-D3; no page escape\nAKN-4108-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAKN-4108-R3 :: RESULT=KEYS=Enter+Space N1/B1; Enter H1; Escape close no-save\nAKN-4108-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAKN-4108-R4 :: RESULT=FOCUS=B1 fails1px/1.8:1; target>=2px and>=3:1\nAKN-4108-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAKN-4108-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=task complete; Tab<=12; modal pass; focus pass; mouse0\nAKN-4108-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for AKN-4108; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Follow the visual task order","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Interface controls are New N1, Search S1, Results R1, Save B1; intended workflow order is N1→S1→R1→B1. Semantic rule: Keyboard order must follow the declared task sequence and include every operable control. FIRST returned “TAB_ORDER=N1>S1>R1>B1”; the private static semantic key accepts “TAB_ORDER=N1>S1>R1>B1”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TAB_ORDER=N1>S1>R1>B1”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Detect the focus trap defect","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Opening Results R1 dialog sends focus to page body; expected first dialog control is Close D1 and Tab must stay in D1-D3. Semantic rule: Modal keyboard operation requires initial focus and containment. FIRST returned “DIALOG=focus D1 on open; cycle D1-D3; no page escape”; the private static semantic key accepts “DIALOG=focus D1 on open; cycle D1-D3; no page escape”, so it passes. FINAL returned “DIALOG=focus D1 on open; cycle D1-D3; no page escape”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify activation keys","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Buttons N1/B1 use Enter and Space; link Help H1 uses Enter; Escape closes dialog without saving. Semantic rule: Activation behavior must match the declared control types and escape rule. FIRST returned “KEYS=Enter+Space N1/B1; Enter H1; Escape close no-save”; the private static semantic key accepts “KEYS=Enter+Space N1/B1; Enter H1; Escape close no-save”, so it passes. FINAL returned “KEYS=Enter+Space N1/B1; Enter H1; Escape close no-save”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Expose the missing focus indicator","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: B1 focus outline is 1 px at 1.8:1; policy requires at least 2 px and 3:1. Semantic rule: Both supplied thickness and contrast fall below the stated minimums. FIRST returned “FOCUS=B1 passes because an outline exists”; the private static semantic key accepts “FOCUS=B1 fails1px/1.8:1; target>=2px and>=3:1”, so it fails. FINAL returned “FOCUS=B1 fails1px/1.8:1; target>=2px and>=3:1”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Complete the keyboard-only task","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is task New→Search→Select→Save completed in under 12 Tab presses, modal trap works, focus visible, and mouse events zero. Semantic rule: End-to-end completion, navigation efficiency, modal behavior, focus, and input modality all matter. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=Save activates by mouse”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=task complete; Tab<=12; modal pass; focus pass; mouse0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=task complete; Tab<=12; modal pass; focus pass; mouse0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["AKN-4108 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Follow the visual task order passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Detect the focus trap defect also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Expose the missing focus indicator; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A recorded task walkthrough and focus-order checklist will verify every reported accessibility issue.","evidenceNotes":["AKN-4108 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","AKN-4108's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","AKN-4108 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A recorded task walkthrough and focus-order checklist will verify every reported accessibility issue."],"limitations":["AKN-4108 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","AKN-4108 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-calculate-reorder-points","title":"Inventory Reorder Points: An Auditable AI Calculation: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"calculate inventory reorder points from demand and lead-time data","excerpt":"The completed WFT-027 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Inventory Control, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-30T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-027: An inventory planner will provide item demand history, supplier lead times, service targets, and pack sizes. Source facts: SKUs WFT-027-S01–S05; demand 8/12/5/20/9 daily; lead times 4–11 days; safety stock 18/25/10/40/16; S04 one-day spike 60. Governing rule card: reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-027 for “calculate inventory reorder points from demand and lead-time data” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-027. Task: calculate inventory reorder points from demand and lead-time data. Context: An inventory planner will provide item demand history, supplier lead times, service targets, and pack sizes. Fictional source facts: SKUs WFT-027-S01–S05; demand 8/12/5/20/9 daily; lead times 4–11 days; safety stock 18/25/10/40/16; S04 one-day spike 60. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A reorder table and manual recomputation for sampled items will verify inputs, formulas, and rounding.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-027 produced a SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes for “calculate inventory reorder points from demand and lead-time data.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-027-S02 | set S02 reorder point to 121 using 12×8+25, keep S04’s spike outside baseline but disclose it, and flag S05’s uncertain lead time | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named S04’s spike and uncertain S05 lead time and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Inventory Control exception handling [WFT-027], Inventory Control source traceability [WFT-027], and Inventory Control handoff usability [WFT-027]. It found for Inventory Control task fidelity [WFT-027], the draft did not link WFT-027-S02 to the full task boundary; for Inventory Control rule accuracy [WFT-027], the draft mentioned but did not verify reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-027 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Inventory Control task fidelity [WFT-027] — the draft did not link WFT-027-S02 to the full task boundary; 2) Inventory Control rule accuracy [WFT-027] — the draft mentioned but did not verify reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-027 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: set S02 reorder point to 121 using 12×8+25, keep S04’s spike outside baseline but disclose it, and flag S05’s uncertain lead time. Its corrected row read “WFT-027-S02 | rule: reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock | decision: set S02 reorder point to 121 using 12×8+25, keep S04’s spike outside baseline but disclose it, and flag S05’s uncertain lead time | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Inventory Control task fidelity [WFT-027]. The final audit passed Inventory Control task fidelity [WFT-027], Inventory Control exception handling [WFT-027], Inventory Control source traceability [WFT-027], and Inventory Control handoff usability [WFT-027]. It still lacked Inventory Control rule accuracy [WFT-027]; those failures remain visible. The SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Inventory Control task fidelity [WFT-027]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-027 static check 1 inspected “Inventory Control task fidelity [WFT-027]” against WFT-027-S02, the rule “reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock,” and the saved SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Inventory Control rule accuracy [WFT-027]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-027 static check 2 inspected “Inventory Control rule accuracy [WFT-027]” against WFT-027-S02, the rule “reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock,” and the saved SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Inventory Control exception handling [WFT-027]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-027 static check 3 inspected “Inventory Control exception handling [WFT-027]” against WFT-027-S02, the rule “reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock,” and the saved SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Inventory Control source traceability [WFT-027]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-027 static check 4 inspected “Inventory Control source traceability [WFT-027]” against WFT-027-S02, the rule “reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock,” and the saved SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Inventory Control handoff usability [WFT-027]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-027 static check 5 inspected “Inventory Control handoff usability [WFT-027]” against WFT-027-S02, the rule “reorder point equals average daily demand times lead time plus safety stock,” and the saved SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-027 bounded “calculate inventory reorder points from demand and lead-time data” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-027 exposed WFT-027-S02—set S02 reorder point to 121 using 12×8+25, keep S04’s spike outside baseline but disclose it, and flag S05’s uncertain lead time—inside the saved SKU reorder table, demand calculation, and stockout notes.","WFT-027 earned inspectable passes for Inventory Control task fidelity [WFT-027] and Inventory Control exception handling [WFT-027] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-027 still lacked saved-text evidence for Inventory Control rule accuracy [WFT-027]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A reorder table and manual recomputation for sampled items will verify inputs, formulas, and rounding.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-027 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-027 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-027 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A reorder table and manual recomputation for sampled items will verify inputs, formulas, and rounding.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-027 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Inventory Control fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-027 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-audit-scheduled-tasks","title":"Unexpected Scheduled Tasks: A Defensive AI Audit: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"audit unexpected scheduled tasks defensively","excerpt":"This completed synthetic System Auditing field test asked the session to audit unexpected scheduled tasks defensively, preserved an actual five-row scheduled-task defensive classification, and derived 0/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-30T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in AST-7846 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “audit unexpected scheduled tasks defensively”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: audit unexpected scheduled tasks defensively. Focus: System Auditing.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide a synthetic task inventory containing normal jobs, obsolete entries, and seeded suspicious patterns.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nAST-7846-I1: Task /Vendor/Updater runs signed updater U-4 at 03:00 daily as SYSTEM; signer Vendor LLC matches inventory and binary hash is 22af.\nAST-7846-I2: Task /User/HealthCheck runs powershell -EncodedCommand payload P9 every 15 minutes as user Lee; no owner, package, or baseline entry exists. Static decode writes to temp/run9.log.\nAST-7846-I3: Task /OldPrinter/Telemetry points to missing C:/OldPrinter/tel.exe, last success 104 days ago, and uninstall record confirms OldPrinter removal 103 days ago.\nAST-7846-I4: Audit export ST-B contains XML, triggers, principals, action hashes, and last-run codes for all three tasks; export SHA-256 is 4c87dd02.\nAST-7846-I5: Policy retains Updater, proposes disabling HealthCheck for owner review, and proposes disabling OldPrinter for seven-day observation before removal; live task changes are outside scope.\nReturn a concrete scheduled-task defensive classification with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A labeled task manifest will verify classification, evidence use, and cautious remediation recommendations.","firstResult":"SCHEDULED-TASK DEFENSIVE CLASSIFICATION AST-7846 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: audit unexpected scheduled tasks defensively. Evaluation focus: System Auditing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nAST-7846-R1 :: RESULT=UPDATER=malicious solely because it runs as SYSTEM\nAST-7846-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAST-7846-R2 :: RESULT=HEALTHCHECK=expected because its name says HealthCheck\nAST-7846-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAST-7846-R3 :: RESULT=OLDPRINTER=confirmed malware\nAST-7846-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAST-7846-R4 :: RESULT=EVIDENCE=delete suspicious tasks before exporting them\nAST-7846-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAST-7846-R5 :: RESULT=DISPOSITION=claim all three tasks were deleted\nAST-7846-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for AST-7846; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise AST-7846 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Recognize the signed maintenance task: input was “Task /Vendor/Updater runs signed updater U-4 at 03:00 daily as SYSTEM; signer Vendor LLC matches inventory and binary hash is 22af.”; first response was “UPDATER=malicious solely because it runs as SYSTEM”.\n- Flag the unknown encoded task: input was “Task /User/HealthCheck runs powershell -EncodedCommand payload P9 every 15 minutes as user Lee; no owner, package, or baseline entry exists. Static decode writes to temp/run9.log.”; first response was “HEALTHCHECK=expected because its name says HealthCheck”.\n- Distinguish a stale orphan from active malware: input was “Task /OldPrinter/Telemetry points to missing C:/OldPrinter/tel.exe, last success 104 days ago, and uninstall record confirms OldPrinter removal 103 days ago.”; first response was “OLDPRINTER=confirmed malware”.\n- Preserve task evidence before remediation: input was “Audit export ST-B contains XML, triggers, principals, action hashes, and last-run codes for all three tasks; export SHA-256 is 4c87dd02.”; first response was “EVIDENCE=delete suspicious tasks before exporting them”.\n- Use cautious bounded dispositions: input was “Policy retains Updater, proposes disabling HealthCheck for owner review, and proposes disabling OldPrinter for seven-day observation before removal; live task changes are outside scope.”; first response was “DISPOSITION=claim all three tasks were deleted”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SCHEDULED-TASK DEFENSIVE CLASSIFICATION AST-7846 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: audit unexpected scheduled tasks defensively. Evaluation focus: System Auditing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nAST-7846-R1 :: RESULT=UPDATER=expected; signer Vendor LLC; hash22af; trigger daily03:00; retain\nAST-7846-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAST-7846-R2 :: RESULT=HEALTHCHECK=unexpected review; encoded P9; every15m; owner absent; do not execute\nAST-7846-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAST-7846-R3 :: RESULT=OLDPRINTER=stale orphan; target missing; uninstall correlation\nAST-7846-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAST-7846-R4 :: RESULT=EVIDENCE=freeze ST-B hash4c87dd02\nAST-7846-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAST-7846-R5 :: RESULT=DISPOSITION=retain Updater; propose disable HealthCheck+owner review; propose disable OldPrinter+observe7d\nAST-7846-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for AST-7846; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Recognize the signed maintenance task","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Task /Vendor/Updater runs signed updater U-4 at 03:00 daily as SYSTEM; signer Vendor LLC matches inventory and binary hash is 22af. Semantic rule: Privilege alone is not enough to override matching signer, inventory, hash, and expected trigger. FIRST returned “UPDATER=malicious solely because it runs as SYSTEM”; the private static semantic key accepts “UPDATER=expected; signer Vendor LLC; hash22af; trigger daily03:00; retain”, so it fails. FINAL returned “UPDATER=expected; signer Vendor LLC; hash22af; trigger daily03:00; retain”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Flag the unknown encoded task","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Task /User/HealthCheck runs powershell -EncodedCommand payload P9 every 15 minutes as user Lee; no owner, package, or baseline entry exists. Static decode writes to temp/run9.log. Semantic rule: The missing provenance and encoded action require review without executing the supplied payload. FIRST returned “HEALTHCHECK=expected because its name says HealthCheck”; the private static semantic key accepts “HEALTHCHECK=unexpected review; encoded P9; every15m; owner absent; do not execute”, so it fails. FINAL returned “HEALTHCHECK=unexpected review; encoded P9; every15m; owner absent; do not execute”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Distinguish a stale orphan from active malware","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Task /OldPrinter/Telemetry points to missing C:/OldPrinter/tel.exe, last success 104 days ago, and uninstall record confirms OldPrinter removal 103 days ago. Semantic rule: The evidence supports an orphaned uninstall artifact, not an unsupported malware attribution. FIRST returned “OLDPRINTER=confirmed malware”; the private static semantic key accepts “OLDPRINTER=stale orphan; target missing; uninstall correlation; propose disable before removal” or “OLDPRINTER=stale orphan; target missing; uninstall correlation”, so it fails. FINAL returned “OLDPRINTER=stale orphan; target missing; uninstall correlation”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve task evidence before remediation","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Audit export ST-B contains XML, triggers, principals, action hashes, and last-run codes for all three tasks; export SHA-256 is 4c87dd02. Semantic rule: Classification and rollback require the complete exact task export before any proposed state change. FIRST returned “EVIDENCE=delete suspicious tasks before exporting them”; the private static semantic key accepts “EVIDENCE=freeze ST-B hash4c87dd02; XML+triggers+principals+actions+last codes” or “EVIDENCE=freeze ST-B hash4c87dd02”, so it fails. FINAL returned “EVIDENCE=freeze ST-B hash4c87dd02”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use cautious bounded dispositions","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy retains Updater, proposes disabling HealthCheck for owner review, and proposes disabling OldPrinter for seven-day observation before removal; live task changes are outside scope. Semantic rule: The output must preserve differentiated dispositions and avoid claiming unauthorized system changes. FIRST returned “DISPOSITION=claim all three tasks were deleted”; the private static semantic key accepts “DISPOSITION=retain Updater; propose disable HealthCheck+owner review; propose disable OldPrinter+observe7d; live changes0” or “DISPOSITION=retain Updater; propose disable HealthCheck+owner review; propose disable OldPrinter+observe7d”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DISPOSITION=retain Updater; propose disable HealthCheck+owner review; propose disable OldPrinter+observe7d”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["AST-7846 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Recognize the signed maintenance task passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Flag the unknown encoded task also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Recognize the signed maintenance task; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A labeled task manifest will verify classification, evidence use, and cautious remediation recommendations.","evidenceNotes":["AST-7846 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","AST-7846's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","AST-7846 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A labeled task manifest will verify classification, evidence use, and cautious remediation recommendations."],"limitations":["AST-7846 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","AST-7846 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-second-language-writing-feedback","title":"Who Keeps Their Voice When AI Gives Language-Learner Feedback — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"give language learners feedback without erasing their voice","excerpt":"The completed LFT-026 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Writing feedback, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-30T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-026: The AI will comment on a second-language essay while preserving the writer's intended tone and argument. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-026-U01 through LFT-026-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing rule card: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-026 for “give language learners feedback without erasing their voice” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-026. Task: give language learners feedback without erasing their voice. Context: The AI will comment on a second-language essay while preserving the writer's intended tone and argument. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-026-U01 through LFT-026-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Tracked revisions and learner interviews will show which suggestions were adopted and whether meaning changed.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-026 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “give language learners feedback without erasing their voice.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-026-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-026-ROW1 reads: “LFT-026-U01 | recast LFT-026-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Writing feedback learner adaptation [LFT-026], Writing feedback evidence traceability [LFT-026], and Writing feedback safety and access [LFT-026]. The audit found concrete failures: for Writing feedback objective fit [LFT-026], the saved draft did not connect LFT-026-U05 to the full boundary of “give language learners feedback without erasing their voice”; for Writing feedback content accuracy [LFT-026], the saved draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-026 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Writing feedback objective fit [LFT-026] — the draft did not connect LFT-026-U05 to the full boundary of “give language learners feedback without erasing their voice”; 2) Writing feedback content accuracy [LFT-026] — the draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-026 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-026-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-026-ROW1 reads: “LFT-026-U01 | recast LFT-026-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | evidence locator: LFT-026-U01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Writing feedback objective fit [LFT-026]. The frozen final text passed Writing feedback objective fit [LFT-026], Writing feedback learner adaptation [LFT-026], Writing feedback evidence traceability [LFT-026], and Writing feedback safety and access [LFT-026] and still failed Writing feedback content accuracy [LFT-026]. The final levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Writing feedback objective fit [LFT-026]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-026 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Writing feedback objective fit [LFT-026].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-026-U05, the declared Writing feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Writing feedback content accuracy [LFT-026]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-026 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Writing feedback content accuracy [LFT-026].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-026-U05, the declared Writing feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Writing feedback learner adaptation [LFT-026]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-026 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Writing feedback learner adaptation [LFT-026].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-026-U05, the declared Writing feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Writing feedback evidence traceability [LFT-026]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-026 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Writing feedback evidence traceability [LFT-026].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-026-U05, the declared Writing feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Writing feedback safety and access [LFT-026]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-026 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Writing feedback safety and access [LFT-026].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-026-U05, the declared Writing feedback rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-026 kept “give language learners feedback without erasing their voice” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-026 made the central handling—recast LFT-026-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-026 earned final passes for Writing feedback objective fit [LFT-026] and Writing feedback learner adaptation [LFT-026] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-026 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Writing feedback content accuracy [LFT-026]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Tracked revisions and learner interviews will show which suggestions were adopted and whether meaning changed.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-026 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-026 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-026 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Tracked revisions and learner interviews will show which suggestions were adopted and whether meaning changed.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-026 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Writing feedback fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-026 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-create-vocabulary-contexts","title":"Vocabulary in Context: An AI Practice-Set Protocol — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"create contextual vocabulary practice for a fixed word list","excerpt":"The completed LFT-062 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Vocabulary Practice, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-28T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-062: A teacher will provide target words, senses, grade level, prohibited distractor patterns, and examples of authentic usage. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-062-U01 through LFT-062-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing rule card: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-062 for “create contextual vocabulary practice for a fixed word list” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-062. Task: create contextual vocabulary practice for a fixed word list. Context: A teacher will provide target words, senses, grade level, prohibited distractor patterns, and examples of authentic usage. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-062-U01 through LFT-062-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A sense-level audit will verify natural context, target meaning, distractor plausibility, reading level, and answer uniqueness.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-062 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “create contextual vocabulary practice for a fixed word list.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-062-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-062-ROW1 reads: “LFT-062-U01 | recast LFT-062-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Vocabulary Practice objective fit [LFT-062], Vocabulary Practice content accuracy [LFT-062], and Vocabulary Practice safety and access [LFT-062]. The audit found concrete failures: for Vocabulary Practice learner adaptation [LFT-062], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-062-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06; for Vocabulary Practice evidence traceability [LFT-062], the saved draft gave the central LFT-062-U05 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-062 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Vocabulary Practice learner adaptation [LFT-062] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-062-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06; 2) Vocabulary Practice evidence traceability [LFT-062] — the draft gave the central LFT-062-U05 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-062 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-062-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-062-ROW1 reads: “LFT-062-U01 | recast LFT-062-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | evidence locator: LFT-062-U01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Vocabulary Practice learner adaptation [LFT-062]. The frozen final text passed Vocabulary Practice objective fit [LFT-062], Vocabulary Practice content accuracy [LFT-062], Vocabulary Practice learner adaptation [LFT-062], and Vocabulary Practice safety and access [LFT-062] and still failed Vocabulary Practice evidence traceability [LFT-062]. The final levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Vocabulary Practice objective fit [LFT-062]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-062 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary Practice objective fit [LFT-062].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-062-U05, the declared Vocabulary Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Vocabulary Practice content accuracy [LFT-062]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-062 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary Practice content accuracy [LFT-062].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-062-U05, the declared Vocabulary Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Vocabulary Practice learner adaptation [LFT-062]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-062 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary Practice learner adaptation [LFT-062].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-062-U05, the declared Vocabulary Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Vocabulary Practice evidence traceability [LFT-062]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-062 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary Practice evidence traceability [LFT-062].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-062-U05, the declared Vocabulary Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Vocabulary Practice safety and access [LFT-062]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-062 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary Practice safety and access [LFT-062].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-062-U05, the declared Vocabulary Practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-062 kept “create contextual vocabulary practice for a fixed word list” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-062 made the central handling—recast LFT-062-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-062 earned final passes for Vocabulary Practice objective fit [LFT-062] and Vocabulary Practice content accuracy [LFT-062] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-062 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Vocabulary Practice evidence traceability [LFT-062]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A sense-level audit will verify natural context, target meaning, distractor plausibility, reading level, and answer uniqueness.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-062 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-062 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-062 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A sense-level audit will verify natural context, target meaning, distractor plausibility, reading level, and answer uniqueness.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-062 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Vocabulary Practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-062 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-capture-meeting-commitments","title":"From Meeting Transcript to Action Register with AI: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting","excerpt":"The completed WFT-007 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Meeting Actions checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-27T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-007: A project team will supply a meeting transcript containing decisions, tentative ideas, and assigned actions. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-007-N01 through WFT-007-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-007-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-007 for “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-007. Task: capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting. Context: A project team will supply a meeting transcript containing decisions, tentative ideas, and assigned actions. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-007-N01 through WFT-007-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-007-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An action register with transcript references and participant review will verify each extracted commitment.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-007 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-007-ROW1 reads: “WFT-007-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Meeting Actions exception handling [WFT-007]. The audit found concrete failures: for Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007], the saved draft did not connect WFT-007-N07 to the full boundary of “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting”; for Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007], the saved draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row; for Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007], the saved draft gave the central WFT-007-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; for Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007], the saved draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-007 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007] — the draft did not connect WFT-007-N07 to the full boundary of “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting”; 2) Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007] — the draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row; 3) Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007] — the draft gave the central WFT-007-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007] — the draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-007 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-007-ROW1 reads: “WFT-007-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-007-N01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007]. The frozen final text passed Meeting Actions exception handling [WFT-007] and Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007] and still failed Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007], Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007], and Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-007 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-007 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Meeting Actions exception handling [WFT-007]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-007 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions exception handling [WFT-007].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-007 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions source traceability [WFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-007 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-007-N07, the declared Meeting Actions rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-007 kept “capture decisions, owners, and deadlines from a project meeting” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-007 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-007-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-007 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Meeting Actions task fidelity [WFT-007]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-007 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Meeting Actions rule accuracy [WFT-007]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-007 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Meeting Actions handoff usability [WFT-007]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"An action register with transcript references and participant review will verify each extracted commitment.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-007 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-007 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-007 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An action register with transcript references and participant review will verify each extracted commitment.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-007 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Meeting Actions fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-007 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-repair-corrupted-document","title":"Ask AI to Repair a Corrupted Office Document: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"repair a corrupted office document","excerpt":"This completed synthetic File Repair field test asked the session to repair a corrupted office document, preserved an actual five-row corrupted document repair report, and derived 4/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-26T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RCD-4042 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “repair a corrupted office document”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: repair a corrupted office document. Focus: File Repair.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide a controlled damaged copy of a synthetic document while preserving the untouched original.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRCD-4042-I1: Damaged file REPORT-BAD.odt has SHA-256 27ad10c2; all work must use copy REPORT-WORK.odt.\nRCD-4042-I2: Canonical structure has headings H1-H6 and 42 body paragraphs; package inspection finds all text XML intact.\nRCD-4042-I3: Table T2 has 8 rows×4 columns; relationship rId17 is missing while media and cell XML are intact.\nRCD-4042-I4: Expected metadata is author Editorial Lab, created 2026-07-18; images IMG1-IMG3 have fixed hashes.\nRCD-4042-I5: Acceptance is package validation zero errors, H1-H6, 42 paragraphs, T2 8×4, IMG1-IMG3 intact, and source hash unchanged.\nReturn a concrete corrupted document repair report with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Content comparison and format validation will verify which text, tables, and metadata survive the repair.","firstResult":"CORRUPTED DOCUMENT REPAIR REPORT RCD-4042 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: repair a corrupted office document. Evaluation focus: File Repair. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRCD-4042-R1 :: RESULT=SOURCE=edit REPORT-BAD.odt in place\nRCD-4042-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCD-4042-R2 :: RESULT=TEXT=recover H1-H6 and 42/42 paragraphs\nRCD-4042-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCD-4042-R3 :: RESULT=TABLE=delete T2 to make the file open\nRCD-4042-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCD-4042-R4 :: RESULT=METADATA=author Editorial Lab; created2026-07-18; IMG1-IMG3 hashes unchanged\nRCD-4042-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCD-4042-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=file opens once\nRCD-4042-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RCD-4042; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RCD-4042 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Preserve the untouched original: input was “Damaged file REPORT-BAD.odt has SHA-256 27ad10c2; all work must use copy REPORT-WORK.odt.”; first response was “SOURCE=edit REPORT-BAD.odt in place”.\n- Repair the broken table reference: input was “Table T2 has 8 rows×4 columns; relationship rId17 is missing while media and cell XML are intact.”; first response was “TABLE=delete T2 to make the file open”.\n- Validate the repaired package: input was “Acceptance is package validation zero errors, H1-H6, 42 paragraphs, T2 8×4, IMG1-IMG3 intact, and source hash unchanged.”; first response was “ACCEPT=file opens once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"CORRUPTED DOCUMENT REPAIR REPORT RCD-4042 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: repair a corrupted office document. Evaluation focus: File Repair. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRCD-4042-R1 :: RESULT=SOURCE=freeze REPORT-BAD.odt hash27ad10c2; repair REPORT-WORK.odt only\nRCD-4042-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCD-4042-R2 :: RESULT=TEXT=recover H1-H6 and 42/42 paragraphs\nRCD-4042-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCD-4042-R3 :: RESULT=TABLE=restore rId17; T2 remains 8x4\nRCD-4042-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCD-4042-R4 :: RESULT=METADATA=author Editorial Lab; created2026-07-18; IMG1-IMG3 hashes unchanged\nRCD-4042-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCD-4042-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=0 package errors; H1-H6; paragraphs42; T2 8x4; images3/3\nRCD-4042-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RCD-4042; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Preserve the untouched original","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Damaged file REPORT-BAD.odt has SHA-256 27ad10c2; all work must use copy REPORT-WORK.odt. Semantic rule: The damaged original is evidence and cannot be modified during repair. FIRST returned “SOURCE=edit REPORT-BAD.odt in place”; the private static semantic key accepts “SOURCE=freeze REPORT-BAD.odt hash27ad10c2; repair REPORT-WORK.odt only”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SOURCE=freeze REPORT-BAD.odt hash27ad10c2; repair REPORT-WORK.odt only”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Recover the text sections","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Canonical structure has headings H1-H6 and 42 body paragraphs; package inspection finds all text XML intact. Semantic rule: The intact XML establishes the exact heading and paragraph counts. FIRST returned “TEXT=recover H1-H6 and 42/42 paragraphs”; the private static semantic key accepts “TEXT=recover H1-H6 and 42/42 paragraphs”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TEXT=recover H1-H6 and 42/42 paragraphs”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Repair the broken table reference","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Table T2 has 8 rows×4 columns; relationship rId17 is missing while media and cell XML are intact. Semantic rule: The missing relationship, not the table content, is the bounded fault. FIRST returned “TABLE=delete T2 to make the file open”; the private static semantic key accepts “TABLE=restore rId17; T2 remains 8x4; preserve cell values”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TABLE=restore rId17; T2 remains 8x4”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve metadata and embedded media","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Expected metadata is author Editorial Lab, created 2026-07-18; images IMG1-IMG3 have fixed hashes. Semantic rule: Repair must not silently discard the declared metadata or media assets. FIRST returned “METADATA=author Editorial Lab; created2026-07-18; IMG1-IMG3 hashes unchanged”; the private static semantic key accepts “METADATA=author Editorial Lab; created2026-07-18; IMG1-IMG3 hashes unchanged”, so it passes. FINAL returned “METADATA=author Editorial Lab; created2026-07-18; IMG1-IMG3 hashes unchanged”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Validate the repaired package","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is package validation zero errors, H1-H6, 42 paragraphs, T2 8×4, IMG1-IMG3 intact, and source hash unchanged. Semantic rule: Opening alone is insufficient; structural, content, media, and source-integrity gates all apply. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=file opens once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=0 package errors; H1-H6; paragraphs42; T2 8x4; images3/3; source unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=0 package errors; H1-H6; paragraphs42; T2 8x4; images3/3”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["RCD-4042 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Preserve the untouched original passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Recover the text sections also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Repair the broken table reference still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Validate the repaired package still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Content comparison and format validation will verify which text, tables, and metadata survive the repair.","evidenceNotes":["RCD-4042 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RCD-4042's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","RCD-4042 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Content comparison and format validation will verify which text, tables, and metadata survive the repair."],"limitations":["RCD-4042 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RCD-4042 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-phonics-decodable-story","title":"Draft a Phonics-Constrained Decodable Story with AI: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"write a decodable story for a specific phonics pattern","excerpt":"The completed LFT-047 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Early phonics checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-26T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-047: The AI will draft an engaging early-reader story constrained to taught letter-sound patterns and a small exception list. Source facts: fictional passage LFT-047-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 44 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-047-Q3. Governing rule card: idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints. Preserve every required idea, value, date, term, and assessment demand while applying the declared access constraint; never treat shorter wording as permission to delete meaning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-047 for “write a decodable story for a specific phonics pattern” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-047. Task: write a decodable story for a specific phonics pattern. Context: The AI will draft an engaging early-reader story constrained to taught letter-sound patterns and a small exception list. Fictional source facts: fictional passage LFT-047-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 44 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-047-Q3. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints. Preserve every required idea, value, date, term, and assessment demand while applying the declared access constraint; never treat shorter wording as permission to delete meaning. Produce an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A word-level audit will classify every spelling pattern and flag vocabulary outside the supplied constraints.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-047 produced an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints for the task “write a decodable story for a specific phonics pattern.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: split LFT-047-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 44-word segment. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-047-ROW1 reads: “LFT-047-R1 | split LFT-047-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 44-word segment | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Early phonics safety and access [LFT-047]. The audit found concrete failures: for Early phonics objective fit [LFT-047], the saved draft did not connect LFT-047-Q3 to the full boundary of “write a decodable story for a specific phonics pattern”; for Early phonics content accuracy [LFT-047], the saved draft left idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints without an explicit verification row; for Early phonics learner adaptation [LFT-047], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the protected LFT-047-Q3 wording and segment-length limit; for Early phonics evidence traceability [LFT-047], the saved draft gave the central LFT-047-Q3 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-047 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Early phonics objective fit [LFT-047] — the draft did not connect LFT-047-Q3 to the full boundary of “write a decodable story for a specific phonics pattern”; 2) Early phonics content accuracy [LFT-047] — the draft left idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints without an explicit verification row; 3) Early phonics learner adaptation [LFT-047] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the protected LFT-047-Q3 wording and segment-length limit; 4) Early phonics evidence traceability [LFT-047] — the draft gave the central LFT-047-Q3 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-047 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: split LFT-047-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 44-word segment. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-047-ROW1 reads: “LFT-047-R1 | split LFT-047-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 44-word segment | evidence locator: LFT-047-R1 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Early phonics objective fit [LFT-047]. The frozen final text passed Early phonics objective fit [LFT-047] and Early phonics safety and access [LFT-047] and still failed Early phonics content accuracy [LFT-047], Early phonics learner adaptation [LFT-047], and Early phonics evidence traceability [LFT-047]. The final accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Early phonics objective fit [LFT-047]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-047 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Early phonics objective fit [LFT-047].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-047-Q3, the declared Early phonics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Early phonics content accuracy [LFT-047]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-047 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Early phonics content accuracy [LFT-047].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-047-Q3, the declared Early phonics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Early phonics learner adaptation [LFT-047]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-047 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Early phonics learner adaptation [LFT-047].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-047-Q3, the declared Early phonics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Early phonics evidence traceability [LFT-047]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-047 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Early phonics evidence traceability [LFT-047].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-047-Q3, the declared Early phonics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Early phonics safety and access [LFT-047]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-047 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Early phonics safety and access [LFT-047].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-047-Q3, the declared Early phonics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-047 kept “write a decodable story for a specific phonics pattern” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-047 made the central handling—split LFT-047-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 44-word segment—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["LFT-047 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Early phonics content accuracy [LFT-047]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-047 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Early phonics learner adaptation [LFT-047]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-047 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Early phonics evidence traceability [LFT-047]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A word-level audit will classify every spelling pattern and flag vocabulary outside the supplied constraints.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-047 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-047 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-047 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A word-level audit will classify every spelling pattern and flag vocabulary outside the supplied constraints.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-047 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Early phonics fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-047 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-triage-slow-sql-query","title":"A Slow SQL Query and an AI Triage Protocol: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"triage a slow SQL query using a supplied execution plan","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Query Performance field test asked the session to triage a slow SQL query using a supplied execution plan, preserved an actual five-row software patch and test record, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-25T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in TSSQ-4234 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “triage a slow SQL query using a supplied execution plan”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: triage a slow SQL query using a supplied execution plan. Focus: Query Performance.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide a synthetic schema, data distribution, query, execution plan, indexes, and a controlled performance baseline.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nTSSQ-4234-I1: Plan node Seq Scan estimates 1,200 rows but returns 184,000; filter is tenant_id=42 and created_at>=2026-01-01.\nTSSQ-4234-I2: Existing index is (tenant_id); candidate is (tenant_id, created_at) INCLUDE (status).\nTSSQ-4234-I3: Expected result count is 184,000 and checksum is 9ab41c70.\nTSSQ-4234-I4: Baseline median is 4.8 s over 5 runs; target is below 900 ms median over 5 clean-cache runs.\nTSSQ-4234-I5: Candidate index adds 7% fixture write time; allowed ceiling is 10%.\nReturn a concrete software patch and test record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Benchmark runs on a disposable database will verify the bottleneck, semantic equivalence, latency, resource use, and regression risk.","firstResult":"SOFTWARE PATCH AND TEST RECORD TSSQ-4234 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: triage a slow SQL query using a supplied execution plan. Evaluation focus: Query Performance. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nTSSQ-4234-R1 :: RESULT=PLAN=Seq Scan estimate1200 actual184000; cardinality underestimate\nTSSQ-4234-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSSQ-4234-R2 :: RESULT=INDEX=(tenant_id,created_at) INCLUDE(status)\nTSSQ-4234-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSSQ-4234-R3 :: RESULT=SEMANTICS=184000 rows hash9ab41c70 before and after\nTSSQ-4234-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSSQ-4234-R4 :: RESULT=MEASURE=one warm-cache run\nTSSQ-4234-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSSQ-4234-R5 :: RESULT=TRADEOFF=no write cost\nTSSQ-4234-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for TSSQ-4234; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise TSSQ-4234 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Use bounded measurement: input was “Baseline median is 4.8 s over 5 runs; target is below 900 ms median over 5 clean-cache runs.”; first response was “MEASURE=one warm-cache run”.\n- State residual write cost: input was “Candidate index adds 7% fixture write time; allowed ceiling is 10%.”; first response was “TRADEOFF=no write cost”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SOFTWARE PATCH AND TEST RECORD TSSQ-4234 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: triage a slow SQL query using a supplied execution plan. Evaluation focus: Query Performance. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nTSSQ-4234-R1 :: RESULT=PLAN=Seq Scan estimate1200 actual184000; cardinality underestimate\nTSSQ-4234-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSSQ-4234-R2 :: RESULT=INDEX=(tenant_id,created_at) INCLUDE(status)\nTSSQ-4234-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSSQ-4234-R3 :: RESULT=SEMANTICS=184000 rows hash9ab41c70 before and after\nTSSQ-4234-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSSQ-4234-R4 :: RESULT=MEASURE=5 baseline median4.8s; 5 clean-cache target<900ms\nTSSQ-4234-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSSQ-4234-R5 :: RESULT=TRADEOFF=7% write cost within 10% ceiling\nTSSQ-4234-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for TSSQ-4234; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Read the supplied plan cardinality","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Plan node Seq Scan estimates 1,200 rows but returns 184,000; filter is tenant_id=42 and created_at>=2026-01-01. Semantic rule: The estimate/actual mismatch is the primary plan anomaly. FIRST returned “PLAN=Seq Scan estimate1200 actual184000; cardinality underestimate”; the private static semantic key accepts “PLAN=Seq Scan estimate1200 actual184000; cardinality underestimate”, so it passes. FINAL returned “PLAN=Seq Scan estimate1200 actual184000; cardinality underestimate”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the available index definition","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Existing index is (tenant_id); candidate is (tenant_id, created_at) INCLUDE (status). Semantic rule: The candidate matches equality then range predicates and covers status. FIRST returned “INDEX=(tenant_id,created_at) INCLUDE(status)”; the private static semantic key accepts “INDEX=(tenant_id,created_at) INCLUDE(status)”, so it passes. FINAL returned “INDEX=(tenant_id,created_at) INCLUDE(status)”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve query semantics","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Expected result count is 184,000 and checksum is 9ab41c70. Semantic rule: Performance work cannot change the result count or frozen checksum. FIRST returned “SEMANTICS=184000 rows hash9ab41c70 before and after”; the private static semantic key accepts “SEMANTICS=184000 rows hash9ab41c70 before and after”, so it passes. FINAL returned “SEMANTICS=184000 rows hash9ab41c70 before and after”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use bounded measurement","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Baseline median is 4.8 s over 5 runs; target is below 900 ms median over 5 clean-cache runs. Semantic rule: Both sample count, cache condition, and threshold are fixed. FIRST returned “MEASURE=one warm-cache run”; the private static semantic key accepts “MEASURE=5 baseline median4.8s; 5 clean-cache target<900ms”, so it fails. FINAL returned “MEASURE=5 baseline median4.8s; 5 clean-cache target<900ms”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"State residual write cost","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Candidate index adds 7% fixture write time; allowed ceiling is 10%. Semantic rule: The measured write overhead must be reported against the ceiling. FIRST returned “TRADEOFF=no write cost”; the private static semantic key accepts “TRADEOFF=7% write cost within 10% ceiling”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TRADEOFF=7% write cost within 10% ceiling”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["TSSQ-4234 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Read the supplied plan cardinality passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Use the available index definition also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Use bounded measurement; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Benchmark runs on a disposable database will verify the bottleneck, semantic equivalence, latency, resource use, and regression risk.","evidenceNotes":["TSSQ-4234 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","TSSQ-4234's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","TSSQ-4234 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Benchmark runs on a disposable database will verify the bottleneck, semantic equivalence, latency, resource use, and regression risk."],"limitations":["TSSQ-4234 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","TSSQ-4234 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-configure-log-rotation","title":"Asking AI to Configure Reliable Log Rotation: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"configure reliable log rotation","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Log Management field test asked the session to configure reliable log rotation, preserved an actual five-row service log rotation specification, and derived 0/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-22T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in CLR-9556 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “configure reliable log rotation”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: configure reliable log rotation. Focus: Log Management.\nSource scenario: The experiment will specify retention, compression, disk limits, and active-write behavior for a synthetic service log.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nCLR-9556-I1: Service app.log grows 8 MB/hour; policy rotates at 10 MB and the accelerated fixture reaches 10.4 MB.\nCLR-9556-I2: Service PID 418 keeps app.log open; supported signal HUP reopens the path after rename.\nCLR-9556-I3: Policy compresses rotations older than one cycle; app.log.1 stays plain and app.log.2 becomes gzip.\nCLR-9556-I4: Keep 7 rotations and no more than 80 MB total; fixture rotations 1-8 total 76 MB before pruning.\nCLR-9556-I5: Acceptance needs sequence IDs 5001-5400 exactly once, seven rotations, expected compression, and monotonically increasing timestamps.\nReturn a concrete service log rotation specification with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Accelerated log generation and timestamped file checks will verify rotation, retention, compression, and uninterrupted writes.","firstResult":"SERVICE LOG ROTATION SPECIFICATION CLR-9556 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: configure reliable log rotation. Evaluation focus: Log Management. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCLR-9556-R1 :: RESULT=TRIGGER=wait until 100MB\nCLR-9556-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCLR-9556-R2 :: RESULT=ACTIVE_WRITE=delete the open file without reopen\nCLR-9556-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCLR-9556-R3 :: RESULT=COMPRESSION=gzip active app.log immediately\nCLR-9556-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCLR-9556-R4 :: RESULT=RETENTION=keep all 8 forever\nCLR-9556-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCLR-9556-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=seven filenames exist\nCLR-9556-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CLR-9556; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise CLR-9556 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Rotate at the declared size: input was “Service app.log grows 8 MB/hour; policy rotates at 10 MB and the accelerated fixture reaches 10.4 MB.”; first response was “TRIGGER=wait until 100MB”.\n- Preserve active writes: input was “Service PID 418 keeps app.log open; supported signal HUP reopens the path after rename.”; first response was “ACTIVE_WRITE=delete the open file without reopen”.\n- Apply compression timing: input was “Policy compresses rotations older than one cycle; app.log.1 stays plain and app.log.2 becomes gzip.”; first response was “COMPRESSION=gzip active app.log immediately”.\n- Enforce retention and disk cap: input was “Keep 7 rotations and no more than 80 MB total; fixture rotations 1-8 total 76 MB before pruning.”; first response was “RETENTION=keep all 8 forever”.\n- Verify continuity and timestamps: input was “Acceptance needs sequence IDs 5001-5400 exactly once, seven rotations, expected compression, and monotonically increasing timestamps.”; first response was “ACCEPT=seven filenames exist”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SERVICE LOG ROTATION SPECIFICATION CLR-9556 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: configure reliable log rotation. Evaluation focus: Log Management. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCLR-9556-R1 :: RESULT=TRIGGER=rotate app.log at >=10MB; fixture10.4MB rotates\nCLR-9556-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCLR-9556-R2 :: RESULT=ACTIVE_WRITE=rename rotated file; create new app.log; send HUP to PID418\nCLR-9556-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCLR-9556-R3 :: RESULT=COMPRESSION=app.log.1 plain\nCLR-9556-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCLR-9556-R4 :: RESULT=RETENTION=remove app.log.8; keep app.log.1-.7\nCLR-9556-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCLR-9556-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=IDs5001-5400 once each; rotations7; compression policy pass\nCLR-9556-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CLR-9556; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Rotate at the declared size","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Service app.log grows 8 MB/hour; policy rotates at 10 MB and the accelerated fixture reaches 10.4 MB. Semantic rule: The observed size crosses the exact policy threshold. FIRST returned “TRIGGER=wait until 100MB”; the private static semantic key accepts “TRIGGER=rotate app.log at >=10MB; fixture10.4MB rotates”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TRIGGER=rotate app.log at >=10MB; fixture10.4MB rotates”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve active writes","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Service PID 418 keeps app.log open; supported signal HUP reopens the path after rename. Semantic rule: The disclosed reopen mechanism avoids lost or split active writes. FIRST returned “ACTIVE_WRITE=delete the open file without reopen”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACTIVE_WRITE=rename rotated file; create new app.log; send HUP to PID418; no copytruncate” or “ACTIVE_WRITE=rename rotated file; create new app.log; send HUP to PID418”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACTIVE_WRITE=rename rotated file; create new app.log; send HUP to PID418”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Apply compression timing","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy compresses rotations older than one cycle; app.log.1 stays plain and app.log.2 becomes gzip. Semantic rule: The one-cycle delay protects the newest rotated file while satisfying compression policy. FIRST returned “COMPRESSION=gzip active app.log immediately”; the private static semantic key accepts “COMPRESSION=app.log.1 plain; app.log.2.gz compressed”, so it fails. FINAL returned “COMPRESSION=app.log.1 plain”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Enforce retention and disk cap","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Keep 7 rotations and no more than 80 MB total; fixture rotations 1-8 total 76 MB before pruning. Semantic rule: Both the seven-file count and eighty-megabyte ceiling apply. FIRST returned “RETENTION=keep all 8 forever”; the private static semantic key accepts “RETENTION=remove app.log.8; keep app.log.1-.7; total<=80MB” or “RETENTION=remove app.log.8; keep app.log.1-.7”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RETENTION=remove app.log.8; keep app.log.1-.7”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify continuity and timestamps","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance needs sequence IDs 5001-5400 exactly once, seven rotations, expected compression, and monotonically increasing timestamps. Semantic rule: Rotation passes only when content continuity, retention, compression, and ordering all reconcile. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=seven filenames exist”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=IDs5001-5400 once each; rotations7; compression policy pass; timestamps monotonic”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=IDs5001-5400 once each; rotations7; compression policy pass”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["CLR-9556 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Rotate at the declared size passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Preserve active writes also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Apply compression timing still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Verify continuity and timestamps still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Accelerated log generation and timestamped file checks will verify rotation, retention, compression, and uninterrupted writes.","evidenceNotes":["CLR-9556 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","CLR-9556's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","CLR-9556 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Accelerated log generation and timestamped file checks will verify rotation, retention, compression, and uninterrupted writes."],"limitations":["CLR-9556 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","CLR-9556 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-prioritize-collections-queue","title":"Prioritizing an Accounts Receivable Collections Queue with AI: The One-Pass Revision Reached 10/10","task":"prioritize an accounts receivable collections queue","excerpt":"The completed WFT-041 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Collections Planning, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-22T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-041: A credit team will supply open invoices, aging, dispute status, payment promises, and customer-contact restrictions. Source facts: accounts WFT-041-AR01–AR06; balances $420–$48,000; overdue 8–94 days; dispute AR03; promised payment AR05 tomorrow; hold AR06. Governing rule card: days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-041 for “prioritize an accounts receivable collections queue” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-041. Task: prioritize an accounts receivable collections queue. Context: A credit team will supply open invoices, aging, dispute status, payment promises, and customer-contact restrictions. Fictional source facts: accounts WFT-041-AR01–AR06; balances $420–$48,000; overdue 8–94 days; dispute AR03; promised payment AR05 tomorrow; hold AR06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A prioritized queue and a rule-by-rule review will verify ordering, exclusions, and proposed next actions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-041 produced a collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions for “prioritize an accounts receivable collections queue.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-041-AR03 | rank undisputed AR02 first, remove AR03 from routine collection, defer AR05, and preserve AR06’s hold | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named AR03’s dispute and AR06’s strategic hold and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Collections Planning task fidelity [WFT-041], Collections Planning rule accuracy [WFT-041], and Collections Planning exception handling [WFT-041]. It found for Collections Planning source traceability [WFT-041], the draft gave WFT-041-AR03 no source locator; for Collections Planning handoff usability [WFT-041], the draft left the collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-041 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Collections Planning source traceability [WFT-041] — the draft gave WFT-041-AR03 no source locator; 2) Collections Planning handoff usability [WFT-041] — the draft left the collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-041 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: rank undisputed AR02 first, remove AR03 from routine collection, defer AR05, and preserve AR06’s hold. Its corrected row read “WFT-041-AR03 | rule: days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds | decision: rank undisputed AR02 first, remove AR03 from routine collection, defer AR05, and preserve AR06’s hold | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Collections Planning source traceability [WFT-041] and Collections Planning handoff usability [WFT-041]. The final audit passed Collections Planning task fidelity [WFT-041], Collections Planning rule accuracy [WFT-041], Collections Planning exception handling [WFT-041], Collections Planning source traceability [WFT-041], and Collections Planning handoff usability [WFT-041]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Collections Planning task fidelity [WFT-041]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-041 static check 1 inspected “Collections Planning task fidelity [WFT-041]” against WFT-041-AR03, the rule “days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds,” and the saved collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Collections Planning rule accuracy [WFT-041]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-041 static check 2 inspected “Collections Planning rule accuracy [WFT-041]” against WFT-041-AR03, the rule “days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds,” and the saved collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Collections Planning exception handling [WFT-041]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-041 static check 3 inspected “Collections Planning exception handling [WFT-041]” against WFT-041-AR03, the rule “days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds,” and the saved collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Collections Planning source traceability [WFT-041]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-041 static check 4 inspected “Collections Planning source traceability [WFT-041]” against WFT-041-AR03, the rule “days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds,” and the saved collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Collections Planning handoff usability [WFT-041]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-041 static check 5 inspected “Collections Planning handoff usability [WFT-041]” against WFT-041-AR03, the rule “days overdue, balance, dispute, promise date, and approved holds,” and the saved collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-041 bounded “prioritize an accounts receivable collections queue” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-041 exposed WFT-041-AR03—rank undisputed AR02 first, remove AR03 from routine collection, defer AR05, and preserve AR06’s hold—inside the saved collections priority queue, reason codes, and protected-account exceptions.","WFT-041 earned inspectable passes for Collections Planning task fidelity [WFT-041] and Collections Planning rule accuracy [WFT-041] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-041 first failed Collections Planning source traceability [WFT-041]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A prioritized queue and a rule-by-rule review will verify ordering, exclusions, and proposed next actions.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-041 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-041 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-041 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A prioritized queue and a rule-by-rule review will verify ordering, exclusions, and proposed next actions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-041 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Collections Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-041 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-citation-traceability","title":"Teaching Citation Traceability with an AI Tutor: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"teach students to trace claims to citations","excerpt":"The completed LFT-007 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Citation literacy, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-22T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-007: Students will practice matching claims in a short research passage to the sources that support them. Source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-007-T01 through LFT-007-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-007-T03-L7. Governing rule card: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-007 for “teach students to trace claims to citations” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-007. Task: teach students to trace claims to citations. Context: Students will practice matching claims in a short research passage to the sources that support them. Fictional source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-007-T01 through LFT-007-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-007-T03-L7. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A source-to-claim matrix will document whether the lesson flags unsupported, partial, and misplaced citations.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-007 produced a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations for the task “teach students to trace claims to citations.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-007-T03-L7. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-007-ROW1 reads: “LFT-007-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-007-T03-L7 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Citation literacy objective fit [LFT-007], Citation literacy content accuracy [LFT-007], and Citation literacy safety and access [LFT-007]. The audit found concrete failures: for Citation literacy learner adaptation [LFT-007], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the contradictory LFT-007-T02 account and undocumented author motive; for Citation literacy evidence traceability [LFT-007], the saved draft gave the central LFT-007-T02 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-007 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Citation literacy learner adaptation [LFT-007] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the contradictory LFT-007-T02 account and undocumented author motive; 2) Citation literacy evidence traceability [LFT-007] — the draft gave the central LFT-007-T02 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-007 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-007-T03-L7. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-007-ROW1 reads: “LFT-007-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-007-T03-L7 | evidence locator: LFT-007-T01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Citation literacy learner adaptation [LFT-007]. The frozen final text passed Citation literacy objective fit [LFT-007], Citation literacy content accuracy [LFT-007], Citation literacy learner adaptation [LFT-007], and Citation literacy safety and access [LFT-007] and still failed Citation literacy evidence traceability [LFT-007]. The final claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Citation literacy objective fit [LFT-007]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-007 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Citation literacy objective fit [LFT-007].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-007-T02, the declared Citation literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Citation literacy content accuracy [LFT-007]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-007 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Citation literacy content accuracy [LFT-007].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-007-T02, the declared Citation literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Citation literacy learner adaptation [LFT-007]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-007 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Citation literacy learner adaptation [LFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-007-T02, the declared Citation literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Citation literacy evidence traceability [LFT-007]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-007 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Citation literacy evidence traceability [LFT-007].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-007-T02, the declared Citation literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Citation literacy safety and access [LFT-007]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-007 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Citation literacy safety and access [LFT-007].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-007-T02, the declared Citation literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-007 kept “teach students to trace claims to citations” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-007 made the central handling—support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-007-T03-L7—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-007 earned final passes for Citation literacy objective fit [LFT-007] and Citation literacy content accuracy [LFT-007] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-007 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Citation literacy evidence traceability [LFT-007]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A source-to-claim matrix will document whether the lesson flags unsupported, partial, and misplaced citations.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-007 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-007 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-007 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A source-to-claim matrix will document whether the lesson flags unsupported, partial, and misplaced citations.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-007 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Citation literacy fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-007 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-localize-safety-instructions","title":"How Should AI Localize Safety Instructions Without Diluting Warnings — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"localize workplace safety instructions while preserving mandatory warnings","excerpt":"The completed WFT-062 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Safety Localization checks passed after one correction, but Safety Localization task fidelity [WFT-062] and Safety Localization rule accuracy [WFT-062] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-19T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-062: A safety team will provide approved source instructions, a terminology list, reading-level target, and legally fixed warning language. Source facts: English WFT-062-S01–S08; mandatory 'LOCK OUT BEFORE SERVICE'; glossary isolator/guard/permit; Spanish (Mexico); diagram labels A–F. Governing rule card: no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-062 for “localize workplace safety instructions while preserving mandatory warnings” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-062. Task: localize workplace safety instructions while preserving mandatory warnings. Context: A safety team will provide approved source instructions, a terminology list, reading-level target, and legally fixed warning language. Fictional source facts: English WFT-062-S01–S08; mandatory 'LOCK OUT BEFORE SERVICE'; glossary isolator/guard/permit; Spanish (Mexico); diagram labels A–F. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. Produce a localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A bilingual clause alignment and terminology audit will verify warning preservation, omissions, substitutions, and readability.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-062 produced a localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review for “localize workplace safety instructions while preserving mandatory warnings.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-062-S05 | translate procedural prose, preserve lockout warning force and capitalization, use glossary terms, and retain A–F labels | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the mandatory lockout warning and locale-specific permit term and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Safety Localization exception handling [WFT-062] and Safety Localization source traceability [WFT-062]. It found for Safety Localization task fidelity [WFT-062], the draft did not link WFT-062-S05 to the full task boundary; for Safety Localization rule accuracy [WFT-062], the draft mentioned but did not verify no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift; for Safety Localization handoff usability [WFT-062], the draft left the localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-062 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Safety Localization task fidelity [WFT-062] — the draft did not link WFT-062-S05 to the full task boundary; 2) Safety Localization rule accuracy [WFT-062] — the draft mentioned but did not verify no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift; 3) Safety Localization handoff usability [WFT-062] — the draft left the localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-062 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: translate procedural prose, preserve lockout warning force and capitalization, use glossary terms, and retain A–F labels. Its corrected row read “WFT-062-S05 | rule: no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift | decision: translate procedural prose, preserve lockout warning force and capitalization, use glossary terms, and retain A–F labels | static status: 6/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Safety Localization handoff usability [WFT-062]. The final audit passed Safety Localization exception handling [WFT-062], Safety Localization source traceability [WFT-062], and Safety Localization handoff usability [WFT-062]. It still lacked Safety Localization task fidelity [WFT-062] and Safety Localization rule accuracy [WFT-062]; those failures remain visible. The localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review earned 6/10 from 3 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Safety Localization task fidelity [WFT-062]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-062 static check 1 inspected “Safety Localization task fidelity [WFT-062]” against WFT-062-S05, the rule “no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift,” and the saved localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety Localization rule accuracy [WFT-062]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-062 static check 2 inspected “Safety Localization rule accuracy [WFT-062]” against WFT-062-S05, the rule “no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift,” and the saved localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety Localization exception handling [WFT-062]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-062 static check 3 inspected “Safety Localization exception handling [WFT-062]” against WFT-062-S05, the rule “no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift,” and the saved localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety Localization source traceability [WFT-062]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-062 static check 4 inspected “Safety Localization source traceability [WFT-062]” against WFT-062-S05, the rule “no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift,” and the saved localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety Localization handoff usability [WFT-062]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-062 static check 5 inspected “Safety Localization handoff usability [WFT-062]” against WFT-062-S05, the rule “no warning omission, softened modality, changed measurement, or label drift,” and the saved localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-062 bounded “localize workplace safety instructions while preserving mandatory warnings” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-062 exposed WFT-062-S05—translate procedural prose, preserve lockout warning force and capitalization, use glossary terms, and retain A–F labels—inside the saved localized instruction sheet, protected-warning table, and terminology review.","WFT-062 earned inspectable passes for Safety Localization exception handling [WFT-062] and Safety Localization source traceability [WFT-062] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-062 still lacked saved-text evidence for Safety Localization task fidelity [WFT-062]; that failure remains published.","WFT-062 still lacked saved-text evidence for Safety Localization rule accuracy [WFT-062]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A bilingual clause alignment and terminology audit will verify warning preservation, omissions, substitutions, and readability.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-062 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-062 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-062 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A bilingual clause alignment and terminology audit will verify warning preservation, omissions, substitutions, and readability.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-062 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Safety Localization fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-062 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-set-shared-folder-permissions","title":"Least-Privilege Folder Sharing Through AI Guidance: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"set least-privilege shared-folder permissions","excerpt":"This completed synthetic File Permissions field test asked the session to set least-privilege shared-folder permissions, preserved an actual five-row shared-folder least-privilege matrix, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-19T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in SSFP-5116 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “set least-privilege shared-folder permissions”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: set least-privilege shared-folder permissions. Focus: File Permissions.\nSource scenario: The experiment will define several user roles and ask AI to map them to a controlled shared-folder hierarchy.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nSSFP-5116-I1: Share TEAM-6 has group Editors={Ava,Bo}, Reviewers={Cy}, and user Dex with no project role. Owner is Admin-O.\nSSFP-5116-I2: Editors may list, read, create, modify, and rename inside TEAM-6, but may not change ACLs, ownership, or share settings.\nSSFP-5116-I3: Cy must list and read every project file, cannot create or modify, and can add comments only through app comment store CMT-6 outside the filesystem.\nSSFP-5116-I4: Parent folder LAB grants Everyone write, but TEAM-6 policy disables that inherited ACE while retaining Admin-O full control and system backup read.\nSSFP-5116-I5: Acceptance expects Ava create/rename pass, Cy read pass and write denial, Dex list denial, Admin-O ACL edit pass, with ACL export hash 92c0d6fe.\nReturn a concrete shared-folder least-privilege matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: An access matrix and positive and negative permission tests will verify every role boundary.","firstResult":"SHARED-FOLDER LEAST-PRIVILEGE MATRIX SSFP-5116 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: set least-privilege shared-folder permissions. Evaluation focus: File Permissions. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nSSFP-5116-R1 :: RESULT=ROLES=Admin-O owner; Ava+Bo Editors; Cy Reviewer; Dex none\nSSFP-5116-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSSFP-5116-R2 :: RESULT=EDITORS=full control including ownership\nSSFP-5116-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSSFP-5116-R3 :: RESULT=REVIEWER=list+read; filesystem create+modify denied; comments via CMT-6 only\nSSFP-5116-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSSFP-5116-R4 :: RESULT=INHERITANCE=keep parent Everyone-write\nSSFP-5116-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSSFP-5116-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=Ava can open one file\nSSFP-5116-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for SSFP-5116; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise SSFP-5116 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Grant editors bounded content rights: input was “Editors may list, read, create, modify, and rename inside TEAM-6, but may not change ACLs, ownership, or share settings.”; first response was “EDITORS=full control including ownership”.\n- Prevent inherited privilege expansion: input was “Parent folder LAB grants Everyone write, but TEAM-6 policy disables that inherited ACE while retaining Admin-O full control and system backup read.”; first response was “INHERITANCE=keep parent Everyone-write”.\n- Run positive and negative matrix checks: input was “Acceptance expects Ava create/rename pass, Cy read pass and write denial, Dex list denial, Admin-O ACL edit pass, with ACL export hash 92c0d6fe.”; first response was “ACCEPT=Ava can open one file”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SHARED-FOLDER LEAST-PRIVILEGE MATRIX SSFP-5116 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: set least-privilege shared-folder permissions. Evaluation focus: File Permissions. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nSSFP-5116-R1 :: RESULT=ROLES=Admin-O owner; Ava+Bo Editors; Cy Reviewer; Dex none\nSSFP-5116-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSSFP-5116-R2 :: RESULT=EDITORS=list+read+create+modify+rename; ACL+owner+share changes denied\nSSFP-5116-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSSFP-5116-R3 :: RESULT=REVIEWER=list+read; filesystem create+modify denied; comments via CMT-6 only\nSSFP-5116-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSSFP-5116-R4 :: RESULT=INHERITANCE=remove Everyone-write on TEAM-6; retain Admin-O full+backup read\nSSFP-5116-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSSFP-5116-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=Ava create+rename pass; Cy read pass/write denied; Dex list denied; Admin-O ACL pass\nSSFP-5116-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for SSFP-5116; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Apply the declared group roles","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Share TEAM-6 has group Editors={Ava,Bo}, Reviewers={Cy}, and user Dex with no project role. Owner is Admin-O. Semantic rule: The access map must reproduce the explicit group membership and unassigned user. FIRST returned “ROLES=Admin-O owner; Ava+Bo Editors; Cy Reviewer; Dex none”; the private static semantic key accepts “ROLES=Admin-O owner; Ava+Bo Editors; Cy Reviewer; Dex none”, so it passes. FINAL returned “ROLES=Admin-O owner; Ava+Bo Editors; Cy Reviewer; Dex none”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Grant editors bounded content rights","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Editors may list, read, create, modify, and rename inside TEAM-6, but may not change ACLs, ownership, or share settings. Semantic rule: Content collaboration does not imply permission or ownership administration. FIRST returned “EDITORS=full control including ownership”; the private static semantic key accepts “EDITORS=list+read+create+modify+rename; ACL+owner+share changes denied”, so it fails. FINAL returned “EDITORS=list+read+create+modify+rename; ACL+owner+share changes denied”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep reviewer access read-only","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Cy must list and read every project file, cannot create or modify, and can add comments only through app comment store CMT-6 outside the filesystem. Semantic rule: The reviewer path separates read-only share rights from the external comment facility. FIRST returned “REVIEWER=list+read; filesystem create+modify denied; comments via CMT-6 only”; the private static semantic key accepts “REVIEWER=list+read; filesystem create+modify denied; comments via CMT-6 only”, so it passes. FINAL returned “REVIEWER=list+read; filesystem create+modify denied; comments via CMT-6 only”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Prevent inherited privilege expansion","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Parent folder LAB grants Everyone write, but TEAM-6 policy disables that inherited ACE while retaining Admin-O full control and system backup read. Semantic rule: The child ACL must block the explicitly unsafe inherited entry without removing required administration or backup access. FIRST returned “INHERITANCE=keep parent Everyone-write”; the private static semantic key accepts “INHERITANCE=remove Everyone-write on TEAM-6; retain Admin-O full+backup read”, so it fails. FINAL returned “INHERITANCE=remove Everyone-write on TEAM-6; retain Admin-O full+backup read”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Run positive and negative matrix checks","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance expects Ava create/rename pass, Cy read pass and write denial, Dex list denial, Admin-O ACL edit pass, with ACL export hash 92c0d6fe. Semantic rule: Every role boundary and the resulting ACL identity must match the frozen matrix. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=Ava can open one file”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=Ava create+rename pass; Cy read pass/write denied; Dex list denied; Admin-O ACL pass; hash92c0d6fe”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=Ava create+rename pass; Cy read pass/write denied; Dex list denied; Admin-O ACL pass”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["SSFP-5116 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Apply the declared group roles passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Grant editors bounded content rights also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Run positive and negative matrix checks still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"An access matrix and positive and negative permission tests will verify every role boundary.","evidenceNotes":["SSFP-5116 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","SSFP-5116's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","SSFP-5116 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: An access matrix and positive and negative permission tests will verify every role boundary."],"limitations":["SSFP-5116 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","SSFP-5116 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-check-accessibility-evidence","title":"What Evidence Gaps Can AI Find in an Accessibility Questionnaire — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"check a vendor accessibility questionnaire for missing evidence","excerpt":"The completed WFT-020 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Accessibility Review checks passed after one correction, but Accessibility Review rule accuracy [WFT-020] and Accessibility Review exception handling [WFT-020] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-16T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-020: A compliance team will provide a completed questionnaire, supporting documents, and a mandatory evidence checklist. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-020-D01 through WFT-020-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-020-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-020 for “check a vendor accessibility questionnaire for missing evidence” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-020. Task: check a vendor accessibility questionnaire for missing evidence. Context: A compliance team will provide a completed questionnaire, supporting documents, and a mandatory evidence checklist. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-020-D01 through WFT-020-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-020-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An omissions register and a reviewer comparison against required fields will verify each identified gap.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-020 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “check a vendor accessibility questionnaire for missing evidence.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-020-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-020-ROW1 reads: “WFT-020-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-020-D04 for review | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Accessibility Review source traceability [WFT-020] and Accessibility Review handoff usability [WFT-020]. The audit found concrete failures: for Accessibility Review task fidelity [WFT-020], the saved draft did not connect WFT-020-D04 to the full boundary of “check a vendor accessibility questionnaire for missing evidence”; for Accessibility Review rule accuracy [WFT-020], the saved draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; for Accessibility Review exception handling [WFT-020], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-020-D04. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-020 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Accessibility Review task fidelity [WFT-020] — the draft did not connect WFT-020-D04 to the full boundary of “check a vendor accessibility questionnaire for missing evidence”; 2) Accessibility Review rule accuracy [WFT-020] — the draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; 3) Accessibility Review exception handling [WFT-020] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-020-D04.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-020 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-020-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-020-ROW1 reads: “WFT-020-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-020-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-020-D01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Accessibility Review task fidelity [WFT-020]. The frozen final text passed Accessibility Review task fidelity [WFT-020], Accessibility Review source traceability [WFT-020], and Accessibility Review handoff usability [WFT-020] and still failed Accessibility Review rule accuracy [WFT-020] and Accessibility Review exception handling [WFT-020]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Accessibility Review task fidelity [WFT-020]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-020 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Accessibility Review task fidelity [WFT-020].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-020-D04, the declared Accessibility Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessibility Review rule accuracy [WFT-020]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-020 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Accessibility Review rule accuracy [WFT-020].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-020-D04, the declared Accessibility Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessibility Review exception handling [WFT-020]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-020 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Accessibility Review exception handling [WFT-020].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-020-D04, the declared Accessibility Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessibility Review source traceability [WFT-020]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-020 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Accessibility Review source traceability [WFT-020].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-020-D04, the declared Accessibility Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessibility Review handoff usability [WFT-020]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-020 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Accessibility Review handoff usability [WFT-020].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-020-D04, the declared Accessibility Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-020 kept “check a vendor accessibility questionnaire for missing evidence” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-020 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-020-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-020 earned final passes for Accessibility Review task fidelity [WFT-020] and Accessibility Review source traceability [WFT-020] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-020 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Accessibility Review rule accuracy [WFT-020]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-020 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Accessibility Review exception handling [WFT-020]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"An omissions register and a reviewer comparison against required fields will verify each identified gap.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-020 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-020 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-020 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An omissions register and a reviewer comparison against required fields will verify each identified gap.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-020 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Accessibility Review fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-020 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-statistics-graph-interpretation","title":"How an AI Tutor Might Teach Learners to Challenge Misleading Graphs: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"teach learners to question misleading graphs","excerpt":"The completed LFT-019 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Graph literacy, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-16T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-019: Learners will examine graphs with truncated axes, uneven intervals, and selective time ranges through guided prompts. Source facts: fictional learner work LFT-019-L01 through LFT-019-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-019-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing rule card: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-019 for “teach learners to question misleading graphs” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-019. Task: teach learners to question misleading graphs. Context: Learners will examine graphs with truncated axes, uneven intervals, and selective time ranges through guided prompts. Fictional source facts: fictional learner work LFT-019-L01 through LFT-019-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-019-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. Produce a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Written critiques will be matched against a flaw key to verify detection and accurate explanation.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-019 produced a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist for the task “teach learners to question misleading graphs.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: probe LFT-019-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-019-ROW1 reads: “LFT-019-L01 | probe LFT-019-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Graph literacy objective fit [LFT-019], Graph literacy evidence traceability [LFT-019], and Graph literacy safety and access [LFT-019]. The audit found concrete failures: for Graph literacy content accuracy [LFT-019], the saved draft left objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response without an explicit verification row; for Graph literacy learner adaptation [LFT-019], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-019-L03 and unanswered L05 item. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-019 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Graph literacy content accuracy [LFT-019] — the draft left objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response without an explicit verification row; 2) Graph literacy learner adaptation [LFT-019] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-019-L03 and unanswered L05 item.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-019 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: probe LFT-019-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-019-ROW1 reads: “LFT-019-L01 | probe LFT-019-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | evidence locator: LFT-019-L01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Graph literacy content accuracy [LFT-019]. The frozen final text passed Graph literacy objective fit [LFT-019], Graph literacy content accuracy [LFT-019], Graph literacy evidence traceability [LFT-019], and Graph literacy safety and access [LFT-019] and still failed Graph literacy learner adaptation [LFT-019]. The final guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Graph literacy objective fit [LFT-019]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-019 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Graph literacy objective fit [LFT-019].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-019-L03, the declared Graph literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Graph literacy content accuracy [LFT-019]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-019 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Graph literacy content accuracy [LFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-019-L03, the declared Graph literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Graph literacy learner adaptation [LFT-019]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-019 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Graph literacy learner adaptation [LFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-019-L03, the declared Graph literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Graph literacy evidence traceability [LFT-019]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-019 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Graph literacy evidence traceability [LFT-019].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-019-L03, the declared Graph literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Graph literacy safety and access [LFT-019]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-019 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Graph literacy safety and access [LFT-019].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-019-L03, the declared Graph literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-019 kept “teach learners to question misleading graphs” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-019 made the central handling—probe LFT-019-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-019 earned final passes for Graph literacy objective fit [LFT-019] and Graph literacy content accuracy [LFT-019] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-019 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Graph literacy learner adaptation [LFT-019]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Written critiques will be matched against a flaw key to verify detection and accurate explanation.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-019 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-019 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-019 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Written critiques will be matched against a flaw key to verify detection and accurate explanation.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-019 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Graph literacy fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-019 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-create-map-reading-drill","title":"Turning Transit Maps into Graduated Reading Practice — What the Completed 10/10 Test Found","task":"turn transit maps into graduated map-reading practice","excerpt":"The completed LFT-068 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Map Literacy, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-15T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-068: A teacher will provide synthetic transit maps, learner goals, accessibility needs, and route questions of increasing complexity. Source facts: transit map LFT-068-M01; scale 1 cm=2.5 km; A–B 3.2 cm, B–C 1.8 cm; transfer B; north arrow rotated 20°; access icon C. Governing rule card: distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-068 for “turn transit maps into graduated map-reading practice” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-068. Task: turn transit maps into graduated map-reading practice. Context: A teacher will provide synthetic transit maps, learner goals, accessibility needs, and route questions of increasing complexity. Fictional source facts: transit map LFT-068-M01; scale 1 cm=2.5 km; A–B 3.2 cm, B–C 1.8 cm; transfer B; north arrow rotated 20°; access icon C. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A route solver and difficulty audit will verify answer keys, transfer requirements, visual accessibility, and progression.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-068 produced a graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map for “turn transit maps into graduated map-reading practice.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-068-M01 | calculate A–C as 12.5 km, identify transfer B, use the rotated north arrow, and retain the access symbol | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the rotated north arrow and addition of two route segments and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Map Literacy content accuracy [LFT-068], Map Literacy learner adaptation [LFT-068], and Map Literacy evidence traceability [LFT-068]. It found for Map Literacy objective fit [LFT-068], the draft did not link LFT-068-M01 to the full task boundary; for Map Literacy safety and access [LFT-068], the draft left the graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-068 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Map Literacy objective fit [LFT-068] — the draft did not link LFT-068-M01 to the full task boundary; 2) Map Literacy safety and access [LFT-068] — the draft left the graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-068 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: calculate A–C as 12.5 km, identify transfer B, use the rotated north arrow, and retain the access symbol. Its corrected row read “LFT-068-M01 | rule: distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation | decision: calculate A–C as 12.5 km, identify transfer B, use the rotated north arrow, and retain the access symbol | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Map Literacy objective fit [LFT-068] and Map Literacy safety and access [LFT-068]. The final audit passed Map Literacy objective fit [LFT-068], Map Literacy content accuracy [LFT-068], Map Literacy learner adaptation [LFT-068], Map Literacy evidence traceability [LFT-068], and Map Literacy safety and access [LFT-068]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Map Literacy objective fit [LFT-068]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-068 static check 1 inspected “Map Literacy objective fit [LFT-068]” against LFT-068-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Map Literacy content accuracy [LFT-068]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-068 static check 2 inspected “Map Literacy content accuracy [LFT-068]” against LFT-068-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Map Literacy learner adaptation [LFT-068]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-068 static check 3 inspected “Map Literacy learner adaptation [LFT-068]” against LFT-068-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Map Literacy evidence traceability [LFT-068]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-068 static check 4 inspected “Map Literacy evidence traceability [LFT-068]” against LFT-068-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Map Literacy safety and access [LFT-068]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-068 static check 5 inspected “Map Literacy safety and access [LFT-068]” against LFT-068-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-068 bounded “turn transit maps into graduated map-reading practice” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-068 exposed LFT-068-M01—calculate A–C as 12.5 km, identify transfer B, use the rotated north arrow, and retain the access symbol—inside the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map.","LFT-068 earned inspectable passes for Map Literacy objective fit [LFT-068] and Map Literacy content accuracy [LFT-068] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-068 first failed Map Literacy objective fit [LFT-068]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A route solver and difficulty audit will verify answer keys, transfer requirements, visual accessibility, and progression.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-068 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-068 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-068 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A route solver and difficulty audit will verify answer keys, transfer requirements, visual accessibility, and progression.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-068 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Map Literacy fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-068 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-refactor-legacy-script","title":"Putting a Fragile Legacy Script on AI's Refactoring Bench: Only One Semantic Check Held","task":"refactor a fragile legacy script","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Refactoring field test asked the session to refactor a fragile legacy script, preserved an actual five-row legacy script refactor diff, and derived 0/10 then 2/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-13T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RLS-4274 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “refactor a fragile legacy script”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: refactor a fragile legacy script. Focus: Refactoring.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide a small documented script with duplicated logic, weak error handling, and fixed behavior requirements.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRLS-4274-I1: Script clean.js accepts --input, --output, and --dry-run; golden cases R1-R8 define stdout, stderr, files, and exit codes.\nRLS-4274-I2: Functions parseCsvA and parseCsvB contain 31 identical lines; A uses a comma delimiter and B uses a tab delimiter.\nRLS-4274-I3: normalizeInput maps null to missing, empty string to empty, and numeric zero to 0; case R4 covers all three.\nRLS-4274-I4: Unreadable input should emit ERR_READ, exit 3, and create no output; existing script currently throws a stack trace.\nRLS-4274-I5: Acceptance is R1-R8 8/8, duplicate parser block count 1, public flags unchanged, and static complexity below 9.\nReturn a concrete legacy script refactor diff with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Regression tests and a static review will verify preserved behavior, clearer structure, and improved failure handling.","firstResult":"LEGACY SCRIPT REFACTOR DIFF RLS-4274 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: refactor a fragile legacy script. Evaluation focus: Refactoring. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRLS-4274-R1 :: RESULT=BEHAVIOR=rename --dry-run to --preview\nRLS-4274-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLS-4274-R2 :: RESULT=REFACTOR=delete parseCsvB and make both comma-delimited\nRLS-4274-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLS-4274-R3 :: RESULT=NORMALIZE=treat every falsy value as missing\nRLS-4274-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLS-4274-R4 :: RESULT=ERROR=catch every error and exit0\nRLS-4274-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLS-4274-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=script has fewer lines\nRLS-4274-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RLS-4274; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RLS-4274 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Preserve command behavior: input was “Script clean.js accepts --input, --output, and --dry-run; golden cases R1-R8 define stdout, stderr, files, and exit codes.”; first response was “BEHAVIOR=rename --dry-run to --preview”.\n- Consolidate duplicated parsing: input was “Functions parseCsvA and parseCsvB contain 31 identical lines; A uses a comma delimiter and B uses a tab delimiter.”; first response was “REFACTOR=delete parseCsvB and make both comma-delimited”.\n- Retain zero and empty-string semantics: input was “normalizeInput maps null to missing, empty string to empty, and numeric zero to 0; case R4 covers all three.”; first response was “NORMALIZE=treat every falsy value as missing”.\n- Add bounded error handling: input was “Unreadable input should emit ERR_READ, exit 3, and create no output; existing script currently throws a stack trace.”; first response was “ERROR=catch every error and exit0”.\n- Verify structure and regressions: input was “Acceptance is R1-R8 8/8, duplicate parser block count 1, public flags unchanged, and static complexity below 9.”; first response was “ACCEPT=script has fewer lines”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"LEGACY SCRIPT REFACTOR DIFF RLS-4274 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: refactor a fragile legacy script. Evaluation focus: Refactoring. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRLS-4274-R1 :: RESULT=BEHAVIOR=retain flags3; golden R1-R8 exact\nRLS-4274-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLS-4274-R2 :: RESULT=REFACTOR=one parseCsv(delimiter)\nRLS-4274-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLS-4274-R3 :: RESULT=NORMALIZE=null missing; empty stays empty\nRLS-4274-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLS-4274-R4 :: RESULT=ERROR=ERR_READ; exit3; output absent\nRLS-4274-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRLS-4274-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=R1-R8 8/8; parser block1; flags unchanged\nRLS-4274-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RLS-4274; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Preserve command behavior","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Script clean.js accepts --input, --output, and --dry-run; golden cases R1-R8 define stdout, stderr, files, and exit codes. Semantic rule: Refactoring may change structure but not the documented command interface or eight outputs. FIRST returned “BEHAVIOR=rename --dry-run to --preview”; the private static semantic key accepts “BEHAVIOR=retain flags3; golden R1-R8 exact”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BEHAVIOR=retain flags3; golden R1-R8 exact”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Consolidate duplicated parsing","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Functions parseCsvA and parseCsvB contain 31 identical lines; A uses a comma delimiter and B uses a tab delimiter. Semantic rule: The shared implementation must preserve the two disclosed delimiter arguments. FIRST returned “REFACTOR=delete parseCsvB and make both comma-delimited”; the private static semantic key accepts “REFACTOR=one parseCsv(delimiter); callers A comma and B tab”, so it fails. FINAL returned “REFACTOR=one parseCsv(delimiter)”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Retain zero and empty-string semantics","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: normalizeInput maps null to missing, empty string to empty, and numeric zero to 0; case R4 covers all three. Semantic rule: The regression fixture distinguishes three values that a broad truthy guard would conflate. FIRST returned “NORMALIZE=treat every falsy value as missing”; the private static semantic key accepts “NORMALIZE=null missing; empty stays empty; zero stays0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “NORMALIZE=null missing; empty stays empty”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Add bounded error handling","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Unreadable input should emit ERR_READ, exit 3, and create no output; existing script currently throws a stack trace. Semantic rule: The documented failure contract specifies message, status, side effect, and disclosure. FIRST returned “ERROR=catch every error and exit0”; the private static semantic key accepts “ERROR=ERR_READ; exit3; output absent; no stack trace”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ERROR=ERR_READ; exit3; output absent”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify structure and regressions","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is R1-R8 8/8, duplicate parser block count 1, public flags unchanged, and static complexity below 9. Semantic rule: Behavioral, duplication, interface, and complexity gates jointly score the refactor. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=script has fewer lines”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=R1-R8 8/8; parser block1; flags unchanged; complexity<9”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=R1-R8 8/8; parser block1; flags unchanged”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":2,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["RLS-4274 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Preserve command behavior passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier."],"whatFailed":["Consolidate duplicated parsing still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Retain zero and empty-string semantics still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Add bounded error handling still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Verify structure and regressions still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Regression tests and a static review will verify preserved behavior, clearer structure, and improved failure handling.","evidenceNotes":["RLS-4274 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RLS-4274's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 1 passes multiplied by two.","RLS-4274 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Regression tests and a static review will verify preserved behavior, clearer structure, and improved failure handling."],"limitations":["RLS-4274 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RLS-4274 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-analyze-employee-survey","title":"How Can AI Summarize Survey Themes Without Hiding Minority Views — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"summarize employee survey themes without obscuring minority views","excerpt":"The completed WFT-048 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Survey Analysis, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-12T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-048: A people analytics team will provide anonymized comments, demographic safeguards, and a predefined theme taxonomy. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-048-N01 through WFT-048-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-048-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-048 for “summarize employee survey themes without obscuring minority views” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-048. Task: summarize employee survey themes without obscuring minority views. Context: A people analytics team will provide anonymized comments, demographic safeguards, and a predefined theme taxonomy. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-048-N01 through WFT-048-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-048-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A theme report with coded excerpts and subgroup coverage checks will verify prevalence and dissenting patterns.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-048 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “summarize employee survey themes without obscuring minority views.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-048-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-048-ROW1 reads: “WFT-048-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-048-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Survey Analysis task fidelity [WFT-048], Survey Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-048], and Survey Analysis handoff usability [WFT-048]. The audit found concrete failures: for Survey Analysis exception handling [WFT-048], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-048-N06/N07 contradiction; for Survey Analysis source traceability [WFT-048], the saved draft gave the central WFT-048-N07 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-048 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Survey Analysis exception handling [WFT-048] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-048-N06/N07 contradiction; 2) Survey Analysis source traceability [WFT-048] — the draft gave the central WFT-048-N07 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-048 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-048-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-048-ROW1 reads: “WFT-048-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-048-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-048-N01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Survey Analysis exception handling [WFT-048]. The frozen final text passed Survey Analysis task fidelity [WFT-048], Survey Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-048], Survey Analysis exception handling [WFT-048], and Survey Analysis handoff usability [WFT-048] and still failed Survey Analysis source traceability [WFT-048]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Survey Analysis task fidelity [WFT-048]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-048 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Survey Analysis task fidelity [WFT-048].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-048-N07, the declared Survey Analysis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Survey Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-048]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-048 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Survey Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-048].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-048-N07, the declared Survey Analysis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Survey Analysis exception handling [WFT-048]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-048 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Survey Analysis exception handling [WFT-048].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-048-N07, the declared Survey Analysis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Survey Analysis source traceability [WFT-048]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-048 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Survey Analysis source traceability [WFT-048].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-048-N07, the declared Survey Analysis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Survey Analysis handoff usability [WFT-048]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-048 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Survey Analysis handoff usability [WFT-048].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-048-N07, the declared Survey Analysis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-048 kept “summarize employee survey themes without obscuring minority views” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-048 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-048-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-048 earned final passes for Survey Analysis task fidelity [WFT-048] and Survey Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-048] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-048 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Survey Analysis source traceability [WFT-048]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A theme report with coded excerpts and subgroup coverage checks will verify prevalence and dissenting patterns.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-048 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-048 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-048 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A theme report with coded excerpts and subgroup coverage checks will verify prevalence and dissenting patterns.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-048 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Survey Analysis fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-048 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-check-container-secrets","title":"Checking a Container Image for Leaked Secrets and Risky Defaults: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"check a container image for seeded secrets and risky defaults","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Container Inspection field test asked the session to check a container image for seeded secrets and risky defaults, preserved an actual five-row container secret and defaults audit, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-11T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in CCS-9706 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “check a container image for seeded secrets and risky defaults”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: check a container image for seeded secrets and risky defaults. Focus: Container Inspection.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use a disposable image containing inert canary credentials, layered files, environment metadata, and deliberate hardening gaps.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nCCS-9706-I1: Image layer L3 adds /app/.env with canary token CANARY_7F2; L4 deletes the file but retains prior-layer bytes.\nCCS-9706-I2: String EXAMPLE_KEY=not-a-secret appears in README layer L2 and is labeled a fixture example.\nCCS-9706-I3: Manifest runs as UID 0, requests privileged=true, and mounts no resource that requires either setting.\nCCS-9706-I4: Application needs TCP8080; image declares EXPOSE 8080 and 22, but no SSH daemon is required.\nCCS-9706-I5: Acceptance is canary recall1/1, README false alarms0, UID10001, privileged false, port8080 only, and final scan hash 4a8d.\nReturn a concrete container secret and defaults audit with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Independent image scanners, layer inspection, and runtime configuration checks will verify secret recall, false alarms, privileges, and exposed services.","firstResult":"CONTAINER SECRET AND DEFAULTS AUDIT CCS-9706 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: check a container image for seeded secrets and risky defaults. Evaluation focus: Container Inspection. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCCS-9706-R1 :: RESULT=SECRET=flag CANARY_7F2 in layerL3; deletion in L4 does not remove history\nCCS-9706-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCS-9706-R2 :: RESULT=FALSE_POSITIVE=do not flag README EXAMPLE_KEY\nCCS-9706-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCS-9706-R3 :: RESULT=PRIVILEGE=flag UID0+privileged; recommend nonroot UID10001 and privileged false\nCCS-9706-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCS-9706-R4 :: RESULT=PORTS=publish both 8080 and 22\nCCS-9706-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCS-9706-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one scanner reports clean\nCCS-9706-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CCS-9706; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise CCS-9706 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Limit exposed services: input was “Application needs TCP8080; image declares EXPOSE 8080 and 22, but no SSH daemon is required.”; first response was “PORTS=publish both 8080 and 22”.\n- Reconcile scanners and negative tests: input was “Acceptance is canary recall1/1, README false alarms0, UID10001, privileged false, port8080 only, and final scan hash 4a8d.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one scanner reports clean”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"CONTAINER SECRET AND DEFAULTS AUDIT CCS-9706 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: check a container image for seeded secrets and risky defaults. Evaluation focus: Container Inspection. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCCS-9706-R1 :: RESULT=SECRET=flag CANARY_7F2 in layerL3; deletion in L4 does not remove history\nCCS-9706-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCS-9706-R2 :: RESULT=FALSE_POSITIVE=do not flag README EXAMPLE_KEY\nCCS-9706-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCS-9706-R3 :: RESULT=PRIVILEGE=flag UID0+privileged; recommend nonroot UID10001 and privileged false\nCCS-9706-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCS-9706-R4 :: RESULT=PORTS=retain TCP8080; remove EXPOSE22\nCCS-9706-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCS-9706-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=secret1/1; false positives0; UID10001; privilegedfalse; port8080; hash4a8d\nCCS-9706-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CCS-9706; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Find the seeded layer secret","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Image layer L3 adds /app/.env with canary token CANARY_7F2; L4 deletes the file but retains prior-layer bytes. Semantic rule: Container layers are immutable history, so a later deletion does not erase earlier bytes. FIRST returned “SECRET=flag CANARY_7F2 in layerL3; deletion in L4 does not remove history”; the private static semantic key accepts “SECRET=flag CANARY_7F2 in layerL3; deletion in L4 does not remove history”, so it passes. FINAL returned “SECRET=flag CANARY_7F2 in layerL3; deletion in L4 does not remove history”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reject the documented non-secret","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: String EXAMPLE_KEY=not-a-secret appears in README layer L2 and is labeled a fixture example. Semantic rule: The known label distinguishes an example from the seeded canary token. FIRST returned “FALSE_POSITIVE=do not flag README EXAMPLE_KEY”; the private static semantic key accepts “FALSE_POSITIVE=do not flag README EXAMPLE_KEY”, so it passes. FINAL returned “FALSE_POSITIVE=do not flag README EXAMPLE_KEY”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Detect risky runtime privilege","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Manifest runs as UID 0, requests privileged=true, and mounts no resource that requires either setting. Semantic rule: The fixture provides no functional justification for either elevated default. FIRST returned “PRIVILEGE=flag UID0+privileged; recommend nonroot UID10001 and privileged false”; the private static semantic key accepts “PRIVILEGE=flag UID0+privileged; recommend nonroot UID10001 and privileged false”, so it passes. FINAL returned “PRIVILEGE=flag UID0+privileged; recommend nonroot UID10001 and privileged false”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Limit exposed services","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Application needs TCP8080; image declares EXPOSE 8080 and 22, but no SSH daemon is required. Semantic rule: Only the documented application service belongs in the image interface. FIRST returned “PORTS=publish both 8080 and 22”; the private static semantic key accepts “PORTS=retain TCP8080; remove EXPOSE22”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PORTS=retain TCP8080; remove EXPOSE22”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile scanners and negative tests","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is canary recall1/1, README false alarms0, UID10001, privileged false, port8080 only, and final scan hash 4a8d. Semantic rule: Secret recall, precision, privilege, service exposure, and frozen scan identity all apply. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one scanner reports clean”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=secret1/1; false positives0; UID10001; privilegedfalse; port8080; hash4a8d”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=secret1/1; false positives0; UID10001; privilegedfalse; port8080; hash4a8d”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["CCS-9706 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Find the seeded layer secret passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Reject the documented non-secret also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Limit exposed services; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Independent image scanners, layer inspection, and runtime configuration checks will verify secret recall, false alarms, privileges, and exposed services.","evidenceNotes":["CCS-9706 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","CCS-9706's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","CCS-9706 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Independent image scanners, layer inspection, and runtime configuration checks will verify secret recall, false alarms, privileges, and exposed services."],"limitations":["CCS-9706 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","CCS-9706 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-map-scale-reasoning","title":"Map Route Distances with AI to Learn Scale: The One-Pass Revision Reached 10/10","task":"teach map-scale reasoning through route planning","excerpt":"The completed LFT-033 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Map reasoning, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-09T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-033: Learners will estimate and calculate travel distances from maps with different scales. Source facts: transit map LFT-033-M01; scale 1 cm=2.5 km; A–B 3.2 cm, B–C 1.8 cm; transfer B; north arrow rotated 20°; access icon C. Governing rule card: distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-033 for “teach map-scale reasoning through route planning” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-033. Task: teach map-scale reasoning through route planning. Context: Learners will estimate and calculate travel distances from maps with different scales. Fictional source facts: transit map LFT-033-M01; scale 1 cm=2.5 km; A–B 3.2 cm, B–C 1.8 cm; transfer B; north arrow rotated 20°; access icon C. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Calculation sheets will be checked against measured reference distances and unit-conversion steps.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-033 produced a graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map for “teach map-scale reasoning through route planning.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-033-M01 | calculate A–C as 12.5 km, identify transfer B, use the rotated north arrow, and retain the access symbol | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the rotated north arrow and addition of two route segments and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Map reasoning content accuracy [LFT-033], Map reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-033], and Map reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-033]. It found for Map reasoning objective fit [LFT-033], the draft did not link LFT-033-M01 to the full task boundary; for Map reasoning safety and access [LFT-033], the draft left the graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-033 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Map reasoning objective fit [LFT-033] — the draft did not link LFT-033-M01 to the full task boundary; 2) Map reasoning safety and access [LFT-033] — the draft left the graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-033 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: calculate A–C as 12.5 km, identify transfer B, use the rotated north arrow, and retain the access symbol. Its corrected row read “LFT-033-M01 | rule: distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation | decision: calculate A–C as 12.5 km, identify transfer B, use the rotated north arrow, and retain the access symbol | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Map reasoning objective fit [LFT-033] and Map reasoning safety and access [LFT-033]. The final audit passed Map reasoning objective fit [LFT-033], Map reasoning content accuracy [LFT-033], Map reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-033], Map reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-033], and Map reasoning safety and access [LFT-033]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Map reasoning objective fit [LFT-033]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-033 static check 1 inspected “Map reasoning objective fit [LFT-033]” against LFT-033-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Map reasoning content accuracy [LFT-033]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-033 static check 2 inspected “Map reasoning content accuracy [LFT-033]” against LFT-033-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Map reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-033]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-033 static check 3 inspected “Map reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-033]” against LFT-033-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Map reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-033]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-033 static check 4 inspected “Map reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-033]” against LFT-033-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Map reasoning safety and access [LFT-033]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-033 static check 5 inspected “Map reasoning safety and access [LFT-033]” against LFT-033-M01, the rule “distance conversion, route continuity, legend, and orientation,” and the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-033 bounded “teach map-scale reasoning through route planning” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-033 exposed LFT-033-M01—calculate A–C as 12.5 km, identify transfer B, use the rotated north arrow, and retain the access symbol—inside the saved graduated route tasks, scale calculations, and answer-key map.","LFT-033 earned inspectable passes for Map reasoning objective fit [LFT-033] and Map reasoning content accuracy [LFT-033] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-033 first failed Map reasoning objective fit [LFT-033]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"Calculation sheets will be checked against measured reference distances and unit-conversion steps.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-033 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-033 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-033 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Calculation sheets will be checked against measured reference distances and unit-conversion steps.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-033 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Map reasoning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-033 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-resolve-merge-conflict","title":"The Merge-Conflict Resolution Brief for AI: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"resolve a complex merge conflict correctly","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Version Control field test asked the session to resolve a complex merge conflict correctly, preserved an actual five-row three-way merge resolution record, and derived 2/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-09T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RMC-0354 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “resolve a complex merge conflict correctly”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: resolve a complex merge conflict correctly. Focus: Version Control.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide diverged branches whose conflicting edits encode documented behavioral requirements.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRMC-0354-I1: Base config has retries=2 and region=us-east. Branch ours changes retries=4; branch theirs changes region=eu-west without touching retries.\nRMC-0354-I2: Base timeout is 20s, ours proposes 45s, theirs proposes 30s. Release brief MR-27 fixes the approved timeout at 30s.\nRMC-0354-I3: Base calls validate then save. Ours inserts normalize between them; theirs inserts audit after save. Both new calls are required and audit must observe saved state.\nRMC-0354-I4: Both branches conflict in app.lock; merged package.json requires core 2.8.0 and audit-kit 1.3.0. Generator G9 deterministically produces lock hash 71cd09e2.\nRMC-0354-I5: Expected gate is tests M01-M18 all pass, config snapshot hash 4b1d020f, lock hash 71cd09e2, and zero conflict markers.\nReturn a concrete three-way merge resolution record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: The full test suite and a semantic diff against the intended resolution will verify the merged result.","firstResult":"THREE-WAY MERGE RESOLUTION RECORD RMC-0354 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: resolve a complex merge conflict correctly. Evaluation focus: Version Control. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRMC-0354-R1 :: RESULT=CONFIG=take ours wholesale and leave region us-east\nRMC-0354-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRMC-0354-R2 :: RESULT=TIMEOUT=average the branches to 37.5s\nRMC-0354-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRMC-0354-R3 :: RESULT=HANDLER=validate>audit>normalize>save\nRMC-0354-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRMC-0354-R4 :: RESULT=LOCK=regenerate with G9; core2.8.0+audit-kit1.3.0; hash71cd09e2; no hand merge\nRMC-0354-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRMC-0354-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=compiler succeeds with two skipped tests\nRMC-0354-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RMC-0354; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RMC-0354 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Preserve independent configuration edits: input was “Base config has retries=2 and region=us-east. Branch ours changes retries=4; branch theirs changes region=eu-west without touching retries.”; first response was “CONFIG=take ours wholesale and leave region us-east”.\n- Resolve the actual timeout conflict by policy: input was “Base timeout is 20s, ours proposes 45s, theirs proposes 30s. Release brief MR-27 fixes the approved timeout at 30s.”; first response was “TIMEOUT=average the branches to 37.5s”.\n- Merge the handler sequence semantically: input was “Base calls validate then save. Ours inserts normalize between them; theirs inserts audit after save. Both new calls are required and audit must observe saved state.”; first response was “HANDLER=validate>audit>normalize>save”.\n- Meet the semantic acceptance gate: input was “Expected gate is tests M01-M18 all pass, config snapshot hash 4b1d020f, lock hash 71cd09e2, and zero conflict markers.”; first response was “ACCEPT=compiler succeeds with two skipped tests”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"THREE-WAY MERGE RESOLUTION RECORD RMC-0354 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: resolve a complex merge conflict correctly. Evaluation focus: Version Control. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRMC-0354-R1 :: RESULT=CONFIG=retries4 from ours; region eu-west from theirs; retain both independent edits\nRMC-0354-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRMC-0354-R2 :: RESULT=TIMEOUT=30s; source=MR-27; reject ours45s\nRMC-0354-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRMC-0354-R3 :: RESULT=HANDLER=validate>normalize>save>audit\nRMC-0354-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRMC-0354-R4 :: RESULT=LOCK=regenerate with G9; core2.8.0+audit-kit1.3.0; hash71cd09e2; no hand merge\nRMC-0354-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRMC-0354-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=M01-M18 18/18; config4b1d020f; lock71cd09e2\nRMC-0354-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RMC-0354; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Preserve independent configuration edits","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Base config has retries=2 and region=us-east. Branch ours changes retries=4; branch theirs changes region=eu-west without touching retries. Semantic rule: A semantic merge must preserve nonoverlapping changes from both descendants of the base. FIRST returned “CONFIG=take ours wholesale and leave region us-east”; the private static semantic key accepts “CONFIG=retries4 from ours; region eu-west from theirs; retain both independent edits”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CONFIG=retries4 from ours; region eu-west from theirs; retain both independent edits”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Resolve the actual timeout conflict by policy","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Base timeout is 20s, ours proposes 45s, theirs proposes 30s. Release brief MR-27 fixes the approved timeout at 30s. Semantic rule: The supplied release brief, not an invented compromise, determines the conflicting value. FIRST returned “TIMEOUT=average the branches to 37.5s”; the private static semantic key accepts “TIMEOUT=30s; source=MR-27; reject ours45s”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TIMEOUT=30s; source=MR-27; reject ours45s”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Merge the handler sequence semantically","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Base calls validate then save. Ours inserts normalize between them; theirs inserts audit after save. Both new calls are required and audit must observe saved state. Semantic rule: The order must preserve both branch intents and the stated post-save audit dependency. FIRST returned “HANDLER=validate>audit>normalize>save”; the private static semantic key accepts “HANDLER=validate>normalize>save>audit; include both additions” or “HANDLER=validate>normalize>save>audit”, so it fails. FINAL returned “HANDLER=validate>normalize>save>audit”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Treat the generated lockfile as derived","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Both branches conflict in app.lock; merged package.json requires core 2.8.0 and audit-kit 1.3.0. Generator G9 deterministically produces lock hash 71cd09e2. Semantic rule: The lockfile must be regenerated from the resolved manifest and match the frozen deterministic hash. FIRST returned “LOCK=regenerate with G9; core2.8.0+audit-kit1.3.0; hash71cd09e2; no hand merge”; the private static semantic key accepts “LOCK=regenerate with G9; core2.8.0+audit-kit1.3.0; hash71cd09e2; no hand merge”, so it passes. FINAL returned “LOCK=regenerate with G9; core2.8.0+audit-kit1.3.0; hash71cd09e2; no hand merge”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Meet the semantic acceptance gate","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Expected gate is tests M01-M18 all pass, config snapshot hash 4b1d020f, lock hash 71cd09e2, and zero conflict markers. Semantic rule: Compilation alone cannot replace the full tests, both hashes, and marker scan. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=compiler succeeds with two skipped tests”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=M01-M18 18/18; config4b1d020f; lock71cd09e2; markers0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=M01-M18 18/18; config4b1d020f; lock71cd09e2”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["RMC-0354 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Preserve independent configuration edits passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Resolve the actual timeout conflict by policy also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Meet the semantic acceptance gate still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"The full test suite and a semantic diff against the intended resolution will verify the merged result.","evidenceNotes":["RMC-0354 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RMC-0354's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","RMC-0354 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: The full test suite and a semantic diff against the intended resolution will verify the merged result."],"limitations":["RMC-0354 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RMC-0354 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-classify-mailroom-documents","title":"AI Mailroom Classification Across Five Document Types — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"classify incoming business documents for the mailroom","excerpt":"The completed WFT-034 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Document Classification, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-09T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-034: A shared-services team will provide synthetic invoices, notices, applications, correspondence, and ambiguous document types. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-034-C01 through WFT-034-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 45, 53, 65, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-034-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-034 for “classify incoming business documents for the mailroom” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-034. Task: classify incoming business documents for the mailroom. Context: A shared-services team will provide synthetic invoices, notices, applications, correspondence, and ambiguous document types. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-034-C01 through WFT-034-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 45, 53, 65, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-034-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A routing index compared with held-back document labels will verify category and destination accuracy.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-034 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “classify incoming business documents for the mailroom.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-034-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-034-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-034-ROW1 reads: “WFT-034-C01 | rank WFT-034-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-034-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Document Classification rule accuracy [WFT-034], Document Classification exception handling [WFT-034], and Document Classification source traceability [WFT-034]. The audit found concrete failures: for Document Classification task fidelity [WFT-034], the saved draft did not connect WFT-034-C04 to the full boundary of “classify incoming business documents for the mailroom”; for Document Classification handoff usability [WFT-034], the saved draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-034 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Document Classification task fidelity [WFT-034] — the draft did not connect WFT-034-C04 to the full boundary of “classify incoming business documents for the mailroom”; 2) Document Classification handoff usability [WFT-034] — the draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-034 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-034-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-034-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-034-ROW1 reads: “WFT-034-C01 | rank WFT-034-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-034-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-034-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Document Classification handoff usability [WFT-034]. The frozen final text passed Document Classification rule accuracy [WFT-034], Document Classification exception handling [WFT-034], Document Classification source traceability [WFT-034], and Document Classification handoff usability [WFT-034] and still failed Document Classification task fidelity [WFT-034]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Document Classification task fidelity [WFT-034]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-034 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Document Classification task fidelity [WFT-034].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-034-C04, the declared Document Classification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Document Classification rule accuracy [WFT-034]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-034 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Document Classification rule accuracy [WFT-034].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-034-C04, the declared Document Classification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Document Classification exception handling [WFT-034]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-034 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Document Classification exception handling [WFT-034].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-034-C04, the declared Document Classification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Document Classification source traceability [WFT-034]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-034 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Document Classification source traceability [WFT-034].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-034-C04, the declared Document Classification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Document Classification handoff usability [WFT-034]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-034 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Document Classification handoff usability [WFT-034].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-034-C04, the declared Document Classification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-034 kept “classify incoming business documents for the mailroom” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-034 made the central handling—rank WFT-034-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-034-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-034 earned final passes for Document Classification rule accuracy [WFT-034] and Document Classification exception handling [WFT-034] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-034 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Document Classification task fidelity [WFT-034]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A routing index compared with held-back document labels will verify category and destination accuracy.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-034 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-034 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-034 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A routing index compared with held-back document labels will verify category and destination accuracy.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-034 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Document Classification fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-034 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-map-contract-obligations","title":"Mapping Contract Obligations to Owners and Deadlines with AI: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines","excerpt":"The completed WFT-055 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Obligation Mapping checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-08T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-055: A legal operations team will provide a synthetic agreement, department roster, notice periods, dependencies, and recurring commitments. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-055-D01 through WFT-055-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-055-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-055 for “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-055. Task: map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines. Context: A legal operations team will provide a synthetic agreement, department roster, notice periods, dependencies, and recurring commitments. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-055-D01 through WFT-055-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-055-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A clause-cited obligation register will be checked for omitted duties, incorrect dates, owner coverage, and recurring triggers.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-055 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-055-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-055-ROW1 reads: “WFT-055-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-055-D04 for review | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Obligation Mapping source traceability [WFT-055]. The audit found concrete failures: for Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055], the saved draft did not connect WFT-055-D04 to the full boundary of “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines”; for Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055], the saved draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; for Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-055-D04; for Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055], the saved draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-055 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055] — the draft did not connect WFT-055-D04 to the full boundary of “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines”; 2) Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055] — the draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; 3) Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-055-D04; 4) Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055] — the draft left the clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-055 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-055-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-055-ROW1 reads: “WFT-055-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-055-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-055-D01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055]. The frozen final text passed Obligation Mapping source traceability [WFT-055] and Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055] and still failed Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055], Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055], and Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-055 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-055 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-055 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Obligation Mapping source traceability [WFT-055]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-055 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping source traceability [WFT-055].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-055 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Obligation Mapping handoff usability [WFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-055-D04, the declared Obligation Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-055 kept “map contract obligations to accountable owners and deadlines” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-055 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-055-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-055 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Obligation Mapping task fidelity [WFT-055]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-055 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Obligation Mapping rule accuracy [WFT-055]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-055 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Obligation Mapping exception handling [WFT-055]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A clause-cited obligation register will be checked for omitted duties, incorrect dates, owner coverage, and recurring triggers.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-055 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-055 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-055 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A clause-cited obligation register will be checked for omitted duties, incorrect dates, owner coverage, and recurring triggers.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-055 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Obligation Mapping fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-055 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-review-expense-policy","title":"Which Expense Claims Would AI Send for Policy Review: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"identify expense claims that need policy review","excerpt":"The completed WFT-013 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Expense Compliance checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-05T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-013: A finance operations team will supply expense records, receipts, and a written reimbursement policy with edge cases. Source facts: card lines WFT-013-X01–X06; receipts $46.20/$118/$242.50; meal cap $75; hotel tax detail missing; duplicate taxi X05; manager approval absent on X04. Governing rule card: amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-013 for “identify expense claims that need policy review” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-013. Task: identify expense claims that need policy review. Context: A finance operations team will supply expense records, receipts, and a written reimbursement policy with edge cases. Fictional source facts: card lines WFT-013-X01–X06; receipts $46.20/$118/$242.50; meal cap $75; hotel tax detail missing; duplicate taxi X05; manager approval absent on X04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An exception register with policy citations and reviewer adjudication will verify every flag.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-013 produced a receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue for “identify expense claims that need policy review.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-013-X04 | match X01, flag X03 above the meal cap, isolate duplicate X05, and hold X04 for missing approval | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the duplicate X05 taxi and X04 approval gap and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Expense Compliance handoff usability [WFT-013]. It found for Expense Compliance task fidelity [WFT-013], the draft did not link WFT-013-X04 to the full task boundary; for Expense Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-013], the draft mentioned but did not verify amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules; for Expense Compliance exception handling [WFT-013], the draft left the duplicate X05 taxi and X04 approval gap without an explicit disposition; for Expense Compliance source traceability [WFT-013], the draft gave WFT-013-X04 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-013 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Expense Compliance task fidelity [WFT-013] — the draft did not link WFT-013-X04 to the full task boundary; 2) Expense Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-013] — the draft mentioned but did not verify amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules; 3) Expense Compliance exception handling [WFT-013] — the draft left the duplicate X05 taxi and X04 approval gap without an explicit disposition; 4) Expense Compliance source traceability [WFT-013] — the draft gave WFT-013-X04 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-013 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: match X01, flag X03 above the meal cap, isolate duplicate X05, and hold X04 for missing approval. Its corrected row read “WFT-013-X04 | rule: amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules | decision: match X01, flag X03 above the meal cap, isolate duplicate X05, and hold X04 for missing approval | static status: 4/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Expense Compliance task fidelity [WFT-013]. The final audit passed Expense Compliance task fidelity [WFT-013] and Expense Compliance handoff usability [WFT-013]. It still lacked Expense Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-013], Expense Compliance exception handling [WFT-013], and Expense Compliance source traceability [WFT-013]; those failures remain visible. The receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue earned 4/10 from 2 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Expense Compliance task fidelity [WFT-013]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-013 static check 1 inspected “Expense Compliance task fidelity [WFT-013]” against WFT-013-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Expense Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-013]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-013 static check 2 inspected “Expense Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-013]” against WFT-013-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Expense Compliance exception handling [WFT-013]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-013 static check 3 inspected “Expense Compliance exception handling [WFT-013]” against WFT-013-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Expense Compliance source traceability [WFT-013]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-013 static check 4 inspected “Expense Compliance source traceability [WFT-013]” against WFT-013-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Expense Compliance handoff usability [WFT-013]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-013 static check 5 inspected “Expense Compliance handoff usability [WFT-013]” against WFT-013-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-013 bounded “identify expense claims that need policy review” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-013 exposed WFT-013-X04—match X01, flag X03 above the meal cap, isolate duplicate X05, and hold X04 for missing approval—inside the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue."],"whatFailed":["WFT-013 still lacked saved-text evidence for Expense Compliance rule accuracy [WFT-013]; that failure remains published.","WFT-013 still lacked saved-text evidence for Expense Compliance exception handling [WFT-013]; that failure remains published.","WFT-013 still lacked saved-text evidence for Expense Compliance source traceability [WFT-013]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"An exception register with policy citations and reviewer adjudication will verify every flag.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-013 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-013 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-013 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An exception register with policy citations and reviewer adjudication will verify every flag.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-013 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Expense Compliance fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-013 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-triage-suspicious-attachment","title":"A Safe AI Triage Plan for a Suspicious Email Attachment: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"triage a suspicious email attachment safely","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Attachment Safety field test asked the session to triage a suspicious email attachment safely, preserved an actual five-row suspicious attachment static triage record, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-05T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in TSA-8710 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “triage a suspicious email attachment safely”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: triage a suspicious email attachment safely. Focus: Attachment Safety.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use inert sample files and sanitized metadata to test a non-executing defensive triage procedure.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nTSA-8710-I1: Message MSG-81 carries invoice_aug.html, size 41,208 bytes, SHA-256 4b27e9a1; the fixture authorizes header and text extraction only, not rendering or execution.\nTSA-8710-I2: Extracted text contains password form posting to hxxps://billing-check.invalid/login and obfuscated script calling document.location; legitimate invoice template contains neither.\nTSA-8710-I3: From shows Accounts <accounts@example.test>; Reply-To is collect@reply.invalid; SPF result is fail and DKIM is none.\nTSA-8710-I4: Evidence policy stores MSG-81 headers, attachment hash, and extracted indicators in case E-81; it forbids copying form values or forwarding the attachment.\nTSA-8710-I5: Scenario response is isolate the message, notify security queue SQ-2, and reset credentials only if the user entered them; fixture says user did not open or submit anything.\nReturn a concrete suspicious attachment static triage record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A predefined indicator list and containment checklist will verify classification and safe handling recommendations.","firstResult":"SUSPICIOUS ATTACHMENT STATIC TRIAGE RECORD TSA-8710 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: triage a suspicious email attachment safely. Evaluation focus: Attachment Safety. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nTSA-8710-R1 :: RESULT=IDENTITY=MSG-81 invoice_aug.html 41208B hash4b27e9a1; render0; execute0\nTSA-8710-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSA-8710-R2 :: RESULT=INDICATORS=password post to billing-check.invalid+obfuscated redirect; classify high-risk phishing fixture\nTSA-8710-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSA-8710-R3 :: RESULT=HEADERS=From example.test versus Reply-To reply.invalid; SPF fail; DKIM none; mismatch supports suspicion\nTSA-8710-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSA-8710-R4 :: RESULT=EVIDENCE=forward the attachment to coworkers for opinions\nTSA-8710-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSA-8710-R5 :: RESULT=RESPONSE=claim the sender was blocked and every password was reset\nTSA-8710-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for TSA-8710; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise TSA-8710 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Preserve evidence with minimal exposure: input was “Evidence policy stores MSG-81 headers, attachment hash, and extracted indicators in case E-81; it forbids copying form values or forwarding the attachment.”; first response was “EVIDENCE=forward the attachment to coworkers for opinions”.\n- Recommend containment without claiming action: input was “Scenario response is isolate the message, notify security queue SQ-2, and reset credentials only if the user entered them; fixture says user did not open or submit anything.”; first response was “RESPONSE=claim the sender was blocked and every password was reset”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SUSPICIOUS ATTACHMENT STATIC TRIAGE RECORD TSA-8710 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: triage a suspicious email attachment safely. Evaluation focus: Attachment Safety. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nTSA-8710-R1 :: RESULT=IDENTITY=MSG-81 invoice_aug.html 41208B hash4b27e9a1; render0; execute0\nTSA-8710-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSA-8710-R2 :: RESULT=INDICATORS=password post to billing-check.invalid+obfuscated redirect; classify high-risk phishing fixture\nTSA-8710-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSA-8710-R3 :: RESULT=HEADERS=From example.test versus Reply-To reply.invalid; SPF fail; DKIM none; mismatch supports suspicion\nTSA-8710-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSA-8710-R4 :: RESULT=EVIDENCE=E-81 headers+hash4b27e9a1+indicators; form values0; forwards0\nTSA-8710-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nTSA-8710-R5 :: RESULT=RESPONSE=propose isolate MSG-81+notify SQ-2; credential reset not indicated; no action claimed\nTSA-8710-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for TSA-8710; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the attachment without opening it","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Message MSG-81 carries invoice_aug.html, size 41,208 bytes, SHA-256 4b27e9a1; the fixture authorizes header and text extraction only, not rendering or execution. Semantic rule: The triage record must preserve exact identity while respecting the no-open boundary. FIRST returned “IDENTITY=MSG-81 invoice_aug.html 41208B hash4b27e9a1; render0; execute0”; the private static semantic key accepts “IDENTITY=MSG-81 invoice_aug.html 41208B hash4b27e9a1; render0; execute0”, so it passes. FINAL returned “IDENTITY=MSG-81 invoice_aug.html 41208B hash4b27e9a1; render0; execute0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Interpret the seeded static indicators","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Extracted text contains password form posting to hxxps://billing-check.invalid/login and obfuscated script calling document.location; legitimate invoice template contains neither. Semantic rule: The two disclosed behaviors, not the filename, determine the scenario classification. FIRST returned “INDICATORS=password post to billing-check.invalid+obfuscated redirect; classify high-risk phishing fixture”; the private static semantic key accepts “INDICATORS=password post to billing-check.invalid+obfuscated redirect; classify high-risk phishing fixture”, so it passes. FINAL returned “INDICATORS=password post to billing-check.invalid+obfuscated redirect; classify high-risk phishing fixture”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the message-header mismatch","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: From shows Accounts <accounts@example.test>; Reply-To is collect@reply.invalid; SPF result is fail and DKIM is none. Semantic rule: The conclusion must include the actual address mismatch and both authentication results. FIRST returned “HEADERS=From example.test versus Reply-To reply.invalid; SPF fail; DKIM none; mismatch supports suspicion”; the private static semantic key accepts “HEADERS=From example.test versus Reply-To reply.invalid; SPF fail; DKIM none; mismatch supports suspicion”, so it passes. FINAL returned “HEADERS=From example.test versus Reply-To reply.invalid; SPF fail; DKIM none; mismatch supports suspicion”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve evidence with minimal exposure","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Evidence policy stores MSG-81 headers, attachment hash, and extracted indicators in case E-81; it forbids copying form values or forwarding the attachment. Semantic rule: Useful static evidence can be retained without redistributing the risky file or sensitive fields. FIRST returned “EVIDENCE=forward the attachment to coworkers for opinions”; the private static semantic key accepts “EVIDENCE=E-81 headers+hash4b27e9a1+indicators; form values0; forwards0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “EVIDENCE=E-81 headers+hash4b27e9a1+indicators; form values0; forwards0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Recommend containment without claiming action","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Scenario response is isolate the message, notify security queue SQ-2, and reset credentials only if the user entered them; fixture says user did not open or submit anything. Semantic rule: Recommendations must follow the no-interaction fact and remain proposals rather than invented external actions. FIRST returned “RESPONSE=claim the sender was blocked and every password was reset”; the private static semantic key accepts “RESPONSE=propose isolate MSG-81+notify SQ-2; credential reset not indicated; no action claimed”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RESPONSE=propose isolate MSG-81+notify SQ-2; credential reset not indicated; no action claimed”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["TSA-8710 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the attachment without opening it passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Interpret the seeded static indicators also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Preserve evidence with minimal exposure; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A predefined indicator list and containment checklist will verify classification and safe handling recommendations.","evidenceNotes":["TSA-8710 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","TSA-8710's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","TSA-8710 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A predefined indicator list and containment checklist will verify classification and safe handling recommendations."],"limitations":["TSA-8710 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","TSA-8710 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-socratic-philosophy-dialogue","title":"Could AI Lead a Socratic Dialogue Without Giving Away the Answer — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"facilitate a Socratic dialogue without supplying conclusions","excerpt":"The completed LFT-012 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Socratic dialogue checks passed after one correction, but Socratic dialogue learner adaptation [LFT-012] and Socratic dialogue evidence traceability [LFT-012] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-04T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-012: The AI will lead a philosophy discussion by probing definitions and assumptions while withholding a preferred answer. Source facts: claim LFT-012-P01 'a fair rule treats everyone identically'; learner defines fairness as equal outcomes; wheelchair-access counterexample; six-turn limit. Governing rule card: questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-012 for “facilitate a Socratic dialogue without supplying conclusions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-012. Task: facilitate a Socratic dialogue without supplying conclusions. Context: The AI will lead a philosophy discussion by probing definitions and assumptions while withholding a preferred answer. Fictional source facts: claim LFT-012-P01 'a fair rule treats everyone identically'; learner defines fairness as equal outcomes; wheelchair-access counterexample; six-turn limit. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. Produce a Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A question-type coding sheet will distinguish genuine probes from leading statements and direct conclusions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-012 produced a Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check for “facilitate a Socratic dialogue without supplying conclusions.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-012-P01 | ask the learner to distinguish identical treatment from equal access, probe the counterexample, and request a revised definition without declaring one correct | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the risk of leading toward equal-access language and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Socratic dialogue objective fit [LFT-012] and Socratic dialogue safety and access [LFT-012]. It found for Socratic dialogue content accuracy [LFT-012], the draft mentioned but did not verify questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion; for Socratic dialogue learner adaptation [LFT-012], the draft left the risk of leading toward equal-access language without an explicit disposition; for Socratic dialogue evidence traceability [LFT-012], the draft gave LFT-012-P01 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-012 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Socratic dialogue content accuracy [LFT-012] — the draft mentioned but did not verify questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion; 2) Socratic dialogue learner adaptation [LFT-012] — the draft left the risk of leading toward equal-access language without an explicit disposition; 3) Socratic dialogue evidence traceability [LFT-012] — the draft gave LFT-012-P01 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-012 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: ask the learner to distinguish identical treatment from equal access, probe the counterexample, and request a revised definition without declaring one correct. Its corrected row read “LFT-012-P01 | rule: questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion | decision: ask the learner to distinguish identical treatment from equal access, probe the counterexample, and request a revised definition without declaring one correct | static status: 6/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Socratic dialogue content accuracy [LFT-012]. The final audit passed Socratic dialogue objective fit [LFT-012], Socratic dialogue content accuracy [LFT-012], and Socratic dialogue safety and access [LFT-012]. It still lacked Socratic dialogue learner adaptation [LFT-012] and Socratic dialogue evidence traceability [LFT-012]; those failures remain visible. The Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check earned 6/10 from 3 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Socratic dialogue objective fit [LFT-012]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-012 static check 1 inspected “Socratic dialogue objective fit [LFT-012]” against LFT-012-P01, the rule “questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion,” and the saved Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Socratic dialogue content accuracy [LFT-012]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-012 static check 2 inspected “Socratic dialogue content accuracy [LFT-012]” against LFT-012-P01, the rule “questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion,” and the saved Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Socratic dialogue learner adaptation [LFT-012]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-012 static check 3 inspected “Socratic dialogue learner adaptation [LFT-012]” against LFT-012-P01, the rule “questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion,” and the saved Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Socratic dialogue evidence traceability [LFT-012]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-012 static check 4 inspected “Socratic dialogue evidence traceability [LFT-012]” against LFT-012-P01, the rule “questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion,” and the saved Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Socratic dialogue safety and access [LFT-012]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-012 static check 5 inspected “Socratic dialogue safety and access [LFT-012]” against LFT-012-P01, the rule “questions probe definitions and assumptions without supplying the conclusion,” and the saved Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-012 bounded “facilitate a Socratic dialogue without supplying conclusions” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-012 exposed LFT-012-P01—ask the learner to distinguish identical treatment from equal access, probe the counterexample, and request a revised definition without declaring one correct—inside the saved Socratic question sequence, question-type coding, and conclusion-withholding check.","LFT-012 earned inspectable passes for Socratic dialogue objective fit [LFT-012] and Socratic dialogue content accuracy [LFT-012] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-012 still lacked saved-text evidence for Socratic dialogue learner adaptation [LFT-012]; that failure remains published.","LFT-012 still lacked saved-text evidence for Socratic dialogue evidence traceability [LFT-012]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A question-type coding sheet will distinguish genuine probes from leading statements and direct conclusions.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-012 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-012 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-012 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A question-type coding sheet will distinguish genuine probes from leading statements and direct conclusions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-012 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Socratic dialogue fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-012 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-adapt-reading-passage","title":"Adapting a Reading Passage Without Lowering the Ideas: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas","excerpt":"The completed LFT-055 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Accessible Reading, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-03T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-055: An educator will provide an informational text, reading target, essential concepts, protected terms, and a list of allowable supports. Source facts: fictional passage LFT-055-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 26 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-055-Q3. Governing rule card: idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints. Preserve every required idea, value, date, term, and assessment demand while applying the declared access constraint; never treat shorter wording as permission to delete meaning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-055 for “adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-055. Task: adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas. Context: An educator will provide an informational text, reading target, essential concepts, protected terms, and a list of allowable supports. Fictional source facts: fictional passage LFT-055-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 26 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-055-Q3. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints. Preserve every required idea, value, date, term, and assessment demand while applying the declared access constraint; never treat shorter wording as permission to delete meaning. Produce an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A proposition-level comparison and readability review will verify concept retention, factual fidelity, vocabulary support, and omissions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-055 produced an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints for the task “adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-055-ROW1 reads: “LFT-055-R1 | split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055], Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055], and Accessible Reading learner adaptation [LFT-055]. The audit found concrete failures: for Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055], the saved draft gave the central LFT-055-Q3 decision no source-to-output locator; for Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055], the saved draft left the accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-055 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055] — the draft gave the central LFT-055-Q3 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055] — the draft left the accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-055 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-055-ROW1 reads: “LFT-055-R1 | split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment | evidence locator: LFT-055-R1 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055]. The frozen final text passed Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055], Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055], Accessible Reading learner adaptation [LFT-055], and Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055] and still failed Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055]. The final accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-055 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-055 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessible Reading learner adaptation [LFT-055]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-055 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading learner adaptation [LFT-055].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-055 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading evidence traceability [LFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-055 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-055-Q3, the declared Accessible Reading rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-055 kept “adapt a reading passage for accessibility while preserving its ideas” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-055 made the central handling—split LFT-055-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 26-word segment—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-055 earned final passes for Accessible Reading objective fit [LFT-055] and Accessible Reading content accuracy [LFT-055] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-055 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Accessible Reading safety and access [LFT-055]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A proposition-level comparison and readability review will verify concept retention, factual fidelity, vocabulary support, and omissions.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-055 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-055 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-055 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A proposition-level comparison and readability review will verify concept retention, factual fidelity, vocabulary support, and omissions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-055 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Accessible Reading fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-055 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-plain-language-instructions","title":"Could AI Make Assignment Instructions More Cognitively Accessible — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"rewrite assignment instructions for cognitive accessibility","excerpt":"The completed LFT-040 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Plain language, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-06-01T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-040: The AI will convert a complex assignment brief into sequenced plain-language instructions without removing requirements. Source facts: original LFT-040-I01 grade-13 reading level; 1,200 words, three sources, APA, due 2026-09-22; one 58-word sentence; protected rubric link. Governing rule card: simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-040 for “rewrite assignment instructions for cognitive accessibility” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-040. Task: rewrite assignment instructions for cognitive accessibility. Context: The AI will convert a complex assignment brief into sequenced plain-language instructions without removing requirements. Fictional source facts: original LFT-040-I01 grade-13 reading level; 1,200 words, three sources, APA, due 2026-09-22; one 58-word sentence; protected rubric link. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A requirement crosswalk and accessibility review will check completeness, sequence, and reading burden.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-040 produced a plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check for “rewrite assignment instructions for cognitive accessibility.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-040-I01 | split the 58-word sentence, number requirements, preserve every number/date/style term, and add a checklist | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named loss of the three-source requirement and ambiguity around APA and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Plain language objective fit [LFT-040], Plain language content accuracy [LFT-040], and Plain language learner adaptation [LFT-040]. It found for Plain language evidence traceability [LFT-040], the draft gave LFT-040-I01 no source locator; for Plain language safety and access [LFT-040], the draft left the plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-040 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Plain language evidence traceability [LFT-040] — the draft gave LFT-040-I01 no source locator; 2) Plain language safety and access [LFT-040] — the draft left the plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-040 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: split the 58-word sentence, number requirements, preserve every number/date/style term, and add a checklist. Its corrected row read “LFT-040-I01 | rule: simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning | decision: split the 58-word sentence, number requirements, preserve every number/date/style term, and add a checklist | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Plain language evidence traceability [LFT-040]. The final audit passed Plain language objective fit [LFT-040], Plain language content accuracy [LFT-040], Plain language learner adaptation [LFT-040], and Plain language evidence traceability [LFT-040]. It still lacked Plain language safety and access [LFT-040]; those failures remain visible. The plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Plain language objective fit [LFT-040]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-040 static check 1 inspected “Plain language objective fit [LFT-040]” against LFT-040-I01, the rule “simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning,” and the saved plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Plain language content accuracy [LFT-040]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-040 static check 2 inspected “Plain language content accuracy [LFT-040]” against LFT-040-I01, the rule “simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning,” and the saved plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Plain language learner adaptation [LFT-040]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-040 static check 3 inspected “Plain language learner adaptation [LFT-040]” against LFT-040-I01, the rule “simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning,” and the saved plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Plain language evidence traceability [LFT-040]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-040 static check 4 inspected “Plain language evidence traceability [LFT-040]” against LFT-040-I01, the rule “simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning,” and the saved plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Plain language safety and access [LFT-040]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-040 static check 5 inspected “Plain language safety and access [LFT-040]” against LFT-040-I01, the rule “simplification cannot change requirements, deadline, or assessment meaning,” and the saved plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-040 bounded “rewrite assignment instructions for cognitive accessibility” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-040 exposed LFT-040-I01—split the 58-word sentence, number requirements, preserve every number/date/style term, and add a checklist—inside the saved plain-language assignment sheet, fidelity table, and comprehension check.","LFT-040 earned inspectable passes for Plain language objective fit [LFT-040] and Plain language content accuracy [LFT-040] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-040 still lacked saved-text evidence for Plain language safety and access [LFT-040]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A requirement crosswalk and accessibility review will check completeness, sequence, and reading burden.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-040 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-040 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-040 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A requirement crosswalk and accessibility review will check completeness, sequence, and reading burden.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-040 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Plain language fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-040 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-art-history-comparison","title":"Compare Art-History Evidence with AI Scaffolding: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"scaffold a visual comparison in art history","excerpt":"The completed LFT-031 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Art comparison, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-31T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-031: Students will compare composition, material, and historical context across two artworks using staged questions. Source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-031-T01 through LFT-031-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-031-T03-L7. Governing rule card: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-031 for “scaffold a visual comparison in art history” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-031. Task: scaffold a visual comparison in art history. Context: Students will compare composition, material, and historical context across two artworks using staged questions. Fictional source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-031-T01 through LFT-031-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-031-T03-L7. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A curator-reviewed observation chart will separate visible evidence from contextual inference.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-031 produced a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations for the task “scaffold a visual comparison in art history.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-031-T03-L7. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-031-ROW1 reads: “LFT-031-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-031-T03-L7 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Art comparison learner adaptation [LFT-031], Art comparison evidence traceability [LFT-031], and Art comparison safety and access [LFT-031]. The audit found concrete failures: for Art comparison objective fit [LFT-031], the saved draft did not connect LFT-031-T02 to the full boundary of “scaffold a visual comparison in art history”; for Art comparison content accuracy [LFT-031], the saved draft left claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-031 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Art comparison objective fit [LFT-031] — the draft did not connect LFT-031-T02 to the full boundary of “scaffold a visual comparison in art history”; 2) Art comparison content accuracy [LFT-031] — the draft left claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-031 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-031-T03-L7. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-031-ROW1 reads: “LFT-031-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-031-T03-L7 | evidence locator: LFT-031-T01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Art comparison objective fit [LFT-031]. The frozen final text passed Art comparison objective fit [LFT-031], Art comparison learner adaptation [LFT-031], Art comparison evidence traceability [LFT-031], and Art comparison safety and access [LFT-031] and still failed Art comparison content accuracy [LFT-031]. The final claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Art comparison objective fit [LFT-031]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-031 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Art comparison objective fit [LFT-031].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-031-T02, the declared Art comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Art comparison content accuracy [LFT-031]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-031 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Art comparison content accuracy [LFT-031].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-031-T02, the declared Art comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Art comparison learner adaptation [LFT-031]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-031 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Art comparison learner adaptation [LFT-031].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-031-T02, the declared Art comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Art comparison evidence traceability [LFT-031]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-031 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Art comparison evidence traceability [LFT-031].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-031-T02, the declared Art comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Art comparison safety and access [LFT-031]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-031 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Art comparison safety and access [LFT-031].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-031-T02, the declared Art comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-031 kept “scaffold a visual comparison in art history” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-031 made the central handling—support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-031-T03-L7—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-031 earned final passes for Art comparison objective fit [LFT-031] and Art comparison learner adaptation [LFT-031] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-031 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Art comparison content accuracy [LFT-031]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A curator-reviewed observation chart will separate visible evidence from contextual inference.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-031 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-031 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-031 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A curator-reviewed observation chart will separate visible evidence from contextual inference.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-031 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Art comparison fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-031 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-find-reporting-formula-errors","title":"Finding Broken Spreadsheet Formulas with AI: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"find broken formulas in a monthly reporting workbook","excerpt":"The completed WFT-009 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Formula Auditing, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-31T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-009: A finance team will provide a workbook seeded with reference, range, sign, and copied-formula errors. Source facts: workbook WFT-009-B2:H14; #REF! in F8; SUM(B9:F9) copied incorrectly into G10; reversed sign in D12; June omitted from H14; monthly control values $13,200, $13,680, $14,050, $14,210, $14,590, and $14,590. Governing rule card: formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-009 for “find broken formulas in a monthly reporting workbook” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-009. Task: find broken formulas in a monthly reporting workbook. Context: A finance team will provide a workbook seeded with reference, range, sign, and copied-formula errors. Fictional source facts: workbook WFT-009-B2:H14; #REF! in F8; SUM(B9:F9) copied incorrectly into G10; reversed sign in D12; June omitted from H14; monthly control values $13,200, $13,680, $14,050, $14,210, $14,590, and $14,590. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. Produce a cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A marked-up workbook and recalculation tests will verify every flagged formula and missed defect.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-009 produced a cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log for “find broken formulas in a monthly reporting workbook.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-009-G10 | flag F8, repair G10 to SUM(C10:G10), reverse D12’s expense sign, extend H14 through June, and recompute $84,320 | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the copied-range fault in G10 and omitted June value in H14 and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Formula Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-009], Formula Auditing exception handling [WFT-009], and Formula Auditing source traceability [WFT-009]. It found for Formula Auditing task fidelity [WFT-009], the draft did not link WFT-009-G10 to the full task boundary; for Formula Auditing handoff usability [WFT-009], the draft left the cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-009 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Formula Auditing task fidelity [WFT-009] — the draft did not link WFT-009-G10 to the full task boundary; 2) Formula Auditing handoff usability [WFT-009] — the draft left the cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-009 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: flag F8, repair G10 to SUM(C10:G10), reverse D12’s expense sign, extend H14 through June, and recompute $84,320. Its corrected row read “WFT-009-G10 | rule: formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation | decision: flag F8, repair G10 to SUM(C10:G10), reverse D12’s expense sign, extend H14 through June, and recompute $84,320 | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Formula Auditing handoff usability [WFT-009]. The final audit passed Formula Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-009], Formula Auditing exception handling [WFT-009], Formula Auditing source traceability [WFT-009], and Formula Auditing handoff usability [WFT-009]. It still lacked Formula Auditing task fidelity [WFT-009]; those failures remain visible. The cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Formula Auditing task fidelity [WFT-009]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-009 static check 1 inspected “Formula Auditing task fidelity [WFT-009]” against WFT-009-G10, the rule “formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation,” and the saved cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Formula Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-009]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-009 static check 2 inspected “Formula Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-009]” against WFT-009-G10, the rule “formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation,” and the saved cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Formula Auditing exception handling [WFT-009]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-009 static check 3 inspected “Formula Auditing exception handling [WFT-009]” against WFT-009-G10, the rule “formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation,” and the saved cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Formula Auditing source traceability [WFT-009]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-009 static check 4 inspected “Formula Auditing source traceability [WFT-009]” against WFT-009-G10, the rule “formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation,” and the saved cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Formula Auditing handoff usability [WFT-009]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-009 static check 5 inspected “Formula Auditing handoff usability [WFT-009]” against WFT-009-G10, the rule “formula lineage, range boundaries, sign convention, and independent recalculation,” and the saved cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-009 bounded “find broken formulas in a monthly reporting workbook” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-009 exposed WFT-009-G10—flag F8, repair G10 to SUM(C10:G10), reverse D12’s expense sign, extend H14 through June, and recompute $84,320—inside the saved cell-level formula audit, repair proposal, and recalculation log.","WFT-009 earned inspectable passes for Formula Auditing rule accuracy [WFT-009] and Formula Auditing exception handling [WFT-009] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-009 still lacked saved-text evidence for Formula Auditing task fidelity [WFT-009]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A marked-up workbook and recalculation tests will verify every flagged formula and missed defect.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-009 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-009 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-009 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A marked-up workbook and recalculation tests will verify every flagged formula and missed defect.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-009 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Formula Auditing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-009 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-sequence-construction-punch-list","title":"Sequencing a Construction Punch List Around Access Constraints: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"sequence a construction punch list around trade and access constraints","excerpt":"The completed WFT-061 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Punch-List Scheduling checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-30T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-061: A project team will provide fictional defects, room access windows, trade dependencies, cure times, and inspection gates. Source facts: records WFT-061-R01 through WFT-061-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 31 and 33; dependency WFT-061-R04 after WFT-061-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-061-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (31 and 33). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-061 for “sequence a construction punch list around trade and access constraints” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-061. Task: sequence a construction punch list around trade and access constraints. Context: A project team will provide fictional defects, room access windows, trade dependencies, cure times, and inspection gates. Fictional source facts: records WFT-061-R01 through WFT-061-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 31 and 33; dependency WFT-061-R04 after WFT-061-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-061-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (31 and 33). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A constraint checker and critical-path review will verify prerequisites, access windows, resource clashes, and inspection readiness.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-061 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “sequence a construction punch list around trade and access constraints.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-061-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-061-R04 only after WFT-061-R02, and flag the second window when demand 33 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-061-ROW1 reads: “WFT-061-R01 | keep WFT-061-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-061-R04 only after WFT-061-R02, and flag the second window when demand 33 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Punch-List Scheduling task fidelity [WFT-061]. The audit found concrete failures: for Punch-List Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-061], the saved draft left the two window limits (31 and 33) without an explicit verification row; for Punch-List Scheduling exception handling [WFT-061], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-061-R05 availability exception and the WFT-061-R02→R04 dependency; for Punch-List Scheduling source traceability [WFT-061], the saved draft gave the central WFT-061-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Punch-List Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-061], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-061 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Punch-List Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-061] — the draft left the two window limits (31 and 33) without an explicit verification row; 2) Punch-List Scheduling exception handling [WFT-061] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-061-R05 availability exception and the WFT-061-R02→R04 dependency; 3) Punch-List Scheduling source traceability [WFT-061] — the draft gave the central WFT-061-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Punch-List Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-061] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-061 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-061-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-061-R04 only after WFT-061-R02, and flag the second window when demand 33 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-061-ROW1 reads: “WFT-061-R01 | keep WFT-061-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-061-R04 only after WFT-061-R02, and flag the second window when demand 33 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-061-R01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Punch-List Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-061]. The frozen final text passed Punch-List Scheduling task fidelity [WFT-061] and Punch-List Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-061] and still failed Punch-List Scheduling exception handling [WFT-061], Punch-List Scheduling source traceability [WFT-061], and Punch-List Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-061]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Punch-List Scheduling task fidelity [WFT-061]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-061 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Punch-List Scheduling task fidelity [WFT-061].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-061-R05, the declared Punch-List Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Punch-List Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-061]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-061 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Punch-List Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-061].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-061-R05, the declared Punch-List Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Punch-List Scheduling exception handling [WFT-061]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-061 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Punch-List Scheduling exception handling [WFT-061].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-061-R05, the declared Punch-List Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Punch-List Scheduling source traceability [WFT-061]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-061 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Punch-List Scheduling source traceability [WFT-061].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-061-R05, the declared Punch-List Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Punch-List Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-061]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-061 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Punch-List Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-061].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-061-R05, the declared Punch-List Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-061 kept “sequence a construction punch list around trade and access constraints” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-061 made the central handling—keep WFT-061-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-061-R04 only after WFT-061-R02, and flag the second window when demand 33 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-061 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Punch-List Scheduling exception handling [WFT-061]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-061 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Punch-List Scheduling source traceability [WFT-061]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-061 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Punch-List Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-061]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A constraint checker and critical-path review will verify prerequisites, access windows, resource clashes, and inspection readiness.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-061 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-061 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-061 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A constraint checker and critical-path review will verify prerequisites, access windows, resource clashes, and inspection readiness.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-061 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Punch-List Scheduling fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-061 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-explain-kernel-panic","title":"What Does This Kernel Panic Actually Point To: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"diagnose a kernel panic from a bounded evidence packet","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Kernel Diagnostics field test asked the session to diagnose a kernel panic from a bounded evidence packet, preserved an actual five-row kernel panic causal analysis, and derived 4/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-29T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in EKP-0785 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “diagnose a kernel panic from a bounded evidence packet”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: diagnose a kernel panic from a bounded evidence packet. Focus: Kernel Diagnostics.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide sanitized panic logs, hardware inventory, recent changes, symbol data, and one planted causal fault.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nEKP-0785-I1: Panic KP-17 reports GPU_PAGE_FAULT at frame gfx_mem_release+0x31; callers are display_close and process_exit; symbols match build 24H2-26120.\nEKP-0785-I2: Hardware inventory is GPU G7 firmware 3.4, RAM 32 GB, and SSD S2. Twelve-hour RAM and SSD controls report zero errors; GPU control workload is the only reproducer.\nEKP-0785-I3: Driver changed from signed 8.4.1 to signed 8.5.0 one day before the first panic; five 8.5.0 trials panic and five snapshot trials on 8.4.1 stay clean.\nEKP-0785-I4: Symbol packet resolves gfx_mem_release but source code and vendor defect ID are unavailable; dump shows invalid page reference 0xDEAD0042.\nEKP-0785-I5: Allowed check restores signed driver 8.4.1 in disposable snapshot KP-PRE and repeats GPU workload five times; firmware, production, and hardware replacement are out of scope.\nReturn a concrete kernel panic causal analysis with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A known fault key and causal-chain audit will verify log interpretation, uncertainty, alternative hypotheses, and safe next checks.","firstResult":"KERNEL PANIC CAUSAL ANALYSIS EKP-0785 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: diagnose a kernel panic from a bounded evidence packet. Evaluation focus: Kernel Diagnostics. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nEKP-0785-R1 :: RESULT=FRAME=process_exit because it is the final caller\nEKP-0785-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKP-0785-R2 :: RESULT=HARDWARE=rank GPU path; RAM+SSD controls0 errors; inventory G7/32GB/S2\nEKP-0785-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKP-0785-R3 :: RESULT=CHANGE=blame firmware 3.4 without a changed-firmware event\nEKP-0785-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKP-0785-R4 :: RESULT=LIMIT=invalid page0xDEAD0042 in gfx_mem_release; source line and vendor defect unknown\nEKP-0785-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKP-0785-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=flash firmware and replace GPU on a live computer\nEKP-0785-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for EKP-0785; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise EKP-0785 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Read the faulting panic frame: input was “Panic KP-17 reports GPU_PAGE_FAULT at frame gfx_mem_release+0x31; callers are display_close and process_exit; symbols match build 24H2-26120.”; first response was “FRAME=process_exit because it is the final caller”.\n- Correlate the documented recent change: input was “Driver changed from signed 8.4.1 to signed 8.5.0 one day before the first panic; five 8.5.0 trials panic and five snapshot trials on 8.4.1 stay clean.”; first response was “CHANGE=blame firmware 3.4 without a changed-firmware event”.\n- Choose a reversible next check: input was “Allowed check restores signed driver 8.4.1 in disposable snapshot KP-PRE and repeats GPU workload five times; firmware, production, and hardware replacement are out of scope.”; first response was “ACCEPT=flash firmware and replace GPU on a live computer”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"KERNEL PANIC CAUSAL ANALYSIS EKP-0785 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: diagnose a kernel panic from a bounded evidence packet. Evaluation focus: Kernel Diagnostics. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nEKP-0785-R1 :: RESULT=FRAME=gfx_mem_release+0x31; GPU_PAGE_FAULT; symbols build24H2-26120\nEKP-0785-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKP-0785-R2 :: RESULT=HARDWARE=rank GPU path; RAM+SSD controls0 errors; inventory G7/32GB/S2\nEKP-0785-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKP-0785-R3 :: RESULT=CHANGE=driver8.5.0 correlates 5/5 panics\nEKP-0785-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKP-0785-R4 :: RESULT=LIMIT=invalid page0xDEAD0042 in gfx_mem_release; source line and vendor defect unknown\nEKP-0785-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKP-0785-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=KP-PRE driver8.4.1; GPU workload5; panics0; rollback to8.5.0 retained\nEKP-0785-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for EKP-0785; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Read the faulting panic frame","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Panic KP-17 reports GPU_PAGE_FAULT at frame gfx_mem_release+0x31; callers are display_close and process_exit; symbols match build 24H2-26120. Semantic rule: The first faulting frame, panic class, and matching symbol build bound the observed component. FIRST returned “FRAME=process_exit because it is the final caller”; the private static semantic key accepts “FRAME=gfx_mem_release+0x31; GPU_PAGE_FAULT; symbols build24H2-26120”, so it fails. FINAL returned “FRAME=gfx_mem_release+0x31; GPU_PAGE_FAULT; symbols build24H2-26120”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the supplied hardware controls","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Hardware inventory is GPU G7 firmware 3.4, RAM 32 GB, and SSD S2. Twelve-hour RAM and SSD controls report zero errors; GPU control workload is the only reproducer. Semantic rule: The hardware inventory and clean memory/storage controls narrow the hypothesis to the reproducible GPU path. FIRST returned “HARDWARE=rank GPU path; RAM+SSD controls0 errors; inventory G7/32GB/S2”; the private static semantic key accepts “HARDWARE=rank GPU path; RAM+SSD controls0 errors; inventory G7/32GB/S2”, so it passes. FINAL returned “HARDWARE=rank GPU path; RAM+SSD controls0 errors; inventory G7/32GB/S2”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Correlate the documented recent change","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Driver changed from signed 8.4.1 to signed 8.5.0 one day before the first panic; five 8.5.0 trials panic and five snapshot trials on 8.4.1 stay clean. Semantic rule: The one changed variable and two five-run groups support a driver-version hypothesis. FIRST returned “CHANGE=blame firmware 3.4 without a changed-firmware event”; the private static semantic key accepts “CHANGE=driver8.5.0 correlates 5/5 panics; 8.4.1 control0/5” or “CHANGE=driver8.5.0 correlates 5/5 panics”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CHANGE=driver8.5.0 correlates 5/5 panics”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Separate evidence from line-level inference","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Symbol packet resolves gfx_mem_release but source code and vendor defect ID are unavailable; dump shows invalid page reference 0xDEAD0042. Semantic rule: The dump supports the component and address but not an unavailable source line or vendor diagnosis. FIRST returned “LIMIT=invalid page0xDEAD0042 in gfx_mem_release; source line and vendor defect unknown”; the private static semantic key accepts “LIMIT=invalid page0xDEAD0042 in gfx_mem_release; source line and vendor defect unknown”, so it passes. FINAL returned “LIMIT=invalid page0xDEAD0042 in gfx_mem_release; source line and vendor defect unknown”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Choose a reversible next check","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Allowed check restores signed driver 8.4.1 in disposable snapshot KP-PRE and repeats GPU workload five times; firmware, production, and hardware replacement are out of scope. Semantic rule: The next check must change only the correlated driver in the restorable test snapshot and state the five-run threshold. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=flash firmware and replace GPU on a live computer”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=KP-PRE driver8.4.1; GPU workload5; panics0; rollback to8.5.0 retained; no live change” or “ACCEPT=KP-PRE driver8.4.1; GPU workload5; panics0; rollback to8.5.0 retained”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=KP-PRE driver8.4.1; GPU workload5; panics0; rollback to8.5.0 retained”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["EKP-0785 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Read the faulting panic frame passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Use the supplied hardware controls also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Read the faulting panic frame; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A known fault key and causal-chain audit will verify log interpretation, uncertainty, alternative hypotheses, and safe next checks.","evidenceNotes":["EKP-0785 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","EKP-0785's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","EKP-0785 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A known fault key and causal-chain audit will verify log interpretation, uncertainty, alternative hypotheses, and safe next checks."],"limitations":["EKP-0785 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","EKP-0785 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-primary-source-comparison","title":"Where AI Guidance Fits When Comparing Conflicting Historical Sources — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"guide a comparison of conflicting historical sources","excerpt":"The completed LFT-010 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Historical inquiry, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-29T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-010: The AI will prompt students to compare perspective, context, and corroboration across two accounts of one event. Source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-010-T01 through LFT-010-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-010-T03-L7. Governing rule card: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-010 for “guide a comparison of conflicting historical sources” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-010. Task: guide a comparison of conflicting historical sources. Context: The AI will prompt students to compare perspective, context, and corroboration across two accounts of one event. Fictional source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-010-T01 through LFT-010-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-010-T03-L7. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Completed comparison charts will be reviewed for source-specific evidence rather than unsupported generalizations.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-010 produced a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations for the task “guide a comparison of conflicting historical sources.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-010-T03-L7. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-010-ROW1 reads: “LFT-010-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-010-T03-L7 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Historical inquiry objective fit [LFT-010], Historical inquiry content accuracy [LFT-010], and Historical inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-010]. The audit found concrete failures: for Historical inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-010], the saved draft gave the central LFT-010-T02 decision no source-to-output locator; for Historical inquiry safety and access [LFT-010], the saved draft left the claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-010 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Historical inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-010] — the draft gave the central LFT-010-T02 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Historical inquiry safety and access [LFT-010] — the draft left the claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-010 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-010-T03-L7. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-010-ROW1 reads: “LFT-010-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-010-T03-L7 | evidence locator: LFT-010-T01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Historical inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-010]. The frozen final text passed Historical inquiry objective fit [LFT-010], Historical inquiry content accuracy [LFT-010], Historical inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-010], and Historical inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-010] and still failed Historical inquiry safety and access [LFT-010]. The final claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Historical inquiry objective fit [LFT-010]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-010 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Historical inquiry objective fit [LFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-010-T02, the declared Historical inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Historical inquiry content accuracy [LFT-010]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-010 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Historical inquiry content accuracy [LFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-010-T02, the declared Historical inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Historical inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-010]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-010 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Historical inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-010].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-010-T02, the declared Historical inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Historical inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-010]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-010 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Historical inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-010].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-010-T02, the declared Historical inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Historical inquiry safety and access [LFT-010]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-010 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Historical inquiry safety and access [LFT-010].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-010-T02, the declared Historical inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-010 kept “guide a comparison of conflicting historical sources” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-010 made the central handling—support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-010-T03-L7—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-010 earned final passes for Historical inquiry objective fit [LFT-010] and Historical inquiry content accuracy [LFT-010] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-010 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Historical inquiry safety and access [LFT-010]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Completed comparison charts will be reviewed for source-specific evidence rather than unsupported generalizations.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-010 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-010 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-010 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Completed comparison charts will be reviewed for source-specific evidence rather than unsupported generalizations.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-010 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Historical inquiry fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-010 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-calibrate-monitor-color","title":"Could AI Guide a Repeatable Monitor Calibration: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"guide a basic monitor color calibration","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Display Color field test asked the session to guide a basic monitor color calibration, preserved an actual five-row monitor color calibration measurement record, and derived 4/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-29T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in CMC-7928 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “guide a basic monitor color calibration”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: guide a basic monitor color calibration. Focus: Display Color.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to plan a repeatable calibration for a display under documented lighting conditions.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nCMC-7928-I1: Target white point is D65 (6500 K); measured baseline is 7900 K.\nCMC-7928-I2: Target gamma is 2.2; baseline measurement is 1.8.\nCMC-7928-I3: Room target is 120 cd/m²; acceptable band is 110-130 cd/m²; baseline is 185 cd/m².\nCMC-7928-I4: Panel native mode is 2560×1440 at 60 Hz; scaling is 100%.\nCMC-7928-I5: Acceptance: white point within ±150 K, gamma ±0.1, luminance 110-130 cd/m², grayscale delta-E below 3.\nReturn a concrete monitor color calibration measurement record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Instrument readings and standardized test images will verify changes in white point, tone response, and color error.","firstResult":"MONITOR COLOR CALIBRATION MEASUREMENT RECORD CMC-7928 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: guide a basic monitor color calibration. Evaluation focus: Display Color. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCMC-7928-R1 :: RESULT=WHITE_POINT=target 9300K\nCMC-7928-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMC-7928-R2 :: RESULT=GAMMA=raise calibration from 1.8 to target 2.2\nCMC-7928-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMC-7928-R3 :: RESULT=LUMINANCE=increase to 250cd/m2\nCMC-7928-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMC-7928-R4 :: RESULT=MODE=2560x1440 60Hz 100% scaling\nCMC-7928-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMC-7928-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=the image looks warmer\nCMC-7928-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CMC-7928; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise CMC-7928 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Use the target white point: input was “Target white point is D65 (6500 K); measured baseline is 7900 K.”; first response was “WHITE_POINT=target 9300K”.\n- Set bounded luminance: input was “Room target is 120 cd/m²; acceptable band is 110-130 cd/m²; baseline is 185 cd/m².”; first response was “LUMINANCE=increase to 250cd/m2”.\n- Define color acceptance: input was “Acceptance: white point within ±150 K, gamma ±0.1, luminance 110-130 cd/m², grayscale delta-E below 3.”; first response was “ACCEPT=the image looks warmer”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"MONITOR COLOR CALIBRATION MEASUREMENT RECORD CMC-7928 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: guide a basic monitor color calibration. Evaluation focus: Display Color. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCMC-7928-R1 :: RESULT=WHITE_POINT=target 6500K; correct baseline 7900K downward\nCMC-7928-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMC-7928-R2 :: RESULT=GAMMA=raise calibration from 1.8 to target 2.2\nCMC-7928-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMC-7928-R3 :: RESULT=LUMINANCE=reduce brightness without a measured target\nCMC-7928-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMC-7928-R4 :: RESULT=MODE=2560x1440 60Hz 100% scaling\nCMC-7928-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCMC-7928-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=white point and gamma only\nCMC-7928-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CMC-7928; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Use the target white point","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Target white point is D65 (6500 K); measured baseline is 7900 K. Semantic rule: D65 is a chromatic white-point target in kelvin, not degrees Celsius. FIRST returned “WHITE_POINT=target 9300K”; the private static semantic key accepts “WHITE_POINT=target 6500K; correct baseline 7900K downward”, so it fails. FINAL returned “WHITE_POINT=target 6500K; correct baseline 7900K downward”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the target gamma","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Target gamma is 2.2; baseline measurement is 1.8. Semantic rule: The numeric gamma target is exactly 2.2. FIRST returned “GAMMA=raise calibration from 1.8 to target 2.2”; the private static semantic key accepts “GAMMA=raise calibration from 1.8 to target 2.2”, so it passes. FINAL returned “GAMMA=raise calibration from 1.8 to target 2.2”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Set bounded luminance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Room target is 120 cd/m²; acceptable band is 110-130 cd/m²; baseline is 185 cd/m². Semantic rule: The result must land inside the declared luminance band. FIRST returned “LUMINANCE=increase to 250cd/m2”; the private static semantic key accepts “LUMINANCE=reduce 185 to 120cd/m2 within 110-130”, so it fails. FINAL returned “LUMINANCE=reduce brightness without a measured target”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve native signal geometry","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Panel native mode is 2560×1440 at 60 Hz; scaling is 100%. Semantic rule: Calibration cannot change the native resolution, refresh rate, or supplied scale. FIRST returned “MODE=2560x1440 60Hz 100% scaling”; the private static semantic key accepts “MODE=2560x1440 60Hz 100% scaling”, so it passes. FINAL returned “MODE=2560x1440 60Hz 100% scaling”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define color acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance: white point within ±150 K, gamma ±0.1, luminance 110-130 cd/m², grayscale delta-E below 3. Semantic rule: All four numeric acceptance conditions are required. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=the image looks warmer”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=6500K±150; gamma 2.2±0.1; 110-130cd/m2; grayscale dE<3”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=white point and gamma only”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["CMC-7928 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Use the target white point passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Use the target gamma also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Set bounded luminance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Define color acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Instrument readings and standardized test images will verify changes in white point, tone response, and color error.","evidenceNotes":["CMC-7928 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","CMC-7928's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","CMC-7928 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Instrument readings and standardized test images will verify changes in white point, tone response, and color error."],"limitations":["CMC-7928 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","CMC-7928 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-review-price-exceptions","title":"AI Price-Exception Review Against Margin and Approval Rules — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"review sales price exception requests against margin rules","excerpt":"The completed WFT-044 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Pricing Controls checks passed after one correction, but Pricing Controls task fidelity [WFT-044] and Pricing Controls handoff usability [WFT-044] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-27T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-044: A commercial finance team will provide product costs, proposed discounts, approval thresholds, and synthetic request narratives. Source facts: requests WFT-044-P01–P05; prices $180–$940; costs $112–$610; floor margin 28%; P03 asks 24%; P05 has approved 3% exception. Governing rule card: margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-044 for “review sales price exception requests against margin rules” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-044. Task: review sales price exception requests against margin rules. Context: A commercial finance team will provide product costs, proposed discounts, approval thresholds, and synthetic request narratives. Fictional source facts: requests WFT-044-P01–P05; prices $180–$940; costs $112–$610; floor margin 28%; P03 asks 24%; P05 has approved 3% exception. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An exception decision table and independent margin calculations will verify routing and policy application.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-044 produced a margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing for “review sales price exception requests against margin rules.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-044-P03 | approve P01/P02, reject or escalate P03 at 24%, and allow P05 only with its documented exception | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named P03’s below-floor margin and P05’s conditional exception and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Pricing Controls rule accuracy [WFT-044] and Pricing Controls exception handling [WFT-044]. It found for Pricing Controls task fidelity [WFT-044], the draft did not link WFT-044-P03 to the full task boundary; for Pricing Controls source traceability [WFT-044], the draft gave WFT-044-P03 no source locator; for Pricing Controls handoff usability [WFT-044], the draft left the margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-044 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Pricing Controls task fidelity [WFT-044] — the draft did not link WFT-044-P03 to the full task boundary; 2) Pricing Controls source traceability [WFT-044] — the draft gave WFT-044-P03 no source locator; 3) Pricing Controls handoff usability [WFT-044] — the draft left the margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-044 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: approve P01/P02, reject or escalate P03 at 24%, and allow P05 only with its documented exception. Its corrected row read “WFT-044-P03 | rule: margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides | decision: approve P01/P02, reject or escalate P03 at 24%, and allow P05 only with its documented exception | static status: 6/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Pricing Controls source traceability [WFT-044]. The final audit passed Pricing Controls rule accuracy [WFT-044], Pricing Controls exception handling [WFT-044], and Pricing Controls source traceability [WFT-044]. It still lacked Pricing Controls task fidelity [WFT-044] and Pricing Controls handoff usability [WFT-044]; those failures remain visible. The margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing earned 6/10 from 3 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Pricing Controls task fidelity [WFT-044]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-044 static check 1 inspected “Pricing Controls task fidelity [WFT-044]” against WFT-044-P03, the rule “margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides,” and the saved margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Pricing Controls rule accuracy [WFT-044]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-044 static check 2 inspected “Pricing Controls rule accuracy [WFT-044]” against WFT-044-P03, the rule “margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides,” and the saved margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Pricing Controls exception handling [WFT-044]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-044 static check 3 inspected “Pricing Controls exception handling [WFT-044]” against WFT-044-P03, the rule “margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides,” and the saved margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Pricing Controls source traceability [WFT-044]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-044 static check 4 inspected “Pricing Controls source traceability [WFT-044]” against WFT-044-P03, the rule “margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides,” and the saved margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Pricing Controls handoff usability [WFT-044]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-044 static check 5 inspected “Pricing Controls handoff usability [WFT-044]” against WFT-044-P03, the rule “margin=(price−cost)/price with 28% floor and documented overrides,” and the saved margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-044 bounded “review sales price exception requests against margin rules” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-044 exposed WFT-044-P03—approve P01/P02, reject or escalate P03 at 24%, and allow P05 only with its documented exception—inside the saved margin calculation table, exception decision, and approval routing.","WFT-044 earned inspectable passes for Pricing Controls rule accuracy [WFT-044] and Pricing Controls exception handling [WFT-044] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-044 still lacked saved-text evidence for Pricing Controls task fidelity [WFT-044]; that failure remains published.","WFT-044 still lacked saved-text evidence for Pricing Controls handoff usability [WFT-044]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"An exception decision table and independent margin calculations will verify routing and policy application.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-044 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-044 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-044 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An exception decision table and independent margin calculations will verify routing and policy application.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-044 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Pricing Controls fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-044 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-design-science-misconception-probe","title":"A Misconception Probe for Forces and Motion, Drafted by AI — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"design a diagnostic probe for force and motion misconceptions","excerpt":"The completed LFT-054 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Science Diagnosis checks passed after one correction, but Science Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-054] and Science Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-054] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-27T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-054: A science teacher will provide target misconceptions, age range, taught vocabulary, and sample correct and incorrect reasoning. Source facts: learner responses LFT-054-A01 through LFT-054-A05: 4/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 19, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-054-K1. Governing rule card: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-054 for “design a diagnostic probe for force and motion misconceptions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-054. Task: design a diagnostic probe for force and motion misconceptions. Context: A science teacher will provide target misconceptions, age range, taught vocabulary, and sample correct and incorrect reasoning. Fictional source facts: learner responses LFT-054-A01 through LFT-054-A05: 4/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 19, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-054-K1. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Expert coding and a small response simulation will verify that each option isolates one intended misconception without clueing the answer.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-054 produced a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace for the task “design a diagnostic probe for force and motion misconceptions.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-054-K1. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-054-ROW1 reads: “LFT-054-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-054-K1 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Science Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-054] and Science Diagnosis safety and access [LFT-054]. The audit found concrete failures: for Science Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-054], the saved draft did not connect LFT-054-A02 to the full boundary of “design a diagnostic probe for force and motion misconceptions”; for Science Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-054], the saved draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row; for Science Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-054], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confident-but-wrong A02 response and the low-confidence LFT-054-A05 response. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-054 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Science Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-054] — the draft did not connect LFT-054-A02 to the full boundary of “design a diagnostic probe for force and motion misconceptions”; 2) Science Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-054] — the draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row; 3) Science Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-054] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confident-but-wrong A02 response and the low-confidence LFT-054-A05 response.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-054 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-054-K1. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-054-ROW1 reads: “LFT-054-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-054-K1 | evidence locator: LFT-054-A01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Science Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-054]. The frozen final text passed Science Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-054], Science Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-054], and Science Diagnosis safety and access [LFT-054] and still failed Science Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-054] and Science Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-054]. The final diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Science Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-054]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-054 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Science Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-054].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-054-A02, the declared Science Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Science Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-054]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-054 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Science Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-054].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-054-A02, the declared Science Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Science Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-054]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-054 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Science Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-054].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-054-A02, the declared Science Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Science Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-054]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-054 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Science Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-054].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-054-A02, the declared Science Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Science Diagnosis safety and access [LFT-054]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-054 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Science Diagnosis safety and access [LFT-054].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-054-A02, the declared Science Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-054 kept “design a diagnostic probe for force and motion misconceptions” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-054 made the central handling—diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-054-K1—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-054 earned final passes for Science Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-054] and Science Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-054] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-054 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Science Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-054]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-054 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Science Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-054]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Expert coding and a small response simulation will verify that each option isolates one intended misconception without clueing the answer.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-054 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-054 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-054 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Expert coding and a small response simulation will verify that each option isolates one intended misconception without clueing the answer.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-054 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Science Diagnosis fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-054 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-port-shell-automation","title":"From One OS to Another: Porting Shell Automation: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"port a shell automation between operating systems","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Portability field test asked the session to port a shell automation between operating systems, preserved an actual five-row cross-platform shell portability matrix, and derived 0/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-24T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in PSA-0632 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “port a shell automation between operating systems”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: port a shell automation between operating systems. Focus: Portability.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to adapt a file-processing automation for a second operating system under equivalent requirements.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nPSA-0632-I1: Script PORT-6 calls readlink -f on Linux; the target macOS runner lacks that option. Python 3.12 is installed on both systems and symlink fixture L1 must resolve to /tmp/Port Case/input.csv.\nPSA-0632-I2: Linux GNU sed accepts sed -i, while macOS BSD sed requires an explicit backup suffix. Fixture C2 changes mode=dev to mode=test and must leave no backup file.\nPSA-0632-I3: Input directory is /tmp/Port Case with files alpha one.csv and beta.csv; the current unquoted loop splits alpha one.csv into two arguments.\nPSA-0632-I4: Worker W3 exits 23 after creating /tmp/port-6.stage; caller currently returns 0. Policy requires original nonzero status and removal of the stage file.\nPSA-0632-I5: Frozen fixtures expect hashes a11c for F1, b22d for F2, and exit 23 for F3 on Ubuntu 24.04 and macOS 15; shellcheck findings must be zero.\nReturn a concrete cross-platform shell portability matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Identical fixtures and expected-output comparisons on both systems will verify compatible behavior and error handling.","firstResult":"CROSS-PLATFORM SHELL PORTABILITY MATRIX PSA-0632 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: port a shell automation between operating systems. Evaluation focus: Portability. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPSA-0632-R1 :: RESULT=PATH=retain readlink -f and assume macOS supports it\nPSA-0632-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPSA-0632-R2 :: RESULT=EDIT=run sed -i identically on both systems\nPSA-0632-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPSA-0632-R3 :: RESULT=QUOTING=escape only the directory name and leave loop variables unquoted\nPSA-0632-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPSA-0632-R4 :: RESULT=FAILURE=return0 after printing a warning\nPSA-0632-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPSA-0632-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one happy-path run on Ubuntu\nPSA-0632-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PSA-0632; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise PSA-0632 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Replace the nonportable path resolver: input was “Script PORT-6 calls readlink -f on Linux; the target macOS runner lacks that option. Python 3.12 is installed on both systems and symlink fixture L1 must resolve to /tmp/Port Case/input.csv.”; first response was “PATH=retain readlink -f and assume macOS supports it”.\n- Handle in-place editing on both sed variants: input was “Linux GNU sed accepts sed -i, while macOS BSD sed requires an explicit backup suffix. Fixture C2 changes mode=dev to mode=test and must leave no backup file.”; first response was “EDIT=run sed -i identically on both systems”.\n- Preserve paths containing spaces: input was “Input directory is /tmp/Port Case with files alpha one.csv and beta.csv; the current unquoted loop splits alpha one.csv into two arguments.”; first response was “QUOTING=escape only the directory name and leave loop variables unquoted”.\n- Propagate failure and clean temporary state: input was “Worker W3 exits 23 after creating /tmp/port-6.stage; caller currently returns 0. Policy requires original nonzero status and removal of the stage file.”; first response was “FAILURE=return0 after printing a warning”.\n- Define a two-system acceptance matrix: input was “Frozen fixtures expect hashes a11c for F1, b22d for F2, and exit 23 for F3 on Ubuntu 24.04 and macOS 15; shellcheck findings must be zero.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one happy-path run on Ubuntu”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"CROSS-PLATFORM SHELL PORTABILITY MATRIX PSA-0632 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: port a shell automation between operating systems. Evaluation focus: Portability. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPSA-0632-R1 :: RESULT=PATH=use python3.12 realpath equivalent; L1 resolves /tmp/Port Case/input.csv; Linux+macOS same\nPSA-0632-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPSA-0632-R2 :: RESULT=EDIT=use portable temp-file then atomic replace; C2 mode=test; backup files0\nPSA-0632-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPSA-0632-R3 :: RESULT=QUOTING=iterate two files; alpha one.csv remains one argument\nPSA-0632-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPSA-0632-R4 :: RESULT=FAILURE=return23; remove /tmp/port-6.stage\nPSA-0632-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPSA-0632-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=Ubuntu+macOS F1=a11c F2=b22d F3=exit23; shellcheck0\nPSA-0632-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PSA-0632; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Replace the nonportable path resolver","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Script PORT-6 calls readlink -f on Linux; the target macOS runner lacks that option. Python 3.12 is installed on both systems and symlink fixture L1 must resolve to /tmp/Port Case/input.csv. Semantic rule: The replacement must use a disclosed common runtime and preserve the exact symlink resolution on both targets. FIRST returned “PATH=retain readlink -f and assume macOS supports it”; the private static semantic key accepts “PATH=use python3.12 realpath equivalent; L1 resolves /tmp/Port Case/input.csv; Linux+macOS same”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PATH=use python3.12 realpath equivalent; L1 resolves /tmp/Port Case/input.csv; Linux+macOS same”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Handle in-place editing on both sed variants","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Linux GNU sed accepts sed -i, while macOS BSD sed requires an explicit backup suffix. Fixture C2 changes mode=dev to mode=test and must leave no backup file. Semantic rule: The plan must avoid variant-specific flags while producing the same content and cleanup state. FIRST returned “EDIT=run sed -i identically on both systems”; the private static semantic key accepts “EDIT=use portable temp-file then atomic replace; C2 mode=test; backup files0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “EDIT=use portable temp-file then atomic replace; C2 mode=test; backup files0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve paths containing spaces","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Input directory is /tmp/Port Case with files alpha one.csv and beta.csv; the current unquoted loop splits alpha one.csv into two arguments. Semantic rule: Both the directory and each expanded filename require boundaries that survive embedded spaces. FIRST returned “QUOTING=escape only the directory name and leave loop variables unquoted”; the private static semantic key accepts “QUOTING=iterate two files; alpha one.csv remains one argument; word-splitting errors0” or “QUOTING=iterate two files; alpha one.csv remains one argument”, so it fails. FINAL returned “QUOTING=iterate two files; alpha one.csv remains one argument”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Propagate failure and clean temporary state","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Worker W3 exits 23 after creating /tmp/port-6.stage; caller currently returns 0. Policy requires original nonzero status and removal of the stage file. Semantic rule: The port must preserve the worker status, execute cleanup, and stop subsequent work. FIRST returned “FAILURE=return0 after printing a warning”; the private static semantic key accepts “FAILURE=return23; remove /tmp/port-6.stage; do not continue later workers”, so it fails. FINAL returned “FAILURE=return23; remove /tmp/port-6.stage”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define a two-system acceptance matrix","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Frozen fixtures expect hashes a11c for F1, b22d for F2, and exit 23 for F3 on Ubuntu 24.04 and macOS 15; shellcheck findings must be zero. Semantic rule: Acceptance requires both operating systems, all three fixtures, identical hashes, the error path, and the static check. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one happy-path run on Ubuntu”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=Ubuntu+macOS F1=a11c F2=b22d F3=exit23; shellcheck0; outputs identical”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=Ubuntu+macOS F1=a11c F2=b22d F3=exit23; shellcheck0”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["PSA-0632 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Replace the nonportable path resolver passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Handle in-place editing on both sed variants also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Propagate failure and clean temporary state still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Define a two-system acceptance matrix still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Identical fixtures and expected-output comparisons on both systems will verify compatible behavior and error handling.","evidenceNotes":["PSA-0632 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","PSA-0632's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","PSA-0632 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Identical fixtures and expected-output comparisons on both systems will verify compatible behavior and error handling."],"limitations":["PSA-0632 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","PSA-0632 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-capstone-milestone-planning","title":"Turning a Capstone Idea into Accountable Milestones with AI: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones","excerpt":"The completed LFT-045 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Project planning, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-24T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-045: A final-year student will break a capstone proposal into dependencies, deliverables, review points, and contingency time. Source facts: idea LFT-045-C01 urban heat mapping; due 2026-12-01; ethics before interviews; dataset by 2026-09-20; map before analysis; four hours weekly. Governing rule card: each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-045 for “turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-045. Task: turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones. Context: A final-year student will break a capstone proposal into dependencies, deliverables, review points, and contingency time. Fictional source facts: idea LFT-045-C01 urban heat mapping; due 2026-12-01; ethics before interviews; dataset by 2026-09-20; map before analysis; four hours weekly. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A supervisor will inspect the milestone map against course deadlines, dependencies, and required deliverables.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-045 produced a capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist for “turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-045-C01 | place ethics first, acquire data by 09-20, draft map before analysis, and reserve November for validation/writing | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named ethics-before-interviews and the four-hour weekly cap and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Project planning objective fit [LFT-045], Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045], and Project planning learner adaptation [LFT-045]. It found for Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045], the draft gave LFT-045-C01 no source locator; for Project planning safety and access [LFT-045], the draft left the capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-045 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045] — the draft gave LFT-045-C01 no source locator; 2) Project planning safety and access [LFT-045] — the draft left the capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-045 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: place ethics first, acquire data by 09-20, draft map before analysis, and reserve November for validation/writing. Its corrected row read “LFT-045-C01 | rule: each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition | decision: place ethics first, acquire data by 09-20, draft map before analysis, and reserve November for validation/writing | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045]. The final audit passed Project planning objective fit [LFT-045], Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045], Project planning learner adaptation [LFT-045], and Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045]. It still lacked Project planning safety and access [LFT-045]; those failures remain visible. The capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Project planning objective fit [LFT-045]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-045 static check 1 inspected “Project planning objective fit [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-045 static check 2 inspected “Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Project planning learner adaptation [LFT-045]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-045 static check 3 inspected “Project planning learner adaptation [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-045 static check 4 inspected “Project planning evidence traceability [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Project planning safety and access [LFT-045]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-045 static check 5 inspected “Project planning safety and access [LFT-045]” against LFT-045-C01, the rule “each milestone has owner, date, predecessor, deliverable, and acceptance condition,” and the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-045 bounded “turn a capstone idea into accountable milestones” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-045 exposed LFT-045-C01—place ethics first, acquire data by 09-20, draft map before analysis, and reserve November for validation/writing—inside the saved capstone milestone plan, dependency graph, and evidence checklist.","LFT-045 earned inspectable passes for Project planning objective fit [LFT-045] and Project planning content accuracy [LFT-045] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-045 still lacked saved-text evidence for Project planning safety and access [LFT-045]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A supervisor will inspect the milestone map against course deadlines, dependencies, and required deliverables.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-045 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-045 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-045 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A supervisor will inspect the milestone map against course deadlines, dependencies, and required deliverables.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-045 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Project planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-045 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-extract-vendor-obligations","title":"Extracting Vendor Obligations into a Traceable Register: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"extract operational obligations from vendor agreements","excerpt":"The completed WFT-023 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Contract Obligations, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-22T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-023: A vendor management team will supply agreements containing notice periods, service duties, reporting dates, and escalation terms. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-023-D01 through WFT-023-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-023-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-023 for “extract operational obligations from vendor agreements” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-023. Task: extract operational obligations from vendor agreements. Context: A vendor management team will supply agreements containing notice periods, service duties, reporting dates, and escalation terms. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-023-D01 through WFT-023-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-023-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An obligation register with clause references and legal-operations review will verify each extracted duty.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-023 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “extract operational obligations from vendor agreements.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-023-ROW1 reads: “WFT-023-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023], Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023], and Contract Obligations handoff usability [WFT-023]. The audit found concrete failures: for Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-023-D04; for Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023], the saved draft gave the central WFT-023-D04 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-023 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-023-D04; 2) Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023] — the draft gave the central WFT-023-D04 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-023 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-023-ROW1 reads: “WFT-023-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-023-D01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023]. The frozen final text passed Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023], Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023], Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023], and Contract Obligations handoff usability [WFT-023] and still failed Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-023 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-023 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-023 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations exception handling [WFT-023].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-023 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Contract Obligations handoff usability [WFT-023]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-023 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Contract Obligations handoff usability [WFT-023].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-023-D04, the declared Contract Obligations rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-023 kept “extract operational obligations from vendor agreements” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-023 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-023-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-023 earned final passes for Contract Obligations task fidelity [WFT-023] and Contract Obligations rule accuracy [WFT-023] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-023 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Contract Obligations source traceability [WFT-023]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"An obligation register with clause references and legal-operations review will verify each extracted duty.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-023 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-023 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-023 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An obligation register with clause references and legal-operations review will verify each extracted duty.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-023 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Contract Obligations fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-023 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-reproduce-environment-bug","title":"Does AI Reproduce an Environment-Specific Software Bug Reliably: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"reproduce an environment-specific software bug","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Bug Reproduction field test asked the session to reproduce an environment-specific software bug, preserved an actual five-row environment-specific bug matrix, and derived 4/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-21T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in REB-8560 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “reproduce an environment-specific software bug”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: reproduce an environment-specific software bug. Focus: Bug Reproduction.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide a bug report and partial system details for a failure triggered by one documented environment difference.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nREB-8560-I1: Case E-PASS is Node22.13.1/linux-x64/locale en-US; E-FAIL differs only by locale tr-TR.\nREB-8560-I2: Input identifier is FILE; expected normalized key is file; tr-TR lowercasing produces fıle and lookup misses.\nREB-8560-I3: Full app has 18 modules; minimal case needs only normalizeKey and map lookup with keys FILE and file.\nREB-8560-I4: Approved change uses locale-insensitive ASCII normalization for documented ASCII identifiers; user-visible text is unaffected.\nREB-8560-I5: Acceptance is pass on en-US,tr-TR,de-DE,ja-JP; regression cases K1-K8 8/8; minimal failure disappears only after patch.\nReturn a concrete environment-specific bug matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A clean minimal environment and repeatable failing and passing cases will verify the reproduction steps and causal factor.","firstResult":"ENVIRONMENT-SPECIFIC BUG MATRIX REB-8560 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: reproduce an environment-specific software bug. Evaluation focus: Bug Reproduction. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nREB-8560-R1 :: RESULT=MATRIX=E-PASS en-US pass; E-FAIL tr-TR fail; other fields identical\nREB-8560-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nREB-8560-R2 :: RESULT=SYMPTOM=filesystem permissions denied\nREB-8560-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nREB-8560-R3 :: RESULT=MINIMAL=normalizeKey+map lookup; inputs FILE/file; modules2\nREB-8560-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nREB-8560-R4 :: RESULT=FIX=force every user locale to en-US\nREB-8560-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nREB-8560-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=tr-TR passes once\nREB-8560-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for REB-8560; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise REB-8560 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Reproduce the exact symptom: input was “Input identifier is FILE; expected normalized key is file; tr-TR lowercasing produces fıle and lookup misses.”; first response was “SYMPTOM=filesystem permissions denied”.\n- Test the bounded fix: input was “Approved change uses locale-insensitive ASCII normalization for documented ASCII identifiers; user-visible text is unaffected.”; first response was “FIX=force every user locale to en-US”.\n- Verify environment coverage: input was “Acceptance is pass on en-US,tr-TR,de-DE,ja-JP; regression cases K1-K8 8/8; minimal failure disappears only after patch.”; first response was “ACCEPT=tr-TR passes once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"ENVIRONMENT-SPECIFIC BUG MATRIX REB-8560 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: reproduce an environment-specific software bug. Evaluation focus: Bug Reproduction. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nREB-8560-R1 :: RESULT=MATRIX=E-PASS en-US pass; E-FAIL tr-TR fail; other fields identical\nREB-8560-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nREB-8560-R2 :: RESULT=SYMPTOM=FILE -> fıle under tr-TR; lookup miss; en-US -> file\nREB-8560-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nREB-8560-R3 :: RESULT=MINIMAL=normalizeKey+map lookup; inputs FILE/file; modules2\nREB-8560-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nREB-8560-R4 :: RESULT=FIX=ASCII identifier normalization only; user text unchanged\nREB-8560-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nREB-8560-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=locales4/4; K1-K8 8/8\nREB-8560-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for REB-8560; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Freeze the passing and failing environments","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Case E-PASS is Node22.13.1/linux-x64/locale en-US; E-FAIL differs only by locale tr-TR. Semantic rule: A one-variable environment contrast is required for causal attribution. FIRST returned “MATRIX=E-PASS en-US pass; E-FAIL tr-TR fail; other fields identical”; the private static semantic key accepts “MATRIX=E-PASS en-US pass; E-FAIL tr-TR fail; other fields identical”, so it passes. FINAL returned “MATRIX=E-PASS en-US pass; E-FAIL tr-TR fail; other fields identical”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reproduce the exact symptom","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Input identifier is FILE; expected normalized key is file; tr-TR lowercasing produces fıle and lookup misses. Semantic rule: The supplied Unicode case mapping explains the fixture's exact failing value. FIRST returned “SYMPTOM=filesystem permissions denied”; the private static semantic key accepts “SYMPTOM=FILE -> fıle under tr-TR; lookup miss; en-US -> file”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SYMPTOM=FILE -> fıle under tr-TR; lookup miss; en-US -> file”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Create a minimal reproduction","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Full app has 18 modules; minimal case needs only normalizeKey and map lookup with keys FILE and file. Semantic rule: A reproduction should retain the failure while removing unrelated modules. FIRST returned “MINIMAL=normalizeKey+map lookup; inputs FILE/file; modules2”; the private static semantic key accepts “MINIMAL=normalizeKey+map lookup; inputs FILE/file; modules2”, so it passes. FINAL returned “MINIMAL=normalizeKey+map lookup; inputs FILE/file; modules2”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Test the bounded fix","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Approved change uses locale-insensitive ASCII normalization for documented ASCII identifiers; user-visible text is unaffected. Semantic rule: The scoped fix addresses identifier semantics without rewriting user-facing localization. FIRST returned “FIX=force every user locale to en-US”; the private static semantic key accepts “FIX=ASCII identifier normalization only; user text unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “FIX=ASCII identifier normalization only; user text unchanged”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify environment coverage","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is pass on en-US,tr-TR,de-DE,ja-JP; regression cases K1-K8 8/8; minimal failure disappears only after patch. Semantic rule: Causal before/after evidence and cross-locale regressions are all required. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=tr-TR passes once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=locales4/4; K1-K8 8/8; before fail/after pass” or “ACCEPT=locales4/4; K1-K8 8/8”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=locales4/4; K1-K8 8/8”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["REB-8560 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Freeze the passing and failing environments passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Reproduce the exact symptom also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Reproduce the exact symptom; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A clean minimal environment and repeatable failing and passing cases will verify the reproduction steps and causal factor.","evidenceNotes":["REB-8560 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","REB-8560's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","REB-8560 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A clean minimal environment and repeatable failing and passing cases will verify the reproduction steps and causal factor."],"limitations":["REB-8560 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","REB-8560 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-academic-vocabulary-context","title":"Academic Vocabulary in Contrasting Contexts: An AI Teaching Plan — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"teach academic vocabulary through contrasting contexts","excerpt":"The completed LFT-024 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Vocabulary learning checks passed after one correction, but Vocabulary learning content accuracy [LFT-024] and Vocabulary learning learner adaptation [LFT-024] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-20T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-024: The AI will teach selected academic words through examples, non-examples, and student-generated sentences. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-024-U01 through LFT-024-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing rule card: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-024 for “teach academic vocabulary through contrasting contexts” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-024. Task: teach academic vocabulary through contrasting contexts. Context: The AI will teach selected academic words through examples, non-examples, and student-generated sentences. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-024-U01 through LFT-024-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A delayed application task will check whether learners use each word appropriately in a new context.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-024 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “teach academic vocabulary through contrasting contexts.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-024-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-024-ROW1 reads: “LFT-024-U01 | recast LFT-024-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Vocabulary learning evidence traceability [LFT-024] and Vocabulary learning safety and access [LFT-024]. The audit found concrete failures: for Vocabulary learning objective fit [LFT-024], the saved draft did not connect LFT-024-U05 to the full boundary of “teach academic vocabulary through contrasting contexts”; for Vocabulary learning content accuracy [LFT-024], the saved draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row; for Vocabulary learning learner adaptation [LFT-024], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-024-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-024 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Vocabulary learning objective fit [LFT-024] — the draft did not connect LFT-024-U05 to the full boundary of “teach academic vocabulary through contrasting contexts”; 2) Vocabulary learning content accuracy [LFT-024] — the draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row; 3) Vocabulary learning learner adaptation [LFT-024] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-024-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-024 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-024-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-024-ROW1 reads: “LFT-024-U01 | recast LFT-024-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | evidence locator: LFT-024-U01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Vocabulary learning objective fit [LFT-024]. The frozen final text passed Vocabulary learning objective fit [LFT-024], Vocabulary learning evidence traceability [LFT-024], and Vocabulary learning safety and access [LFT-024] and still failed Vocabulary learning content accuracy [LFT-024] and Vocabulary learning learner adaptation [LFT-024]. The final levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Vocabulary learning objective fit [LFT-024]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-024 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary learning objective fit [LFT-024].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-024-U05, the declared Vocabulary learning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Vocabulary learning content accuracy [LFT-024]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-024 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary learning content accuracy [LFT-024].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-024-U05, the declared Vocabulary learning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Vocabulary learning learner adaptation [LFT-024]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-024 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary learning learner adaptation [LFT-024].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-024-U05, the declared Vocabulary learning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Vocabulary learning evidence traceability [LFT-024]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-024 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary learning evidence traceability [LFT-024].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-024-U05, the declared Vocabulary learning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Vocabulary learning safety and access [LFT-024]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-024 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Vocabulary learning safety and access [LFT-024].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-024-U05, the declared Vocabulary learning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-024 kept “teach academic vocabulary through contrasting contexts” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-024 made the central handling—recast LFT-024-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-024 earned final passes for Vocabulary learning objective fit [LFT-024] and Vocabulary learning evidence traceability [LFT-024] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-024 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Vocabulary learning content accuracy [LFT-024]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-024 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Vocabulary learning learner adaptation [LFT-024]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A delayed application task will check whether learners use each word appropriately in a new context.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-024 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-024 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-024 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A delayed application task will check whether learners use each word appropriately in a new context.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-024 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Vocabulary learning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-024 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-qa-customer-refunds","title":"Which Refund Cases Need Human Review — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review","excerpt":"The completed WFT-054 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Refund Quality Control, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-19T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-054: A service team will provide synthetic refund requests, policy clauses, payment histories, fraud indicators, and edge-case exceptions. Source facts: cases WFT-054-R01–R06; amounts $18–$720; delivery evidence; duplicate R04; auto-refund ≤$100 with clear proof; chargeback R06. Governing rule card: amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-054 for “classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-054. Task: classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review. Context: A service team will provide synthetic refund requests, policy clauses, payment histories, fraud indicators, and edge-case exceptions. Fictional source facts: cases WFT-054-R01–R06; amounts $18–$720; delivery evidence; duplicate R04; auto-refund ≤$100 with clear proof; chargeback R06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A blinded case key and false-approval and false-escalation matrix will verify every routing decision.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-054 produced a refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue for “classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-054-R04 | auto-approve R01 at $42, route R03 above $100, hold duplicate R04, and send chargeback R06 to review | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named R04’s duplicate identity and R06 chargeback and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054], Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054], and Refund Quality Control source traceability [WFT-054]. It found for Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054], the draft did not link WFT-054-R04 to the full task boundary; for Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054], the draft left the refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-054 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054] — the draft did not link WFT-054-R04 to the full task boundary; 2) Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054] — the draft left the refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-054 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: auto-approve R01 at $42, route R03 above $100, hold duplicate R04, and send chargeback R06 to review. Its corrected row read “WFT-054-R04 | rule: amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status | decision: auto-approve R01 at $42, route R03 above $100, hold duplicate R04, and send chargeback R06 to review | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054]. The final audit passed Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054], Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054], Refund Quality Control source traceability [WFT-054], and Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054]. It still lacked Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054]; those failures remain visible. The refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-054 static check 1 inspected “Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-054 static check 2 inspected “Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-054 static check 3 inspected “Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Refund Quality Control source traceability [WFT-054]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-054 static check 4 inspected “Refund Quality Control source traceability [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-054 static check 5 inspected “Refund Quality Control handoff usability [WFT-054]” against WFT-054-R04, the rule “amount ceiling, delivery proof, duplication, fraud flags, and chargeback status,” and the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-054 bounded “classify customer refund cases for automatic or human review” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-054 exposed WFT-054-R04—auto-approve R01 at $42, route R03 above $100, hold duplicate R04, and send chargeback R06 to review—inside the saved refund decision table, automation boundary, and manual-review queue.","WFT-054 earned inspectable passes for Refund Quality Control rule accuracy [WFT-054] and Refund Quality Control exception handling [WFT-054] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-054 still lacked saved-text evidence for Refund Quality Control task fidelity [WFT-054]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A blinded case key and false-approval and false-escalation matrix will verify every routing decision.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-054 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-054 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-054 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A blinded case key and false-approval and false-escalation matrix will verify every routing decision.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-054 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Refund Quality Control fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-054 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-build-backup-restore-drill","title":"Build a Backup Restore Drill Before Disaster Day: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"build a repeatable backup restore drill for a small service","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Restore Testing field test asked the session to build a repeatable backup restore drill for a small service, preserved an actual five-row service restore drill record, and derived 4/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-18T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in BBRD-9050 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “build a repeatable backup restore drill for a small service”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: build a repeatable backup restore drill for a small service. Focus: Restore Testing.\nSource scenario: The experiment will define a disposable service, encrypted backups, recovery targets, missing-file traps, and an isolated restore destination.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nBBRD-9050-I1: Manifest SVC-24 expects database D24, uploads U001-U088, and config C24. Frozen archive hash 42da901c actually contains D24, C24, and 87 uploads excluding U057; envelope key EK24 is separate.\nBBRD-9050-I2: Destination RESTORE-NET has no production route and empty volume V-REST; production volume V-PROD is forbidden.\nBBRD-9050-I3: Backup manifest expects U001-U088 but archive intentionally omits U057.\nBBRD-9050-I4: Expected database has 12 tables, 48,200 rows, schema version 17, and checksum 9a0b17ef.\nBBRD-9050-I5: RTO is 30 minutes and RPO is 4 hours; synthetic timeline restores in 24 minutes from a backup aged 2h10m.\nReturn a concrete service restore drill record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A clean restore run will verify hashes, database integrity, secrets handling, recovery time, missing data, and documented rollback.","firstResult":"SERVICE RESTORE DRILL RECORD BBRD-9050 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: build a repeatable backup restore drill for a small service. Evaluation focus: Restore Testing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nBBRD-9050-R1 :: RESULT=BACKUP=use the latest unnamed archive\nBBRD-9050-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBBRD-9050-R2 :: RESULT=DESTINATION=RESTORE-NET on V-REST; no production route; leave V-PROD untouched\nBBRD-9050-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBBRD-9050-R3 :: RESULT=MISSING=report uploads complete because directory exists\nBBRD-9050-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBBRD-9050-R4 :: RESULT=DATABASE=tables12; rows48200; schema17; hash9a0b17ef\nBBRD-9050-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBBRD-9050-R5 :: RESULT=TARGETS=pass because 24 minutes is fast; ignore U057\nBBRD-9050-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for BBRD-9050; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise BBRD-9050 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Use the frozen encrypted backup: input was “Manifest SVC-24 expects database D24, uploads U001-U088, and config C24. Frozen archive hash 42da901c actually contains D24, C24, and 87 uploads excluding U057; envelope key EK24 is separate.”; first response was “BACKUP=use the latest unnamed archive”.\n- Detect the seeded missing upload: input was “Backup manifest expects U001-U088 but archive intentionally omits U057.”; first response was “MISSING=report uploads complete because directory exists”.\n- Measure the fixed recovery targets: input was “RTO is 30 minutes and RPO is 4 hours; synthetic timeline restores in 24 minutes from a backup aged 2h10m.”; first response was “TARGETS=pass because 24 minutes is fast; ignore U057”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SERVICE RESTORE DRILL RECORD BBRD-9050 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: build a repeatable backup restore drill for a small service. Evaluation focus: Restore Testing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nBBRD-9050-R1 :: RESULT=BACKUP=SVC-24 hash42da901c; manifest uploads88; archive uploads87 excludingU057; D24+C24 present; EK24 separate\nBBRD-9050-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBBRD-9050-R2 :: RESULT=DESTINATION=RESTORE-NET on V-REST; no production route; leave V-PROD untouched\nBBRD-9050-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBBRD-9050-R3 :: RESULT=MISSING=flag U057; observed87 expected88\nBBRD-9050-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBBRD-9050-R4 :: RESULT=DATABASE=tables12; rows48200; schema17; hash9a0b17ef\nBBRD-9050-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBBRD-9050-R5 :: RESULT=TARGETS=RTO24min<=30; backup age2h10m<=RPO4h\nBBRD-9050-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for BBRD-9050; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Use the frozen encrypted backup","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Manifest SVC-24 expects database D24, uploads U001-U088, and config C24. Frozen archive hash 42da901c actually contains D24, C24, and 87 uploads excluding U057; envelope key EK24 is separate. Semantic rule: The drill must name the exact frozen archive, distinguish expected from observed components, preserve its hash, and keep recovery material separate. FIRST returned “BACKUP=use the latest unnamed archive”; the private static semantic key accepts “BACKUP=SVC-24 hash42da901c; manifest uploads88; archive uploads87 excludingU057; D24+C24 present; EK24 separate”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BACKUP=SVC-24 hash42da901c; manifest uploads88; archive uploads87 excludingU057; D24+C24 present; EK24 separate”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Restore only into isolation","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Destination RESTORE-NET has no production route and empty volume V-REST; production volume V-PROD is forbidden. Semantic rule: A restore drill cannot risk the production-like fixture. FIRST returned “DESTINATION=RESTORE-NET on V-REST; no production route; leave V-PROD untouched”; the private static semantic key accepts “DESTINATION=RESTORE-NET on V-REST; no production route; leave V-PROD untouched”, so it passes. FINAL returned “DESTINATION=RESTORE-NET on V-REST; no production route; leave V-PROD untouched”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Detect the seeded missing upload","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Backup manifest expects U001-U088 but archive intentionally omits U057. Semantic rule: The exact manifest difference must block a successful-restore claim. FIRST returned “MISSING=report uploads complete because directory exists”; the private static semantic key accepts “MISSING=flag U057; observed87 expected88; drill status incomplete” or “MISSING=flag U057; observed87 expected88”, so it fails. FINAL returned “MISSING=flag U057; observed87 expected88”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Validate database integrity","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Expected database has 12 tables, 48,200 rows, schema version 17, and checksum 9a0b17ef. Semantic rule: A service surface cannot substitute for the declared database reconciliation. FIRST returned “DATABASE=tables12; rows48200; schema17; hash9a0b17ef”; the private static semantic key accepts “DATABASE=tables12; rows48200; schema17; hash9a0b17ef”, so it passes. FINAL returned “DATABASE=tables12; rows48200; schema17; hash9a0b17ef”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Measure the fixed recovery targets","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: RTO is 30 minutes and RPO is 4 hours; synthetic timeline restores in 24 minutes from a backup aged 2h10m. Semantic rule: Time targets may pass while the missing-file defect still prevents overall completeness. FIRST returned “TARGETS=pass because 24 minutes is fast; ignore U057”; the private static semantic key accepts “TARGETS=RTO24min<=30; backup age2h10m<=RPO4h; U057 exception remains” or “TARGETS=RTO24min<=30; backup age2h10m<=RPO4h”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TARGETS=RTO24min<=30; backup age2h10m<=RPO4h”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["BBRD-9050 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Use the frozen encrypted backup passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Restore only into isolation also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Use the frozen encrypted backup; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A clean restore run will verify hashes, database integrity, secrets handling, recovery time, missing data, and documented rollback.","evidenceNotes":["BBRD-9050 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","BBRD-9050's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","BBRD-9050 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A clean restore run will verify hashes, database integrity, secrets handling, recovery time, missing data, and documented rollback."],"limitations":["BBRD-9050 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","BBRD-9050 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-synthesize-operations-handover","title":"From Operational Logs to an Actionable Shift Handover: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"create a shift handover from operational logs","excerpt":"The completed WFT-037 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Shift Handover checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-18T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-037: A facilities team will provide alarms, work orders, operator notes, and unresolved items from one shift. Source facts: records WFT-037-R01 through WFT-037-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 37 and 51; dependency WFT-037-R04 after WFT-037-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-037-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (37 and 51). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-037 for “create a shift handover from operational logs” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-037. Task: create a shift handover from operational logs. Context: A facilities team will provide alarms, work orders, operator notes, and unresolved items from one shift. Fictional source facts: records WFT-037-R01 through WFT-037-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 37 and 51; dependency WFT-037-R04 after WFT-037-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-037-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (37 and 51). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A handover brief with log references and incoming-supervisor review will verify status, priority, and ownership.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-037 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “create a shift handover from operational logs.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-037-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-037-R04 only after WFT-037-R02, and flag the second window when demand 51 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-037-ROW1 reads: “WFT-037-R01 | keep WFT-037-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-037-R04 only after WFT-037-R02, and flag the second window when demand 51 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Shift Handover exception handling [WFT-037]. The audit found concrete failures: for Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-037], the saved draft did not connect WFT-037-R05 to the full boundary of “create a shift handover from operational logs”; for Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-037], the saved draft left the two window limits (37 and 51) without an explicit verification row; for Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-037], the saved draft gave the central WFT-037-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-037], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-037 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-037] — the draft did not connect WFT-037-R05 to the full boundary of “create a shift handover from operational logs”; 2) Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-037] — the draft left the two window limits (37 and 51) without an explicit verification row; 3) Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-037] — the draft gave the central WFT-037-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-037] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-037 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-037-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-037-R04 only after WFT-037-R02, and flag the second window when demand 51 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-037-ROW1 reads: “WFT-037-R01 | keep WFT-037-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-037-R04 only after WFT-037-R02, and flag the second window when demand 51 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-037-R01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-037]. The frozen final text passed Shift Handover exception handling [WFT-037] and Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-037] and still failed Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-037], Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-037], and Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-037]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-037]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-037 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-037].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-037-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-037]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-037 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-037].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-037-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Shift Handover exception handling [WFT-037]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-037 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover exception handling [WFT-037].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-037-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-037]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-037 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-037].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-037-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-037]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-037 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-037].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-037-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-037 kept “create a shift handover from operational logs” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-037 made the central handling—keep WFT-037-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-037-R04 only after WFT-037-R02, and flag the second window when demand 51 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-037 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-037]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-037 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-037]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-037 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-037]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A handover brief with log references and incoming-supervisor review will verify status, priority, and ownership.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-037 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-037 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-037 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A handover brief with log references and incoming-supervisor review will verify status, priority, and ownership.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-037 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Shift Handover fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-037 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-audit-home-router-hardening","title":"Could AI Suggest Safer Home-Router Settings: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"harden a home router safely","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Router Security field test asked the session to harden a home router safely, preserved an actual five-row home router hardening audit, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-17T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in AHRH-7334 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “harden a home router safely”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: harden a home router safely. Focus: Router Security.\nSource scenario: The experiment will present a fictionalized router configuration and ask for a low-risk security improvement plan.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nAHRH-7334-I1: Router RH-1 exposes HTTPS admin on WAN TCP 443; administration is required only from LAN 192.0.2.0/24.\nAHRH-7334-I2: Credential policy requires 16+ characters and unique storage; fixture admin secret is admin1234 and recovery record REC-RH is available.\nAHRH-7334-I3: WAN UPnP and WPS PIN are enabled; gaming console G1 needs LAN UPnP but no WAN discovery.\nAHRH-7334-I4: Guest SSID RH-GUEST needs internet only; current policy permits routes to HOME-LAN 192.0.2.0/24.\nAHRH-7334-I5: Acceptance requires WAN admin closed, WPS closed, guest-to-LAN denied, G1 connectivity retained, and baseline export RH-BASE hash 77a102fe restorable.\nReturn a concrete home router hardening audit with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Before-and-after configuration exports and connectivity checks will verify each approved defensive change.","firstResult":"HOME ROUTER HARDENING AUDIT AHRH-7334 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: harden a home router safely. Evaluation focus: Router Security. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nAHRH-7334-R1 :: RESULT=ADMIN=deny WAN TCP443; allow LAN 192.0.2.0/24 only\nAHRH-7334-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAHRH-7334-R2 :: RESULT=CREDENTIAL=keep admin1234 for convenience\nAHRH-7334-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAHRH-7334-R3 :: RESULT=SERVICES=disable WPS PIN; block WAN UPnP; retain LAN UPnP for G1\nAHRH-7334-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAHRH-7334-R4 :: RESULT=GUEST=allow access to HOME-LAN printers and files\nAHRH-7334-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAHRH-7334-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=internet works from one device\nAHRH-7334-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for AHRH-7334; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise AHRH-7334 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Replace the seeded weak administrator secret: input was “Credential policy requires 16+ characters and unique storage; fixture admin secret is admin1234 and recovery record REC-RH is available.”; first response was “CREDENTIAL=keep admin1234 for convenience”.\n- Separate guest clients: input was “Guest SSID RH-GUEST needs internet only; current policy permits routes to HOME-LAN 192.0.2.0/24.”; first response was “GUEST=allow access to HOME-LAN printers and files”.\n- Verify security and connectivity: input was “Acceptance requires WAN admin closed, WPS closed, guest-to-LAN denied, G1 connectivity retained, and baseline export RH-BASE hash 77a102fe restorable.”; first response was “ACCEPT=internet works from one device”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"HOME ROUTER HARDENING AUDIT AHRH-7334 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: harden a home router safely. Evaluation focus: Router Security. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nAHRH-7334-R1 :: RESULT=ADMIN=deny WAN TCP443; allow LAN 192.0.2.0/24 only\nAHRH-7334-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAHRH-7334-R2 :: RESULT=CREDENTIAL=replace admin1234 with unique 16+ character secret; store in REC-RH\nAHRH-7334-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAHRH-7334-R3 :: RESULT=SERVICES=disable WPS PIN; block WAN UPnP; retain LAN UPnP for G1\nAHRH-7334-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAHRH-7334-R4 :: RESULT=GUEST=internet allowed; deny RH-GUEST to 192.0.2.0/24\nAHRH-7334-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nAHRH-7334-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=WAN admin closed; WPS closed; guest-LAN denied; G1 works\nAHRH-7334-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for AHRH-7334; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Remove remote administration exposure","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Router RH-1 exposes HTTPS admin on WAN TCP 443; administration is required only from LAN 192.0.2.0/24. Semantic rule: Remote administration must be restricted to the stated local subnet. FIRST returned “ADMIN=deny WAN TCP443; allow LAN 192.0.2.0/24 only”; the private static semantic key accepts “ADMIN=deny WAN TCP443; allow LAN 192.0.2.0/24 only”, so it passes. FINAL returned “ADMIN=deny WAN TCP443; allow LAN 192.0.2.0/24 only”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Replace the seeded weak administrator secret","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Credential policy requires 16+ characters and unique storage; fixture admin secret is admin1234 and recovery record REC-RH is available. Semantic rule: The disclosed weak secret fails length and uniqueness rules and must be replaced with recoverability retained. FIRST returned “CREDENTIAL=keep admin1234 for convenience”; the private static semantic key accepts “CREDENTIAL=replace admin1234 with unique 16+ character secret; store in REC-RH”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CREDENTIAL=replace admin1234 with unique 16+ character secret; store in REC-RH”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Disable unnecessary discovery services","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: WAN UPnP and WPS PIN are enabled; gaming console G1 needs LAN UPnP but no WAN discovery. Semantic rule: Hardening must remove the exposed scopes while preserving the explicitly required local function. FIRST returned “SERVICES=disable WPS PIN; block WAN UPnP; retain LAN UPnP for G1”; the private static semantic key accepts “SERVICES=disable WPS PIN; block WAN UPnP; retain LAN UPnP for G1”, so it passes. FINAL returned “SERVICES=disable WPS PIN; block WAN UPnP; retain LAN UPnP for G1”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Separate guest clients","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Guest SSID RH-GUEST needs internet only; current policy permits routes to HOME-LAN 192.0.2.0/24. Semantic rule: The guest boundary requires internet access without private-LAN reachability. FIRST returned “GUEST=allow access to HOME-LAN printers and files”; the private static semantic key accepts “GUEST=internet allowed; deny RH-GUEST to 192.0.2.0/24”, so it fails. FINAL returned “GUEST=internet allowed; deny RH-GUEST to 192.0.2.0/24”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify security and connectivity","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance requires WAN admin closed, WPS closed, guest-to-LAN denied, G1 connectivity retained, and baseline export RH-BASE hash 77a102fe restorable. Semantic rule: All defensive closures, required connectivity, and rollback must be checked together. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=internet works from one device”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=WAN admin closed; WPS closed; guest-LAN denied; G1 works; RH-BASE 77a102fe restorable”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=WAN admin closed; WPS closed; guest-LAN denied; G1 works”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["AHRH-7334 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Remove remote administration exposure passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Replace the seeded weak administrator secret also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Verify security and connectivity still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Before-and-after configuration exports and connectivity checks will verify each approved defensive change.","evidenceNotes":["AHRH-7334 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","AHRH-7334's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","AHRH-7334 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Before-and-after configuration exports and connectivity checks will verify each approved defensive change."],"limitations":["AHRH-7334 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","AHRH-7334 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-compare-historical-accounts","title":"Compare Two Historical Accounts Without Inventing Motives: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"compare two historical accounts without inventing author motives","excerpt":"The completed LFT-061 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Historical Comparison, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-16T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-061: Students will provide two bounded accounts, provenance notes, a timeline, and a list of claims that may or may not be reconciled. Source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-061-T01 through LFT-061-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-061-T03-L7. Governing rule card: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-061 for “compare two historical accounts without inventing author motives” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-061. Task: compare two historical accounts without inventing author motives. Context: Students will provide two bounded accounts, provenance notes, a timeline, and a list of claims that may or may not be reconciled. Fictional source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-061-T01 through LFT-061-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-061-T03-L7. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A quotation-level comparison will verify agreements, contradictions, provenance use, uncertainty, and unsupported psychological claims.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-061 produced a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations for the task “compare two historical accounts without inventing author motives.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-061-T03-L7. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-061-ROW1 reads: “LFT-061-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-061-T03-L7 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Historical Comparison learner adaptation [LFT-061], Historical Comparison evidence traceability [LFT-061], and Historical Comparison safety and access [LFT-061]. The audit found concrete failures: for Historical Comparison objective fit [LFT-061], the saved draft did not connect LFT-061-T02 to the full boundary of “compare two historical accounts without inventing author motives”; for Historical Comparison content accuracy [LFT-061], the saved draft left claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-061 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Historical Comparison objective fit [LFT-061] — the draft did not connect LFT-061-T02 to the full boundary of “compare two historical accounts without inventing author motives”; 2) Historical Comparison content accuracy [LFT-061] — the draft left claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-061 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-061-T03-L7. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-061-ROW1 reads: “LFT-061-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-061-T03-L7 | evidence locator: LFT-061-T01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Historical Comparison objective fit [LFT-061]. The frozen final text passed Historical Comparison objective fit [LFT-061], Historical Comparison learner adaptation [LFT-061], Historical Comparison evidence traceability [LFT-061], and Historical Comparison safety and access [LFT-061] and still failed Historical Comparison content accuracy [LFT-061]. The final claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Historical Comparison objective fit [LFT-061]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-061 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Historical Comparison objective fit [LFT-061].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-061-T02, the declared Historical Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Historical Comparison content accuracy [LFT-061]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-061 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Historical Comparison content accuracy [LFT-061].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-061-T02, the declared Historical Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Historical Comparison learner adaptation [LFT-061]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-061 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Historical Comparison learner adaptation [LFT-061].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-061-T02, the declared Historical Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Historical Comparison evidence traceability [LFT-061]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-061 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Historical Comparison evidence traceability [LFT-061].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-061-T02, the declared Historical Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Historical Comparison safety and access [LFT-061]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-061 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Historical Comparison safety and access [LFT-061].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-061-T02, the declared Historical Comparison rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-061 kept “compare two historical accounts without inventing author motives” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-061 made the central handling—support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-061-T03-L7—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-061 earned final passes for Historical Comparison objective fit [LFT-061] and Historical Comparison learner adaptation [LFT-061] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-061 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Historical Comparison content accuracy [LFT-061]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A quotation-level comparison will verify agreements, contradictions, provenance use, uncertainty, and unsupported psychological claims.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-061 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-061 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-061 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A quotation-level comparison will verify agreements, contradictions, provenance use, uncertainty, and unsupported psychological claims.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-061 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Historical Comparison fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-061 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-mount-external-drive","title":"External Drive Won't Mount: What Would AI Check First: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"troubleshoot an external drive that will not mount","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Storage Devices field test asked the session to troubleshoot an external drive that will not mount, preserved an actual five-row external-drive non-destructive diagnosis, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-14T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in MED-1886 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “troubleshoot an external drive that will not mount”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: troubleshoot an external drive that will not mount. Focus: Storage Devices.\nSource scenario: The experiment will reproduce a non-destructive mount failure on a test drive with a known partition state.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nMED-1886-I1: Unmounted target is USB SSD EXT-42, serial X42-771, 1 TB. Connected backup BAK-9, serial B9-002, 2 TB is healthy and excluded.\nMED-1886-I2: EXT-42 has GPT container C42 and encrypted volume ResearchVault; policy allows static logs and read-only verification before any unlock or repair proposal. Formatting is forbidden.\nMED-1886-I3: Mount log M42 reports VolumeLocked and NoCredential; read-only container check reports GPT valid and filesystem structural errors zero.\nMED-1886-I4: Recovery record R42 has volume UUID V-421 and key fingerprint 84A1-0D77; presented volume UUID is V-421. Password guessing and key storage on EXT-42 are prohibited.\nMED-1886-I5: Synthetic acceptance is ResearchVault mounted read-only first, manifest 206 files and 31 folders, sample hashes F01=1ab2 F103=7cc0 F206=90e1, clean unmount, and BAK-9 unchanged.\nReturn a concrete external-drive non-destructive diagnosis with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Disk diagnostics, mount logs, and file hashes will verify fault isolation without altering stored data.","firstResult":"EXTERNAL-DRIVE NON-DESTRUCTIVE DIAGNOSIS MED-1886 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: troubleshoot an external drive that will not mount. Evaluation focus: Storage Devices. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nMED-1886-R1 :: RESULT=TARGET=EXT-42 serialX42-771 1TB; exclude BAK-9 serialB9-002\nMED-1886-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMED-1886-R2 :: RESULT=BOUNDARY=inspect C42+ResearchVault read-only first; format0; repair writes0\nMED-1886-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMED-1886-R3 :: RESULT=CAUSE=ResearchVault locked with no credential; GPT valid; filesystem errors0; do not rank corruption first\nMED-1886-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMED-1886-R4 :: RESULT=UNLOCK=try a list of common passwords\nMED-1886-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMED-1886-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=volume name appears in a sidebar\nMED-1886-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for MED-1886; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise MED-1886 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Use only the authorized unlock material: input was “Recovery record R42 has volume UUID V-421 and key fingerprint 84A1-0D77; presented volume UUID is V-421. Password guessing and key storage on EXT-42 are prohibited.”; first response was “UNLOCK=try a list of common passwords”.\n- Define mount and data-integrity acceptance: input was “Synthetic acceptance is ResearchVault mounted read-only first, manifest 206 files and 31 folders, sample hashes F01=1ab2 F103=7cc0 F206=90e1, clean unmount, and BAK-9 unchanged.”; first response was “ACCEPT=volume name appears in a sidebar”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"EXTERNAL-DRIVE NON-DESTRUCTIVE DIAGNOSIS MED-1886 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: troubleshoot an external drive that will not mount. Evaluation focus: Storage Devices. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nMED-1886-R1 :: RESULT=TARGET=EXT-42 serialX42-771 1TB; exclude BAK-9 serialB9-002\nMED-1886-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMED-1886-R2 :: RESULT=BOUNDARY=inspect C42+ResearchVault read-only first; format0; repair writes0\nMED-1886-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMED-1886-R3 :: RESULT=CAUSE=ResearchVault locked with no credential; GPT valid; filesystem errors0; do not rank corruption first\nMED-1886-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMED-1886-R4 :: RESULT=UNLOCK=UUID V-421 match; use R42 fingerprint84A1-0D77; guesses0; key copies on EXT-42=0\nMED-1886-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMED-1886-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=read-only mount; files206; folders31; samples3/3; clean unmount; BAK-9 unchanged\nMED-1886-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for MED-1886; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the target without touching another disk","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Unmounted target is USB SSD EXT-42, serial X42-771, 1 TB. Connected backup BAK-9, serial B9-002, 2 TB is healthy and excluded. Semantic rule: The target must be resolved from the disclosed model, serial, and capacity rather than device ordering. FIRST returned “TARGET=EXT-42 serialX42-771 1TB; exclude BAK-9 serialB9-002”; the private static semantic key accepts “TARGET=EXT-42 serialX42-771 1TB; exclude BAK-9 serialB9-002”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TARGET=EXT-42 serialX42-771 1TB; exclude BAK-9 serialB9-002”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve a read-only first pass","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: EXT-42 has GPT container C42 and encrypted volume ResearchVault; policy allows static logs and read-only verification before any unlock or repair proposal. Formatting is forbidden. Semantic rule: The volume contains protected data, so diagnosis must begin read-only and exclude formatting or repair writes. FIRST returned “BOUNDARY=inspect C42+ResearchVault read-only first; format0; repair writes0”; the private static semantic key accepts “BOUNDARY=inspect C42+ResearchVault read-only first; format0; repair writes0”, so it passes. FINAL returned “BOUNDARY=inspect C42+ResearchVault read-only first; format0; repair writes0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Interpret the actual mount evidence","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Mount log M42 reports VolumeLocked and NoCredential; read-only container check reports GPT valid and filesystem structural errors zero. Semantic rule: The explicit lock error plus clean structure identifies the bounded cause without inventing corruption. FIRST returned “CAUSE=ResearchVault locked with no credential; GPT valid; filesystem errors0; do not rank corruption first”; the private static semantic key accepts “CAUSE=ResearchVault locked with no credential; GPT valid; filesystem errors0; do not rank corruption first”, so it passes. FINAL returned “CAUSE=ResearchVault locked with no credential; GPT valid; filesystem errors0; do not rank corruption first”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use only the authorized unlock material","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Recovery record R42 has volume UUID V-421 and key fingerprint 84A1-0D77; presented volume UUID is V-421. Password guessing and key storage on EXT-42 are prohibited. Semantic rule: The supported recovery route requires exact volume identity and separately held key material. FIRST returned “UNLOCK=try a list of common passwords”; the private static semantic key accepts “UNLOCK=UUID V-421 match; use R42 fingerprint84A1-0D77; guesses0; key copies on EXT-42=0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “UNLOCK=UUID V-421 match; use R42 fingerprint84A1-0D77; guesses0; key copies on EXT-42=0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define mount and data-integrity acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Synthetic acceptance is ResearchVault mounted read-only first, manifest 206 files and 31 folders, sample hashes F01=1ab2 F103=7cc0 F206=90e1, clean unmount, and BAK-9 unchanged. Semantic rule: Mount visibility alone cannot replace inventory, content identity, clean detach, and non-target preservation. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=volume name appears in a sidebar”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=read-only mount; files206; folders31; samples3/3; clean unmount; BAK-9 unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=read-only mount; files206; folders31; samples3/3; clean unmount; BAK-9 unchanged”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["MED-1886 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the target without touching another disk passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Preserve a read-only first pass also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Use only the authorized unlock material; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Disk diagnostics, mount logs, and file hashes will verify fault isolation without altering stored data.","evidenceNotes":["MED-1886 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","MED-1886's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","MED-1886 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Disk diagnostics, mount logs, and file hashes will verify fault isolation without altering stored data."],"limitations":["MED-1886 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","MED-1886 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-fraction-misconception-tutor","title":"AI as a Fraction Tutor: Addressing Persistent Misconceptions: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"tutor a student through fraction misconceptions","excerpt":"The completed LFT-001 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Fraction tutoring, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-14T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-001: A student will work through equivalent-fraction problems while the AI adapts explanations to each error. Source facts: responses LFT-001-F01 2/3=4/5, F02 3/8>1/2, F03 2/6→2/3; a 12-part strip; confidence 4/5 on F01. Governing rule card: equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-001 for “tutor a student through fraction misconceptions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-001. Task: tutor a student through fraction misconceptions. Context: A student will work through equivalent-fraction problems while the AI adapts explanations to each error. Fictional source facts: responses LFT-001-F01 2/3=4/5, F02 3/8>1/2, F03 2/6→2/3; a 12-part strip; confidence 4/5 on F01. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A transcript and annotated answer sheet will show whether each explanation addresses the student's stated misconception.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-001 produced a misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder for “tutor a student through fraction misconceptions.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-001-F01 | show 2/3=8/12 on the strip, contrast 3/8 with 4/8, and ask the learner to repair F03 without revealing it | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the confident F01 misconception and premature simplification in F03 and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Fraction tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-001], Fraction tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-001], and Fraction tutoring safety and access [LFT-001]. It found for Fraction tutoring objective fit [LFT-001], the draft did not link LFT-001-F01 to the full task boundary; for Fraction tutoring content accuracy [LFT-001], the draft mentioned but did not verify equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-001 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Fraction tutoring objective fit [LFT-001] — the draft did not link LFT-001-F01 to the full task boundary; 2) Fraction tutoring content accuracy [LFT-001] — the draft mentioned but did not verify equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-001 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: show 2/3=8/12 on the strip, contrast 3/8 with 4/8, and ask the learner to repair F03 without revealing it. Its corrected row read “LFT-001-F01 | rule: equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor | decision: show 2/3=8/12 on the strip, contrast 3/8 with 4/8, and ask the learner to repair F03 without revealing it | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Fraction tutoring objective fit [LFT-001]. The final audit passed Fraction tutoring objective fit [LFT-001], Fraction tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-001], Fraction tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-001], and Fraction tutoring safety and access [LFT-001]. It still lacked Fraction tutoring content accuracy [LFT-001]; those failures remain visible. The misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Fraction tutoring objective fit [LFT-001]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-001 static check 1 inspected “Fraction tutoring objective fit [LFT-001]” against LFT-001-F01, the rule “equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor,” and the saved misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Fraction tutoring content accuracy [LFT-001]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-001 static check 2 inspected “Fraction tutoring content accuracy [LFT-001]” against LFT-001-F01, the rule “equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor,” and the saved misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Fraction tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-001]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-001 static check 3 inspected “Fraction tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-001]” against LFT-001-F01, the rule “equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor,” and the saved misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Fraction tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-001]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-001 static check 4 inspected “Fraction tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-001]” against LFT-001-F01, the rule “equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor,” and the saved misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Fraction tutoring safety and access [LFT-001]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-001 static check 5 inspected “Fraction tutoring safety and access [LFT-001]” against LFT-001-F01, the rule “equivalent fractions multiply numerator and denominator by the same factor,” and the saved misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-001 bounded “tutor a student through fraction misconceptions” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-001 exposed LFT-001-F01—show 2/3=8/12 on the strip, contrast 3/8 with 4/8, and ask the learner to repair F03 without revealing it—inside the saved misconception diagnosis, fraction model, and practice ladder.","LFT-001 earned inspectable passes for Fraction tutoring objective fit [LFT-001] and Fraction tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-001] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-001 still lacked saved-text evidence for Fraction tutoring content accuracy [LFT-001]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A transcript and annotated answer sheet will show whether each explanation addresses the student's stated misconception.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-001 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-001 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-001 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A transcript and annotated answer sheet will show whether each explanation addresses the student's stated misconception.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-001 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Fraction tutoring fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-001 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-balance-shift-coverage","title":"Balancing Shift Rosters with AI Under Real Coverage Rules: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"balance a shift roster against coverage rules","excerpt":"The completed WFT-001 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Workforce Scheduling checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-14T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-001: A service operations team will provide availability, role requirements, and minimum staffing levels for a weekly roster. Source facts: records WFT-001-R01 through WFT-001-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 17 and 31; dependency WFT-001-R04 after WFT-001-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-001-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (17 and 31). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-001 for “balance a shift roster against coverage rules” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-001. Task: balance a shift roster against coverage rules. Context: A service operations team will provide availability, role requirements, and minimum staffing levels for a weekly roster. Fictional source facts: records WFT-001-R01 through WFT-001-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 17 and 31; dependency WFT-001-R04 after WFT-001-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-001-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (17 and 31). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A proposed roster and an independent coverage-and-hours check will verify every constraint.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-001 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “balance a shift roster against coverage rules.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-001-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-001-R04 only after WFT-001-R02, and flag the second window when demand 31 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-001-ROW1 reads: “WFT-001-R01 | keep WFT-001-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-001-R04 only after WFT-001-R02, and flag the second window when demand 31 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Workforce Scheduling task fidelity [WFT-001]. The audit found concrete failures: for Workforce Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-001], the saved draft left the two window limits (17 and 31) without an explicit verification row; for Workforce Scheduling exception handling [WFT-001], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-001-R05 availability exception and the WFT-001-R02→R04 dependency; for Workforce Scheduling source traceability [WFT-001], the saved draft gave the central WFT-001-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Workforce Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-001], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-001 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Workforce Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-001] — the draft left the two window limits (17 and 31) without an explicit verification row; 2) Workforce Scheduling exception handling [WFT-001] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-001-R05 availability exception and the WFT-001-R02→R04 dependency; 3) Workforce Scheduling source traceability [WFT-001] — the draft gave the central WFT-001-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Workforce Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-001] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-001 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-001-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-001-R04 only after WFT-001-R02, and flag the second window when demand 31 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-001-ROW1 reads: “WFT-001-R01 | keep WFT-001-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-001-R04 only after WFT-001-R02, and flag the second window when demand 31 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-001-R01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Workforce Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-001]. The frozen final text passed Workforce Scheduling task fidelity [WFT-001] and Workforce Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-001] and still failed Workforce Scheduling exception handling [WFT-001], Workforce Scheduling source traceability [WFT-001], and Workforce Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-001]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Workforce Scheduling task fidelity [WFT-001]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-001 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Workforce Scheduling task fidelity [WFT-001].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-001-R05, the declared Workforce Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Workforce Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-001]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-001 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Workforce Scheduling rule accuracy [WFT-001].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-001-R05, the declared Workforce Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Workforce Scheduling exception handling [WFT-001]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-001 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Workforce Scheduling exception handling [WFT-001].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-001-R05, the declared Workforce Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Workforce Scheduling source traceability [WFT-001]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-001 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Workforce Scheduling source traceability [WFT-001].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-001-R05, the declared Workforce Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Workforce Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-001]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-001 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Workforce Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-001].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-001-R05, the declared Workforce Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-001 kept “balance a shift roster against coverage rules” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-001 made the central handling—keep WFT-001-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-001-R04 only after WFT-001-R02, and flag the second window when demand 31 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-001 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Workforce Scheduling exception handling [WFT-001]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-001 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Workforce Scheduling source traceability [WFT-001]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-001 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Workforce Scheduling handoff usability [WFT-001]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A proposed roster and an independent coverage-and-hours check will verify every constraint.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-001 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-001 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-001 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A proposed roster and an independent coverage-and-hours check will verify every constraint.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-001 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Workforce Scheduling fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-001 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-create-shift-handover","title":"Turn Shift Notes into an Actionable Operations Handover: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"turn fragmented shift notes into an actionable operations handover","excerpt":"The completed WFT-067 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Shift Handover checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-13T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-067: A plant team will provide fictional log entries, alarms, temporary controls, pending permits, and incoming-shift responsibilities. Source facts: records WFT-067-R01 through WFT-067-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 44 and 52; dependency WFT-067-R04 after WFT-067-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-067-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (44 and 52). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-067 for “turn fragmented shift notes into an actionable operations handover” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-067. Task: turn fragmented shift notes into an actionable operations handover. Context: A plant team will provide fictional log entries, alarms, temporary controls, pending permits, and incoming-shift responsibilities. Fictional source facts: records WFT-067-R01 through WFT-067-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 44 and 52; dependency WFT-067-R04 after WFT-067-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-067-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (44 and 52). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A source-linked handover checklist will verify open hazards, ownership, due times, operational state, and missing context.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-067 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “turn fragmented shift notes into an actionable operations handover.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-067-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-067-R04 only after WFT-067-R02, and flag the second window when demand 52 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-067-ROW1 reads: “WFT-067-R01 | keep WFT-067-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-067-R04 only after WFT-067-R02, and flag the second window when demand 52 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Shift Handover exception handling [WFT-067]. The audit found concrete failures: for Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-067], the saved draft did not connect WFT-067-R05 to the full boundary of “turn fragmented shift notes into an actionable operations handover”; for Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-067], the saved draft left the two window limits (44 and 52) without an explicit verification row; for Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-067], the saved draft gave the central WFT-067-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-067], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-067 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-067] — the draft did not connect WFT-067-R05 to the full boundary of “turn fragmented shift notes into an actionable operations handover”; 2) Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-067] — the draft left the two window limits (44 and 52) without an explicit verification row; 3) Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-067] — the draft gave the central WFT-067-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-067] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-067 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-067-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-067-R04 only after WFT-067-R02, and flag the second window when demand 52 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-067-ROW1 reads: “WFT-067-R01 | keep WFT-067-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-067-R04 only after WFT-067-R02, and flag the second window when demand 52 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-067-R01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-067]. The frozen final text passed Shift Handover exception handling [WFT-067] and Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-067] and still failed Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-067], Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-067], and Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-067]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-067]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-067 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-067].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-067-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-067]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-067 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-067].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-067-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Shift Handover exception handling [WFT-067]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-067 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover exception handling [WFT-067].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-067-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-067]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-067 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover source traceability [WFT-067].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-067-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-067]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-067 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-067].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-067-R05, the declared Shift Handover rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-067 kept “turn fragmented shift notes into an actionable operations handover” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-067 made the central handling—keep WFT-067-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-067-R04 only after WFT-067-R02, and flag the second window when demand 52 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-067 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Shift Handover task fidelity [WFT-067]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-067 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Shift Handover rule accuracy [WFT-067]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-067 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Shift Handover handoff usability [WFT-067]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A source-linked handover checklist will verify open hazards, ownership, due times, operational state, and missing context.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-067 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-067 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-067 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A source-linked handover checklist will verify open hazards, ownership, due times, operational state, and missing context.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-067 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Shift Handover fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-067 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-verify-software-download","title":"Check a Software Download's Authenticity With AI and Checksums: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"verify that a software download is authentic","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Software Integrity field test asked the session to verify that a software download is authentic, preserved an actual five-row software download authenticity verdict, and derived 0/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-10T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in VSD-8676 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “verify that a software download is authentic”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: verify that a software download is authentic. Focus: Software Integrity.\nSource scenario: The experiment will present official release information alongside intact and altered sample downloads in an isolated setting.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nVSD-8676-I1: Requested package is NoteForge 5.2.1 for arm64, filename noteforge-5.2.1-arm64.pkg, size 84,210,944 bytes; x64 package is out of scope.\nVSD-8676-I2: Maintainer release file lists SHA-256 c43a77b0 for the arm64 package; downloaded fixture hashes to c43a77b1.\nVSD-8676-I3: Static signature report says cryptographic signature valid but signer is Northwind Test Labs; approved publisher certificate subject is NoteForge Software LLC.\nVSD-8676-I4: Fixture download URL host is mirror-download.invalid; approved release host is releases.noteforge.example. No redirect chain connects them.\nVSD-8676-I5: Policy requires quarantine recommendation when any identity check fails; execution and deletion are outside the static test. Evidence record must include filename, size, both hashes, signer, and host.\nReturn a concrete software download authenticity verdict with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Published checksums, signatures, and known file identities will verify each authenticity decision.","firstResult":"SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD AUTHENTICITY VERDICT VSD-8676 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: verify that a software download is authentic. Evaluation focus: Software Integrity. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nVSD-8676-R1 :: RESULT=ARTIFACT=accept any NoteForge package with a similar name\nVSD-8676-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVSD-8676-R2 :: RESULT=CHECKSUM=pass because only the final character differs\nVSD-8676-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVSD-8676-R3 :: RESULT=SIGNATURE=pass because the signature is mathematically valid\nVSD-8676-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVSD-8676-R4 :: RESULT=SOURCE=trusted because the page uses HTTPS\nVSD-8676-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVSD-8676-R5 :: RESULT=VERDICT=install it to see whether it works\nVSD-8676-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for VSD-8676; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise VSD-8676 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Pin the intended artifact: input was “Requested package is NoteForge 5.2.1 for arm64, filename noteforge-5.2.1-arm64.pkg, size 84,210,944 bytes; x64 package is out of scope.”; first response was “ARTIFACT=accept any NoteForge package with a similar name”.\n- Compare the exact checksum: input was “Maintainer release file lists SHA-256 c43a77b0 for the arm64 package; downloaded fixture hashes to c43a77b1.”; first response was “CHECKSUM=pass because only the final character differs”.\n- Evaluate the signature identity: input was “Static signature report says cryptographic signature valid but signer is Northwind Test Labs; approved publisher certificate subject is NoteForge Software LLC.”; first response was “SIGNATURE=pass because the signature is mathematically valid”.\n- Use the disclosed source record: input was “Fixture download URL host is mirror-download.invalid; approved release host is releases.noteforge.example. No redirect chain connects them.”; first response was “SOURCE=trusted because the page uses HTTPS”.\n- Issue a bounded decision without execution: input was “Policy requires quarantine recommendation when any identity check fails; execution and deletion are outside the static test. Evidence record must include filename, size, both hashes, signer, and host.”; first response was “VERDICT=install it to see whether it works”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD AUTHENTICITY VERDICT VSD-8676 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: verify that a software download is authentic. Evaluation focus: Software Integrity. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nVSD-8676-R1 :: RESULT=ARTIFACT=NoteForge5.2.1 arm64; filename exact; size84210944\nVSD-8676-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVSD-8676-R2 :: RESULT=CHECKSUM=download c43a77b1!=published c43a77b0\nVSD-8676-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVSD-8676-R3 :: RESULT=SIGNATURE=math valid; signer Northwind Test Labs mismatch NoteForge Software LLC\nVSD-8676-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVSD-8676-R4 :: RESULT=SOURCE=mirror-download.invalid unapproved; approved releases.noteforge.example\nVSD-8676-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nVSD-8676-R5 :: RESULT=VERDICT=do not install; propose quarantine; record filename+size+hashes+signer+host\nVSD-8676-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for VSD-8676; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Pin the intended artifact","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Requested package is NoteForge 5.2.1 for arm64, filename noteforge-5.2.1-arm64.pkg, size 84,210,944 bytes; x64 package is out of scope. Semantic rule: Authenticity starts with matching product, version, architecture, filename, and byte length. FIRST returned “ARTIFACT=accept any NoteForge package with a similar name”; the private static semantic key accepts “ARTIFACT=NoteForge5.2.1 arm64; filename exact; size84210944”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ARTIFACT=NoteForge5.2.1 arm64; filename exact; size84210944”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Compare the exact checksum","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Maintainer release file lists SHA-256 c43a77b0 for the arm64 package; downloaded fixture hashes to c43a77b1. Semantic rule: Cryptographic hashes require exact equality; a one-character difference is a failure. FIRST returned “CHECKSUM=pass because only the final character differs”; the private static semantic key accepts “CHECKSUM=download c43a77b1!=published c43a77b0; fail” or “CHECKSUM=download c43a77b1!=published c43a77b0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CHECKSUM=download c43a77b1!=published c43a77b0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Evaluate the signature identity","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Static signature report says cryptographic signature valid but signer is Northwind Test Labs; approved publisher certificate subject is NoteForge Software LLC. Semantic rule: A valid signature from the wrong publisher does not authenticate the requested software. FIRST returned “SIGNATURE=pass because the signature is mathematically valid”; the private static semantic key accepts “SIGNATURE=math valid; signer Northwind Test Labs mismatch NoteForge Software LLC; fail identity” or “SIGNATURE=math valid; signer Northwind Test Labs mismatch NoteForge Software LLC”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SIGNATURE=math valid; signer Northwind Test Labs mismatch NoteForge Software LLC”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the disclosed source record","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture download URL host is mirror-download.invalid; approved release host is releases.noteforge.example. No redirect chain connects them. Semantic rule: Transport encryption alone cannot substitute for the declared publisher-controlled origin. FIRST returned “SOURCE=trusted because the page uses HTTPS”; the private static semantic key accepts “SOURCE=mirror-download.invalid unapproved; approved releases.noteforge.example; chain absent” or “SOURCE=mirror-download.invalid unapproved; approved releases.noteforge.example”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SOURCE=mirror-download.invalid unapproved; approved releases.noteforge.example”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Issue a bounded decision without execution","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy requires quarantine recommendation when any identity check fails; execution and deletion are outside the static test. Evidence record must include filename, size, both hashes, signer, and host. Semantic rule: The failed checksum, signer, and source require rejection while preserving a complete non-executing evidence record. FIRST returned “VERDICT=install it to see whether it works”; the private static semantic key accepts “VERDICT=do not install; propose quarantine; record filename+size+hashes+signer+host; execute0” or “VERDICT=do not install; propose quarantine; record filename+size+hashes+signer+host”, so it fails. FINAL returned “VERDICT=do not install; propose quarantine; record filename+size+hashes+signer+host”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["VSD-8676 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Pin the intended artifact passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Compare the exact checksum also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Pin the intended artifact; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Published checksums, signatures, and known file identities will verify each authenticity decision.","evidenceNotes":["VSD-8676 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","VSD-8676's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","VSD-8676 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Published checksums, signatures, and known file identities will verify each authenticity decision."],"limitations":["VSD-8676 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","VSD-8676 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-plan-office-relocation","title":"Planning an Office Relocation Around Business Continuity with AI — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints","excerpt":"The completed WFT-050 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Move Planning checks passed after one correction, but Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050] and Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-10T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-050: A workplace team will provide floor access dates, team dependencies, equipment inventories, vendor windows, and downtime limits. Source facts: records WFT-050-R01 through WFT-050-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 41 and 53; dependency WFT-050-R04 after WFT-050-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-050-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (41 and 53). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-050 for “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-050. Task: plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints. Context: A workplace team will provide floor access dates, team dependencies, equipment inventories, vendor windows, and downtime limits. Fictional source facts: records WFT-050-R01 through WFT-050-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 41 and 53; dependency WFT-050-R04 after WFT-050-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-050-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (41 and 53). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A phased move plan and dependency-and-downtime checks will verify sequence, ownership, and continuity coverage.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-050 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-050-ROW1 reads: “WFT-050-R01 | keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050] and Move Planning handoff usability [WFT-050]. The audit found concrete failures: for Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050], the saved draft did not connect WFT-050-R05 to the full boundary of “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints”; for Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050], the saved draft left the two window limits (41 and 53) without an explicit verification row; for Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-050-R05 availability exception and the WFT-050-R02→R04 dependency. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-050 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050] — the draft did not connect WFT-050-R05 to the full boundary of “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints”; 2) Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050] — the draft left the two window limits (41 and 53) without an explicit verification row; 3) Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-050-R05 availability exception and the WFT-050-R02→R04 dependency.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-050 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-050-ROW1 reads: “WFT-050-R01 | keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-050-R01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050]. The frozen final text passed Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050], Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050], and Move Planning handoff usability [WFT-050] and still failed Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050] and Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-050 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-050 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-050 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-050 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Move Planning handoff usability [WFT-050]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-050 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Move Planning handoff usability [WFT-050].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-050-R05, the declared Move Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-050 kept “plan an office relocation around business continuity constraints” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-050 made the central handling—keep WFT-050-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-050-R04 only after WFT-050-R02, and flag the second window when demand 53 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-050 earned final passes for Move Planning task fidelity [WFT-050] and Move Planning source traceability [WFT-050] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-050 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Move Planning rule accuracy [WFT-050]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-050 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Move Planning exception handling [WFT-050]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A phased move plan and dependency-and-downtime checks will verify sequence, ownership, and continuity coverage.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-050 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-050 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-050 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A phased move plan and dependency-and-downtime checks will verify sequence, ownership, and continuity coverage.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-050 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Move Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-050 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-oral-exam-rehearsal","title":"Oral Exam Rehearsal with Responsive AI Follow-Up Questions — Completed Benchmark Result: 10/10","task":"rehearse an oral exam with responsive follow-up questions","excerpt":"The completed LFT-038 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Oral rehearsal, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-09T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-038: A student will answer syllabus-based oral questions while the AI probes reasoning and requests clarification. Source facts: topic LFT-038-O01 cellular respiration; opening answer omits electron transport; eight-minute limit; responsive follow-ups; pause allowed. Governing rule card: responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-038 for “rehearse an oral exam with responsive follow-up questions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-038. Task: rehearse an oral exam with responsive follow-up questions. Context: A student will answer syllabus-based oral questions while the AI probes reasoning and requests clarification. Fictional source facts: topic LFT-038-O01 cellular respiration; opening answer omits electron transport; eight-minute limit; responsive follow-ups; pause allowed. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A subject teacher will review question relevance, follow-up logic, and coverage against the syllabus.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-038 produced a oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet for “rehearse an oral exam with responsive follow-up questions.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-038-O01 | ask an open pathway question, probe the omitted electron-transport stage, allow a pause, and avoid compound questions | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the omitted pathway stage and risk of question stacking and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Oral rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-038], Oral rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-038], and Oral rehearsal evidence traceability [LFT-038]. It found for Oral rehearsal objective fit [LFT-038], the draft did not link LFT-038-O01 to the full task boundary; for Oral rehearsal safety and access [LFT-038], the draft left the oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-038 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Oral rehearsal objective fit [LFT-038] — the draft did not link LFT-038-O01 to the full task boundary; 2) Oral rehearsal safety and access [LFT-038] — the draft left the oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-038 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: ask an open pathway question, probe the omitted electron-transport stage, allow a pause, and avoid compound questions. Its corrected row read “LFT-038-O01 | rule: responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits | decision: ask an open pathway question, probe the omitted electron-transport stage, allow a pause, and avoid compound questions | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Oral rehearsal objective fit [LFT-038] and Oral rehearsal safety and access [LFT-038]. The final audit passed Oral rehearsal objective fit [LFT-038], Oral rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-038], Oral rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-038], Oral rehearsal evidence traceability [LFT-038], and Oral rehearsal safety and access [LFT-038]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Oral rehearsal objective fit [LFT-038]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-038 static check 1 inspected “Oral rehearsal objective fit [LFT-038]” against LFT-038-O01, the rule “responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits,” and the saved oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Oral rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-038]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-038 static check 2 inspected “Oral rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-038]” against LFT-038-O01, the rule “responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits,” and the saved oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Oral rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-038]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-038 static check 3 inspected “Oral rehearsal learner adaptation [LFT-038]” against LFT-038-O01, the rule “responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits,” and the saved oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Oral rehearsal evidence traceability [LFT-038]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-038 static check 4 inspected “Oral rehearsal evidence traceability [LFT-038]” against LFT-038-O01, the rule “responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits,” and the saved oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Oral rehearsal safety and access [LFT-038]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-038 static check 5 inspected “Oral rehearsal safety and access [LFT-038]” against LFT-038-O01, the rule “responsive follow-ups, accuracy, and declared time/pause limits,” and the saved oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-038 bounded “rehearse an oral exam with responsive follow-up questions” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-038 exposed LFT-038-O01—ask an open pathway question, probe the omitted electron-transport stage, allow a pause, and avoid compound questions—inside the saved oral question ladder, follow-up branch log, and timing sheet.","LFT-038 earned inspectable passes for Oral rehearsal objective fit [LFT-038] and Oral rehearsal content accuracy [LFT-038] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-038 first failed Oral rehearsal objective fit [LFT-038]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A subject teacher will review question relevance, follow-up logic, and coverage against the syllabus.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-038 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-038 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-038 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A subject teacher will review question relevance, follow-up logic, and coverage against the syllabus.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-038 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Oral rehearsal fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-038 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-diagnose-essay-structure","title":"What Makes This Essay Hard to Follow? An AI Structure Diagnosis: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"diagnose structural problems in a student essay without rewriting it","excerpt":"The completed LFT-067 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Writing Diagnosis, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-07T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-067: The AI will receive a fictional draft, assignment criteria, paragraph purposes, and a rule against supplying replacement prose. Source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-067-W01 through LFT-067-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing rule card: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-067 for “diagnose structural problems in a student essay without rewriting it” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-067. Task: diagnose structural problems in a student essay without rewriting it. Context: The AI will receive a fictional draft, assignment criteria, paragraph purposes, and a rule against supplying replacement prose. Fictional source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-067-W01 through LFT-067-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. Produce a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An instructor will compare the diagnosis with a coded outline for issue recall, false alarms, evidence, and unauthorized rewriting.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-067 produced a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt for the task “diagnose structural problems in a student essay without rewriting it.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: cite P2/P7 for LFT-067-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-067-ROW1 reads: “LFT-067-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-067-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Writing Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-067], Writing Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-067], and Writing Diagnosis safety and access [LFT-067]. The audit found concrete failures: for Writing Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-067], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-067-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04; for Writing Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-067], the saved draft gave the central LFT-067-W03 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-067 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Writing Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-067] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the unsupported LFT-067-W03 conclusion and stylistic variation in W04; 2) Writing Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-067] — the draft gave the central LFT-067-W03 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-067 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: cite P2/P7 for LFT-067-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-067-ROW1 reads: “LFT-067-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-067-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | evidence locator: LFT-067-W01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Writing Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-067]. The frozen final text passed Writing Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-067], Writing Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-067], Writing Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-067], and Writing Diagnosis safety and access [LFT-067] and still failed Writing Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-067]. The final criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Writing Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-067]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-067 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Writing Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-067].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-067-W03, the declared Writing Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Writing Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-067]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-067 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Writing Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-067].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-067-W03, the declared Writing Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Writing Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-067]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-067 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Writing Diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-067].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-067-W03, the declared Writing Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Writing Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-067]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-067 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Writing Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-067].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-067-W03, the declared Writing Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Writing Diagnosis safety and access [LFT-067]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-067 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Writing Diagnosis safety and access [LFT-067].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-067-W03, the declared Writing Diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-067 kept “diagnose structural problems in a student essay without rewriting it” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-067 made the central handling—cite P2/P7 for LFT-067-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-067 earned final passes for Writing Diagnosis objective fit [LFT-067] and Writing Diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-067] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-067 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Writing Diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-067]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"An instructor will compare the diagnosis with a coded outline for issue recall, false alarms, evidence, and unauthorized rewriting.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-067 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-067 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-067 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An instructor will compare the diagnosis with a coded outline for issue recall, false alarms, evidence, and unauthorized rewriting.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-067 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Writing Diagnosis fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-067 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-plan-warehouse-picking-waves","title":"Planning Warehouse Picking Waves with AI Under Capacity Limits — What the Completed 10/10 Test Found","task":"plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits","excerpt":"The completed WFT-016 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Warehouse Planning, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-07T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-016: A warehouse supervisor will provide orders, locations, cutoff times, cart capacity, and aisle restrictions for one shift. Source facts: orders or assets WFT-016-O01 through WFT-016-O07; capacities 35 kg and 55 minutes; skill tags E1/E2; aisle or access closure Z3 from 10:00–12:00; a safety hold on WFT-016-O04; and cutoff 16:30 for O06. Governing rule card: the 35-kg and 55-minute capacity ceilings. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-016 for “plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-016. Task: plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits. Context: A warehouse supervisor will provide orders, locations, cutoff times, cart capacity, and aisle restrictions for one shift. Fictional source facts: orders or assets WFT-016-O01 through WFT-016-O07; capacities 35 kg and 55 minutes; skill tags E1/E2; aisle or access closure Z3 from 10:00–12:00; a safety hold on WFT-016-O04; and cutoff 16:30 for O06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 35-kg and 55-minute capacity ceilings. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. Produce an operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A wave plan and constraint checks against the order file will verify capacity, cutoffs, and item coverage.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-016 produced an operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions for the task “plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-016-ROW1 reads: “WFT-016-O01 | hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016], Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016], and Warehouse Planning exception handling [WFT-016]. The audit found concrete failures: for Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016], the saved draft gave the central WFT-016-O04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016], the saved draft left the operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-016 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016] — the draft gave the central WFT-016-O04 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016] — the draft left the operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-016 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-016-ROW1 reads: “WFT-016-O01 | hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements | evidence locator: WFT-016-O01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016] and Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016]. The frozen final text passed Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016], Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016], Warehouse Planning exception handling [WFT-016], Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016], and Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final operations table, ordered work sequence, and constraint exceptions therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-016 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-016 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Warehouse Planning exception handling [WFT-016]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-016 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning exception handling [WFT-016].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-016 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-016 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Warehouse Planning handoff usability [WFT-016].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-016-O04, the declared Warehouse Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-016 kept “plan warehouse picking waves under capacity limits” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-016 made the central handling—hold WFT-016-O04, route O06 before its 16:30 cutoff, and avoid zone Z3 during the closure while preserving E1/E2 skill requirements—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-016 earned final passes for Warehouse Planning task fidelity [WFT-016] and Warehouse Planning rule accuracy [WFT-016] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-016’s first draft failed Warehouse Planning source traceability [WFT-016]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A wave plan and constraint checks against the order file will verify capacity, cutoffs, and item coverage.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-016 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-016 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-016 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A wave plan and constraint checks against the order file will verify capacity, cutoffs, and item coverage.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-016 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Warehouse Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-016 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-force-diagram-feedback","title":"Could AI Diagnose Free-Body Diagrams from Student Descriptions: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"correct free-body diagrams from student descriptions","excerpt":"The completed LFT-017 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Physics diagrams checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-05T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-017: Students will describe their force diagrams in text and receive feedback on omitted or misdirected forces. Source facts: fictional learner work LFT-017-L01 through LFT-017-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-017-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing rule card: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-017 for “correct free-body diagrams from student descriptions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-017. Task: correct free-body diagrams from student descriptions. Context: Students will describe their force diagrams in text and receive feedback on omitted or misdirected forces. Fictional source facts: fictional learner work LFT-017-L01 through LFT-017-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-017-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. Produce a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Instructor-labeled reference diagrams will be compared with the feedback for every force and direction.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-017 produced a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist for the task “correct free-body diagrams from student descriptions.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: probe LFT-017-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-017-ROW1 reads: “LFT-017-L01 | probe LFT-017-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Physics diagrams safety and access [LFT-017]. The audit found concrete failures: for Physics diagrams objective fit [LFT-017], the saved draft did not connect LFT-017-L03 to the full boundary of “correct free-body diagrams from student descriptions”; for Physics diagrams content accuracy [LFT-017], the saved draft left objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response without an explicit verification row; for Physics diagrams learner adaptation [LFT-017], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-017-L03 and unanswered L05 item; for Physics diagrams evidence traceability [LFT-017], the saved draft gave the central LFT-017-L03 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-017 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Physics diagrams objective fit [LFT-017] — the draft did not connect LFT-017-L03 to the full boundary of “correct free-body diagrams from student descriptions”; 2) Physics diagrams content accuracy [LFT-017] — the draft left objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response without an explicit verification row; 3) Physics diagrams learner adaptation [LFT-017] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-017-L03 and unanswered L05 item; 4) Physics diagrams evidence traceability [LFT-017] — the draft gave the central LFT-017-L03 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-017 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: probe LFT-017-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-017-ROW1 reads: “LFT-017-L01 | probe LFT-017-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | evidence locator: LFT-017-L01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Physics diagrams objective fit [LFT-017]. The frozen final text passed Physics diagrams objective fit [LFT-017] and Physics diagrams safety and access [LFT-017] and still failed Physics diagrams content accuracy [LFT-017], Physics diagrams learner adaptation [LFT-017], and Physics diagrams evidence traceability [LFT-017]. The final guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Physics diagrams objective fit [LFT-017]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-017 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Physics diagrams objective fit [LFT-017].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-017-L03, the declared Physics diagrams rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Physics diagrams content accuracy [LFT-017]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-017 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Physics diagrams content accuracy [LFT-017].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-017-L03, the declared Physics diagrams rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Physics diagrams learner adaptation [LFT-017]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-017 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Physics diagrams learner adaptation [LFT-017].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-017-L03, the declared Physics diagrams rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Physics diagrams evidence traceability [LFT-017]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-017 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Physics diagrams evidence traceability [LFT-017].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-017-L03, the declared Physics diagrams rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Physics diagrams safety and access [LFT-017]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-017 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Physics diagrams safety and access [LFT-017].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-017-L03, the declared Physics diagrams rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-017 kept “correct free-body diagrams from student descriptions” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-017 made the central handling—probe LFT-017-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["LFT-017 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Physics diagrams content accuracy [LFT-017]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-017 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Physics diagrams learner adaptation [LFT-017]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-017 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Physics diagrams evidence traceability [LFT-017]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Instructor-labeled reference diagrams will be compared with the feedback for every force and direction.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-017 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-017 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-017 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Instructor-labeled reference diagrams will be compared with the feedback for every force and direction.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-017 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Physics diagrams fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-017 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-reduce-startup-delay","title":"How Much Startup Delay Might AI Remove: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"reduce a computer's startup delay","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Startup Performance field test asked the session to reduce a computer's startup delay, preserved an actual five-row startup delay prioritization ledger, and derived 2/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-03T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RSD-7216 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “reduce a computer's startup delay”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: reduce a computer's startup delay. Focus: Startup Performance.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to prioritize reversible startup changes on a test system with seeded background programs.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRSD-7216-I1: Five cold boots are 86, 84, 85, 87, and 83 seconds; median is 85 seconds.\nRSD-7216-I2: Items: SyncTool 19s required, OldUpdater 24s obsolete, AudioPanel 3s required, PhotoAgent 17s optional.\nRSD-7216-I3: OldUpdater starts from login item L7 and scheduled task T7; both point to missing application /Old/Updater.\nRSD-7216-I4: Trial policy changes OldUpdater only and stores baseline export START-BASE hash 77cb10f1.\nRSD-7216-I5: Acceptance is five cold boots median below 65s, SyncTool sync pass, AudioPanel controls pass, PhotoAgent unchanged, and rollback restores L7+T7.\nReturn a concrete startup delay prioritization ledger with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Multiple timed boots and a startup-item inventory will verify speed changes and retained functionality.","firstResult":"STARTUP DELAY PRIORITIZATION LEDGER RSD-7216 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: reduce a computer's startup delay. Evaluation focus: Startup Performance. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRSD-7216-R1 :: RESULT=BASELINE=quote fastest run83s as typical\nRSD-7216-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRSD-7216-R2 :: RESULT=PRIORITY=disable SyncTool because it starts first\nRSD-7216-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRSD-7216-R3 :: RESULT=OLDUPDATER=remove every scheduled task\nRSD-7216-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRSD-7216-R4 :: RESULT=TRIAL=freeze START-BASE 77cb10f1; disable L7+T7 only\nRSD-7216-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRSD-7216-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one boot under65s\nRSD-7216-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RSD-7216; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RSD-7216 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Measure the stable baseline: input was “Five cold boots are 86, 84, 85, 87, and 83 seconds; median is 85 seconds.”; first response was “BASELINE=quote fastest run83s as typical”.\n- Rank the seeded startup item: input was “Items: SyncTool 19s required, OldUpdater 24s obsolete, AudioPanel 3s required, PhotoAgent 17s optional.”; first response was “PRIORITY=disable SyncTool because it starts first”.\n- Resolve the duplicate launch path: input was “OldUpdater starts from login item L7 and scheduled task T7; both point to missing application /Old/Updater.”; first response was “OLDUPDATER=remove every scheduled task”.\n- Verify speed and retained function: input was “Acceptance is five cold boots median below 65s, SyncTool sync pass, AudioPanel controls pass, PhotoAgent unchanged, and rollback restores L7+T7.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one boot under65s”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"STARTUP DELAY PRIORITIZATION LEDGER RSD-7216 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: reduce a computer's startup delay. Evaluation focus: Startup Performance. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRSD-7216-R1 :: RESULT=BASELINE=runs5; median85s; range83-87s\nRSD-7216-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRSD-7216-R2 :: RESULT=PRIORITY=OldUpdater24s first; PhotoAgent17s second; retain required items\nRSD-7216-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRSD-7216-R3 :: RESULT=OLDUPDATER=disable L7+T7\nRSD-7216-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRSD-7216-R4 :: RESULT=TRIAL=freeze START-BASE 77cb10f1; disable L7+T7 only\nRSD-7216-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRSD-7216-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=5 boots median<65s; required2/2; PhotoAgent unchanged\nRSD-7216-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RSD-7216; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Measure the stable baseline","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Five cold boots are 86, 84, 85, 87, and 83 seconds; median is 85 seconds. Semantic rule: The median of the fixed five-run series is the comparison baseline. FIRST returned “BASELINE=quote fastest run83s as typical”; the private static semantic key accepts “BASELINE=runs5; median85s; range83-87s”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BASELINE=runs5; median85s; range83-87s”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Rank the seeded startup item","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Items: SyncTool 19s required, OldUpdater 24s obsolete, AudioPanel 3s required, PhotoAgent 17s optional. Semantic rule: The largest obsolete cost is the safest first reversible target. FIRST returned “PRIORITY=disable SyncTool because it starts first”; the private static semantic key accepts “PRIORITY=OldUpdater24s first; PhotoAgent17s second; retain required items”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PRIORITY=OldUpdater24s first; PhotoAgent17s second; retain required items”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Resolve the duplicate launch path","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: OldUpdater starts from login item L7 and scheduled task T7; both point to missing application /Old/Updater. Semantic rule: Both stale launch mechanisms must be addressed without touching unrelated tasks. FIRST returned “OLDUPDATER=remove every scheduled task”; the private static semantic key accepts “OLDUPDATER=disable L7+T7; preserve inventory evidence” or “OLDUPDATER=disable L7+T7”, so it fails. FINAL returned “OLDUPDATER=disable L7+T7”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use one reversible trial","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Trial policy changes OldUpdater only and stores baseline export START-BASE hash 77cb10f1. Semantic rule: A one-item trial preserves attribution and exact rollback. FIRST returned “TRIAL=freeze START-BASE 77cb10f1; disable L7+T7 only”; the private static semantic key accepts “TRIAL=freeze START-BASE 77cb10f1; disable L7+T7 only”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TRIAL=freeze START-BASE 77cb10f1; disable L7+T7 only”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify speed and retained function","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is five cold boots median below 65s, SyncTool sync pass, AudioPanel controls pass, PhotoAgent unchanged, and rollback restores L7+T7. Semantic rule: Repeated timing, required functions, unchanged optional state, and reversal all matter. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one boot under65s”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=5 boots median<65s; required2/2; PhotoAgent unchanged; rollback L7+T7”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=5 boots median<65s; required2/2; PhotoAgent unchanged”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["RSD-7216 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Measure the stable baseline passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Rank the seeded startup item also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Verify speed and retained function still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Multiple timed boots and a startup-item inventory will verify speed changes and retained functionality.","evidenceNotes":["RSD-7216 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RSD-7216's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","RSD-7216 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Multiple timed boots and a startup-item inventory will verify speed changes and retained functionality."],"limitations":["RSD-7216 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RSD-7216 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-answer-benefits-questions","title":"Answering Employee Benefits Questions from Plan Documents Alone — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"answer employee benefits questions only from plan documents","excerpt":"The completed WFT-030 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Benefits Support, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-05-03T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-030: An HR service team will provide plan documents and a set of realistic employee questions with deliberate ambiguities. Source facts: plan WFT-030-B2/B5/B8; deductible $1,500; employer match 4%; eligibility after 30 days; fertility coverage absent; four employee questions. Governing rule card: answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-030 for “answer employee benefits questions only from plan documents” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-030. Task: answer employee benefits questions only from plan documents. Context: An HR service team will provide plan documents and a set of realistic employee questions with deliberate ambiguities. Fictional source facts: plan WFT-030-B2/B5/B8; deductible $1,500; employer match 4%; eligibility after 30 days; fertility coverage absent; four employee questions. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A cited answer set and benefits-specialist review will verify source support and appropriate uncertainty.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-030 produced a question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list for “answer employee benefits questions only from plan documents.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-030-B8 | answer deductible, match, and eligibility from B2/B5/B8, and state fertility coverage cannot be determined | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the absent fertility provision and eligibility-date wording and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Benefits Support task fidelity [WFT-030], Benefits Support source traceability [WFT-030], and Benefits Support handoff usability [WFT-030]. It found for Benefits Support rule accuracy [WFT-030], the draft mentioned but did not verify answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations; for Benefits Support exception handling [WFT-030], the draft left the absent fertility provision and eligibility-date wording without an explicit disposition. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-030 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Benefits Support rule accuracy [WFT-030] — the draft mentioned but did not verify answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations; 2) Benefits Support exception handling [WFT-030] — the draft left the absent fertility provision and eligibility-date wording without an explicit disposition.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-030 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: answer deductible, match, and eligibility from B2/B5/B8, and state fertility coverage cannot be determined. Its corrected row read “WFT-030-B8 | rule: answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations | decision: answer deductible, match, and eligibility from B2/B5/B8, and state fertility coverage cannot be determined | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Benefits Support rule accuracy [WFT-030]. The final audit passed Benefits Support task fidelity [WFT-030], Benefits Support rule accuracy [WFT-030], Benefits Support source traceability [WFT-030], and Benefits Support handoff usability [WFT-030]. It still lacked Benefits Support exception handling [WFT-030]; those failures remain visible. The question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Benefits Support task fidelity [WFT-030]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-030 static check 1 inspected “Benefits Support task fidelity [WFT-030]” against WFT-030-B8, the rule “answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations,” and the saved question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Benefits Support rule accuracy [WFT-030]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-030 static check 2 inspected “Benefits Support rule accuracy [WFT-030]” against WFT-030-B8, the rule “answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations,” and the saved question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Benefits Support exception handling [WFT-030]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-030 static check 3 inspected “Benefits Support exception handling [WFT-030]” against WFT-030-B8, the rule “answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations,” and the saved question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Benefits Support source traceability [WFT-030]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-030 static check 4 inspected “Benefits Support source traceability [WFT-030]” against WFT-030-B8, the rule “answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations,” and the saved question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Benefits Support handoff usability [WFT-030]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-030 static check 5 inspected “Benefits Support handoff usability [WFT-030]” against WFT-030-B8, the rule “answers only from supplied plan text with section-level citations,” and the saved question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-030 bounded “answer employee benefits questions only from plan documents” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-030 exposed WFT-030-B8—answer deductible, match, and eligibility from B2/B5/B8, and state fertility coverage cannot be determined—inside the saved question-answer table, plan citation index, and escalation list.","WFT-030 earned inspectable passes for Benefits Support task fidelity [WFT-030] and Benefits Support rule accuracy [WFT-030] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-030 still lacked saved-text evidence for Benefits Support exception handling [WFT-030]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A cited answer set and benefits-specialist review will verify source support and appropriate uncertainty.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-030 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-030 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-030 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A cited answer set and benefits-specialist review will verify source support and appropriate uncertainty.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-030 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Benefits Support fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-030 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-audit-browser-extension-permissions","title":"Which Browser Extension Permissions Exceed the Job: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"audit browser extension permissions against declared functionality","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Permission Auditing field test asked the session to audit browser extension permissions against declared functionality, preserved an actual five-row extension feature-to-permission audit, and derived 0/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-30T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in ABEP-0727 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “audit browser extension permissions against declared functionality”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: audit browser extension permissions against declared functionality. Focus: Permission Auditing.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide synthetic manifests, feature descriptions, optional permissions, update behavior, and known overbroad examples.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nABEP-0727-I1: Extension ClipLite 2.3 saves selected text only after toolbar click on the active tab; it has no background synchronization or browsing-history feature.\nABEP-0727-I2: Manifest requests <all_urls> persistently. Browser supports activeTab, which grants temporary access after the toolbar gesture and satisfies all ClipLite fixtures.\nABEP-0727-I3: Manifest also requests history and tabs. Fixture matrix shows page title and selected text are available in the active-tab response; no history query occurs in traces T1-T8.\nABEP-0727-I4: ClipLite stores 25 local snippets totaling 42 KB through browser local storage; disabling storage loses saved snippets in fixture S4.\nABEP-0727-I5: Expected reduced set is activeTab, scripting, and storage. Acceptance is clips T1-T8 8/8, history reads zero, background host access denied, and saved snippets 25/25.\nReturn a concrete extension feature-to-permission audit with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A manifest-to-feature matrix and browser documentation check will verify necessity, scope, optionality, and missed high-risk access.","firstResult":"EXTENSION FEATURE-TO-PERMISSION AUDIT ABEP-0727 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: audit browser extension permissions against declared functionality. Evaluation focus: Permission Auditing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nABEP-0727-R1 :: RESULT=FUNCTION=continuous capture of every visited page\nABEP-0727-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABEP-0727-R2 :: RESULT=HOST=retain <all_urls> because clipping happens on websites\nABEP-0727-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABEP-0727-R3 :: RESULT=UNUSED=keep history in case a future feature needs it\nABEP-0727-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABEP-0727-R4 :: RESULT=STORAGE=remove storage and silently lose snippets\nABEP-0727-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABEP-0727-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=extension icon still appears\nABEP-0727-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for ABEP-0727; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise ABEP-0727 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Map the declared extension function: input was “Extension ClipLite 2.3 saves selected text only after toolbar click on the active tab; it has no background synchronization or browsing-history feature.”; first response was “FUNCTION=continuous capture of every visited page”.\n- Identify the overbroad host permission: input was “Manifest requests <all_urls> persistently. Browser supports activeTab, which grants temporary access after the toolbar gesture and satisfies all ClipLite fixtures.”; first response was “HOST=retain <all_urls> because clipping happens on websites”.\n- Reject unused history and tab access: input was “Manifest also requests history and tabs. Fixture matrix shows page title and selected text are available in the active-tab response; no history query occurs in traces T1-T8.”; first response was “UNUSED=keep history in case a future feature needs it”.\n- Retain the necessary storage permission: input was “ClipLite stores 25 local snippets totaling 42 KB through browser local storage; disabling storage loses saved snippets in fixture S4.”; first response was “STORAGE=remove storage and silently lose snippets”.\n- Score the reduced manifest and behavior: input was “Expected reduced set is activeTab, scripting, and storage. Acceptance is clips T1-T8 8/8, history reads zero, background host access denied, and saved snippets 25/25.”; first response was “ACCEPT=extension icon still appears”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"EXTENSION FEATURE-TO-PERMISSION AUDIT ABEP-0727 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: audit browser extension permissions against declared functionality. Evaluation focus: Permission Auditing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nABEP-0727-R1 :: RESULT=FUNCTION=toolbar-click active-tab clipping only; background sync0; history feature0\nABEP-0727-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABEP-0727-R2 :: RESULT=HOST=replace persistent <all_urls> with activeTab\nABEP-0727-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABEP-0727-R3 :: RESULT=UNUSED=remove history+tabs\nABEP-0727-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABEP-0727-R4 :: RESULT=STORAGE=retain storage for25 snippets/42KB\nABEP-0727-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABEP-0727-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=activeTab+scripting+storage; clips8/8; history reads0; background host denied\nABEP-0727-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for ABEP-0727; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Map the declared extension function","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Extension ClipLite 2.3 saves selected text only after toolbar click on the active tab; it has no background synchronization or browsing-history feature. Semantic rule: The permission need must start from the exact declared user-triggered feature set. FIRST returned “FUNCTION=continuous capture of every visited page”; the private static semantic key accepts “FUNCTION=toolbar-click active-tab clipping only; background sync0; history feature0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “FUNCTION=toolbar-click active-tab clipping only; background sync0; history feature0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Identify the overbroad host permission","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Manifest requests <all_urls> persistently. Browser supports activeTab, which grants temporary access after the toolbar gesture and satisfies all ClipLite fixtures. Semantic rule: Temporary gesture-scoped access meets the declared function without persistent access to every origin. FIRST returned “HOST=retain <all_urls> because clipping happens on websites”; the private static semantic key accepts “HOST=replace persistent <all_urls> with activeTab; fixtures remain supported” or “HOST=replace persistent <all_urls> with activeTab”, so it fails. FINAL returned “HOST=replace persistent <all_urls> with activeTab”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reject unused history and tab access","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Manifest also requests history and tabs. Fixture matrix shows page title and selected text are available in the active-tab response; no history query occurs in traces T1-T8. Semantic rule: Permissions must be justified by present behavior, and the supplied traces show no use. FIRST returned “UNUSED=keep history in case a future feature needs it”; the private static semantic key accepts “UNUSED=remove history+tabs; T1-T8 need neither” or “UNUSED=remove history+tabs”, so it fails. FINAL returned “UNUSED=remove history+tabs”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Retain the necessary storage permission","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: ClipLite stores 25 local snippets totaling 42 KB through browser local storage; disabling storage loses saved snippets in fixture S4. Semantic rule: The concrete local persistence feature justifies this bounded permission. FIRST returned “STORAGE=remove storage and silently lose snippets”; the private static semantic key accepts “STORAGE=retain storage for25 snippets/42KB; scope local only”, so it fails. FINAL returned “STORAGE=retain storage for25 snippets/42KB”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Score the reduced manifest and behavior","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Expected reduced set is activeTab, scripting, and storage. Acceptance is clips T1-T8 8/8, history reads zero, background host access denied, and saved snippets 25/25. Semantic rule: The audit passes only when the least-privilege manifest and all positive and negative behavior checks agree. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=extension icon still appears”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=activeTab+scripting+storage; clips8/8; history reads0; background host denied; snippets25/25”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=activeTab+scripting+storage; clips8/8; history reads0; background host denied”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["ABEP-0727 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Map the declared extension function passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Identify the overbroad host permission also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Retain the necessary storage permission still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Score the reduced manifest and behavior still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A manifest-to-feature matrix and browser documentation check will verify necessity, scope, optionality, and missed high-risk access.","evidenceNotes":["ABEP-0727 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","ABEP-0727's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","ABEP-0727 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A manifest-to-feature matrix and browser documentation check will verify necessity, scope, optionality, and missed high-risk access."],"limitations":["ABEP-0727 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","ABEP-0727 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-explain-kernel-crash","title":"What Would AI Make of a Kernel Crash Report: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"explain a kernel crash report","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Crash Analysis field test asked the session to explain a kernel crash report, preserved an actual five-row kernel crash report analysis, and derived 4/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-29T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in EKC-6805 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “explain a kernel crash report”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: explain a kernel crash report. Focus: Crash Analysis.\nSource scenario: The experiment will give AI a sanitized crash report from a reproducible fault in a disposable environment.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nEKC-6805-I1: Crash frame 0 is net_filter+0x2a; frames 1-3 are socket_close, worker_exit, thread_start; build is 24H2-26100.\nEKC-6805-I2: Five controls are clean; crash occurs only when fixture rule NF-17 closes a socket during worker shutdown.\nEKC-6805-I3: Dump records instruction pointer net_filter+0x2a and status ACCESS_VIOLATION; source line is unavailable.\nEKC-6805-I4: Allowed test disables NF-17 in a disposable snapshot; firmware and production settings are out of scope.\nEKC-6805-I5: Diagnosis passes if five baseline runs crash, five NF-17-disabled runs do not, and dump signature is identical in baselines.\nReturn a concrete kernel crash report analysis with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: The seeded cause and an expert-reviewed interpretation will verify the accuracy and limits of the explanation.","firstResult":"KERNEL CRASH REPORT ANALYSIS EKC-6805 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: explain a kernel crash report. Evaluation focus: Crash Analysis. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nEKC-6805-R1 :: RESULT=COMPONENT=thread_start because it is the last frame\nEKC-6805-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKC-6805-R2 :: RESULT=TRIGGER=NF-17 socket close during worker shutdown; 5 controls clean\nEKC-6805-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKC-6805-R3 :: RESULT=EVIDENCE=line 42 definitely dereferenced null\nEKC-6805-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKC-6805-R4 :: RESULT=REPRO=disable NF-17 in disposable snapshot and repeat 5 times\nEKC-6805-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKC-6805-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one run does not crash\nEKC-6805-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for EKC-6805; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise EKC-6805 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Identify the crashing component: input was “Crash frame 0 is net_filter+0x2a; frames 1-3 are socket_close, worker_exit, thread_start; build is 24H2-26100.”; first response was “COMPONENT=thread_start because it is the last frame”.\n- Separate evidence from inference: input was “Dump records instruction pointer net_filter+0x2a and status ACCESS_VIOLATION; source line is unavailable.”; first response was “EVIDENCE=line 42 definitely dereferenced null”.\n- Define the diagnosis threshold: input was “Diagnosis passes if five baseline runs crash, five NF-17-disabled runs do not, and dump signature is identical in baselines.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one run does not crash”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"KERNEL CRASH REPORT ANALYSIS EKC-6805 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: explain a kernel crash report. Evaluation focus: Crash Analysis. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nEKC-6805-R1 :: RESULT=COMPONENT=net_filter at frame 0 on build 24H2-26100\nEKC-6805-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKC-6805-R2 :: RESULT=TRIGGER=NF-17 socket close during worker shutdown; 5 controls clean\nEKC-6805-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKC-6805-R3 :: RESULT=EVIDENCE=access violation proves malicious code\nEKC-6805-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKC-6805-R4 :: RESULT=REPRO=disable NF-17 in disposable snapshot and repeat 5 times\nEKC-6805-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nEKC-6805-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=5 disabled runs clean but omit baseline signature repetition\nEKC-6805-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for EKC-6805; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the crashing component","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Crash frame 0 is net_filter+0x2a; frames 1-3 are socket_close, worker_exit, thread_start; build is 24H2-26100. Semantic rule: The top faulting frame and build identify the bounded component; lower frames are callers. FIRST returned “COMPONENT=thread_start because it is the last frame”; the private static semantic key accepts “COMPONENT=net_filter at frame 0 on build 24H2-26100”, so it fails. FINAL returned “COMPONENT=net_filter at frame 0 on build 24H2-26100”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the seeded trigger","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Five controls are clean; crash occurs only when fixture rule NF-17 closes a socket during worker shutdown. Semantic rule: The trigger must include the rule, socket-close action, and worker-shutdown state supported by controls. FIRST returned “TRIGGER=NF-17 socket close during worker shutdown; 5 controls clean”; the private static semantic key accepts “TRIGGER=NF-17 socket close during worker shutdown; 5 controls clean”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TRIGGER=NF-17 socket close during worker shutdown; 5 controls clean”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Separate evidence from inference","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Dump records instruction pointer net_filter+0x2a and status ACCESS_VIOLATION; source line is unavailable. Semantic rule: The dump supports component and status, not an unavailable source line or motive. FIRST returned “EVIDENCE=line 42 definitely dereferenced null”; the private static semantic key accepts “EVIDENCE=net_filter+0x2a and ACCESS_VIOLATION; line-level cause unknown”, so it fails. FINAL returned “EVIDENCE=access violation proves malicious code”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Choose a reversible reproduction step","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Allowed test disables NF-17 in a disposable snapshot; firmware and production settings are out of scope. Semantic rule: Only the named rule in the disposable snapshot is an allowed causal test. FIRST returned “REPRO=disable NF-17 in disposable snapshot and repeat 5 times”; the private static semantic key accepts “REPRO=disable NF-17 in disposable snapshot and repeat 5 times”, so it passes. FINAL returned “REPRO=disable NF-17 in disposable snapshot and repeat 5 times”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define the diagnosis threshold","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Diagnosis passes if five baseline runs crash, five NF-17-disabled runs do not, and dump signature is identical in baselines. Semantic rule: Both repeated baseline and intervention groups are required. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one run does not crash”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=5/5 baseline crashes same signature; 0/5 disabled crashes”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=5 disabled runs clean but omit baseline signature repetition”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["EKC-6805 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the crashing component passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Use the seeded trigger also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Separate evidence from inference still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Define the diagnosis threshold still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"The seeded cause and an expert-reviewed interpretation will verify the accuracy and limits of the explanation.","evidenceNotes":["EKC-6805 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","EKC-6805's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","EKC-6805 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: The seeded cause and an expert-reviewed interpretation will verify the accuracy and limits of the explanation."],"limitations":["EKC-6805 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","EKC-6805 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-climate-data-inquiry","title":"A Local Climate Dataset as the Basis for AI-Guided Inquiry — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"guide an inquiry using a local climate dataset","excerpt":"The completed LFT-034 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Data inquiry, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-29T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-034: Students will formulate and test questions about seasonal patterns in a supplied temperature dataset. Source facts: fictional observations LFT-034-S01 through LFT-034-S06; temperature readings 18, 21, 27, 22, 19, and 20°C; control C0; variable V1; one confounded sample S04; and mandatory safety note Q2. Governing rule card: control-variable separation and scientific accuracy. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-034 for “guide an inquiry using a local climate dataset” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-034. Task: guide an inquiry using a local climate dataset. Context: Students will formulate and test questions about seasonal patterns in a supplied temperature dataset. Fictional source facts: fictional observations LFT-034-S01 through LFT-034-S06; temperature readings 18, 21, 27, 22, 19, and 20°C; control C0; variable V1; one confounded sample S04; and mandatory safety note Q2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: control-variable separation and scientific accuracy. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. Produce an inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Saved calculations and charts will be traced to the dataset and reviewed for justified interpretations.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-034 produced an inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint for the task “guide an inquiry using a local climate dataset.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-034-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-034-ROW1 reads: “LFT-034-S01 | compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-034-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Data inquiry objective fit [LFT-034], Data inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-034], and Data inquiry safety and access [LFT-034]. The audit found concrete failures: for Data inquiry content accuracy [LFT-034], the saved draft left control-variable separation and scientific accuracy without an explicit verification row; for Data inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-034], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confounded LFT-034-S04 observation and mandatory Q2 warning. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-034 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Data inquiry content accuracy [LFT-034] — the draft left control-variable separation and scientific accuracy without an explicit verification row; 2) Data inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-034] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confounded LFT-034-S04 observation and mandatory Q2 warning.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-034 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-034-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-034-ROW1 reads: “LFT-034-S01 | compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-034-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion | evidence locator: LFT-034-S01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Data inquiry content accuracy [LFT-034]. The frozen final text passed Data inquiry objective fit [LFT-034], Data inquiry content accuracy [LFT-034], Data inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-034], and Data inquiry safety and access [LFT-034] and still failed Data inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-034]. The final inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Data inquiry objective fit [LFT-034]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-034 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Data inquiry objective fit [LFT-034].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-034-S04, the declared Data inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Data inquiry content accuracy [LFT-034]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-034 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Data inquiry content accuracy [LFT-034].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-034-S04, the declared Data inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Data inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-034]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-034 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Data inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-034].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-034-S04, the declared Data inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Data inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-034]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-034 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Data inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-034].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-034-S04, the declared Data inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Data inquiry safety and access [LFT-034]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-034 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Data inquiry safety and access [LFT-034].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-034-S04, the declared Data inquiry rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-034 kept “guide an inquiry using a local climate dataset” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-034 made the central handling—compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-034-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-034 earned final passes for Data inquiry objective fit [LFT-034] and Data inquiry content accuracy [LFT-034] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-034 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Data inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-034]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Saved calculations and charts will be traced to the dataset and reviewed for justified interpretations.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-034 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-034 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-034 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Saved calculations and charts will be traced to the dataset and reviewed for justified interpretations.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-034 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Data inquiry fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-034 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-track-contract-renewals","title":"Building a Contract Renewal Calendar with Clause-Level Evidence — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"build a renewal calendar from a contract repository","excerpt":"The completed WFT-032 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Renewal Tracking checks passed after one correction, but Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032] and Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-28T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-032: A commercial operations team will provide agreements with varied renewal, termination, and notice language. Source facts: records WFT-032-R01 through WFT-032-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 31 and 43; dependency WFT-032-R04 after WFT-032-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-032-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (31 and 43). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-032 for “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-032. Task: build a renewal calendar from a contract repository. Context: A commercial operations team will provide agreements with varied renewal, termination, and notice language. Fictional source facts: records WFT-032-R01 through WFT-032-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 31 and 43; dependency WFT-032-R04 after WFT-032-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-032-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (31 and 43). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A dated renewal register with clause references and manual deadline checks will verify every entry.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-032 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-032-ROW1 reads: “WFT-032-R01 | keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032] and Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032]. The audit found concrete failures: for Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032], the saved draft did not connect WFT-032-R05 to the full boundary of “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository”; for Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032], the saved draft left the two window limits (31 and 43) without an explicit verification row; for Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-032 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032] — the draft did not connect WFT-032-R05 to the full boundary of “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository”; 2) Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032] — the draft left the two window limits (31 and 43) without an explicit verification row; 3) Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-032 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-032-ROW1 reads: “WFT-032-R01 | keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-032-R01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032]. The frozen final text passed Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032], Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032], and Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032] and still failed Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032] and Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-032 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-032 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-032 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-032 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-032 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Renewal Tracking handoff usability [WFT-032].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-032-R05, the declared Renewal Tracking rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-032 kept “build a renewal calendar from a contract repository” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-032 made the central handling—keep WFT-032-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-032-R04 only after WFT-032-R02, and flag the second window when demand 43 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-032 earned final passes for Renewal Tracking exception handling [WFT-032] and Renewal Tracking source traceability [WFT-032] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-032 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Renewal Tracking task fidelity [WFT-032]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-032 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Renewal Tracking rule accuracy [WFT-032]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A dated renewal register with clause references and manual deadline checks will verify every entry.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-032 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-032 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-032 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A dated renewal register with clause references and manual deadline checks will verify every entry.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-032 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Renewal Tracking fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-032 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-model-cashflow-scenarios","title":"Three Cash-Flow Scenarios, One Auditable AI Model: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"build three cash-flow scenarios from a supplied operating forecast","excerpt":"The completed WFT-053 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Cash-Flow Modeling, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-27T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-053: A small business will provide receivables, payables, payroll dates, financing terms, and explicit base, upside, and downside assumptions. Source facts: opening cash $82,000; receivables $31,000 week 2 and $18,000 week 5; payroll $24,500 biweekly; rent $8,200 week 1; downside delay 14 days; upside sales +12%. Governing rule card: weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-053 for “build three cash-flow scenarios from a supplied operating forecast” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-053. Task: build three cash-flow scenarios from a supplied operating forecast. Context: A small business will provide receivables, payables, payroll dates, financing terms, and explicit base, upside, and downside assumptions. Fictional source facts: opening cash $82,000; receivables $31,000 week 2 and $18,000 week 5; payroll $24,500 biweekly; rent $8,200 week 1; downside delay 14 days; upside sales +12%. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A formula-audited workbook will trace every scenario balance to source inputs and flag any negative-cash period.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-053 produced a thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register for “build three cash-flow scenarios from a supplied operating forecast.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-053-W02 | carry the $82,000 opening balance, place payroll only on scheduled weeks, move the downside receivable by 14 days, and expose the lowest closing balance | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the delayed week-2 receivable and biweekly payroll timing and left the disposition blank. The rule cell verified weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Cash-Flow Modeling task fidelity [WFT-053], Cash-Flow Modeling rule accuracy [WFT-053], and Cash-Flow Modeling handoff usability [WFT-053]. It found for Cash-Flow Modeling exception handling [WFT-053], the draft left the delayed week-2 receivable and biweekly payroll timing without an explicit disposition; for Cash-Flow Modeling source traceability [WFT-053], the draft gave WFT-053-W02 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-053 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Cash-Flow Modeling exception handling [WFT-053] — the draft left the delayed week-2 receivable and biweekly payroll timing without an explicit disposition; 2) Cash-Flow Modeling source traceability [WFT-053] — the draft gave WFT-053-W02 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-053 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: carry the $82,000 opening balance, place payroll only on scheduled weeks, move the downside receivable by 14 days, and expose the lowest closing balance. Its corrected row read “WFT-053-W02 | rule: weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated | decision: carry the $82,000 opening balance, place payroll only on scheduled weeks, move the downside receivable by 14 days, and expose the lowest closing balance | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Cash-Flow Modeling exception handling [WFT-053]. The final audit passed Cash-Flow Modeling task fidelity [WFT-053], Cash-Flow Modeling rule accuracy [WFT-053], Cash-Flow Modeling exception handling [WFT-053], and Cash-Flow Modeling handoff usability [WFT-053]. It still lacked Cash-Flow Modeling source traceability [WFT-053]; those failures remain visible. The thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Cash-Flow Modeling task fidelity [WFT-053]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-053 static check 1 inspected “Cash-Flow Modeling task fidelity [WFT-053]” against WFT-053-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Cash-Flow Modeling rule accuracy [WFT-053]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-053 static check 2 inspected “Cash-Flow Modeling rule accuracy [WFT-053]” against WFT-053-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Cash-Flow Modeling exception handling [WFT-053]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-053 static check 3 inspected “Cash-Flow Modeling exception handling [WFT-053]” against WFT-053-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Cash-Flow Modeling source traceability [WFT-053]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-053 static check 4 inspected “Cash-Flow Modeling source traceability [WFT-053]” against WFT-053-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Cash-Flow Modeling handoff usability [WFT-053]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-053 static check 5 inspected “Cash-Flow Modeling handoff usability [WFT-053]” against WFT-053-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-053 bounded “build three cash-flow scenarios from a supplied operating forecast” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-053 exposed WFT-053-W02—carry the $82,000 opening balance, place payroll only on scheduled weeks, move the downside receivable by 14 days, and expose the lowest closing balance—inside the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register.","WFT-053 earned inspectable passes for Cash-Flow Modeling task fidelity [WFT-053] and Cash-Flow Modeling rule accuracy [WFT-053] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-053 still lacked saved-text evidence for Cash-Flow Modeling source traceability [WFT-053]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A formula-audited workbook will trace every scenario balance to source inputs and flag any negative-cash period.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-053 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-053 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-053 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A formula-audited workbook will trace every scenario balance to source inputs and flag any negative-cash period.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-053 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Cash-Flow Modeling fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-053 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-prepare-board-briefing","title":"Are AI-Generated Board Briefings Traceable to Approved Sources — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"prepare a board briefing from a controlled source pack","excerpt":"The completed WFT-018 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Executive Briefing, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-25T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-018: An executive office will provide approved operating updates, financial tables, risk notes, and a briefing template. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-018-N01 through WFT-018-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-018-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-018 for “prepare a board briefing from a controlled source pack” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-018. Task: prepare a board briefing from a controlled source pack. Context: An executive office will provide approved operating updates, financial tables, risk notes, and a briefing template. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-018-N01 through WFT-018-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-018-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A draft briefing with source references and a claim audit will verify every statement and figure.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-018 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “prepare a board briefing from a controlled source pack.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-018-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-018-ROW1 reads: “WFT-018-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-018-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-018], Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-018], and Executive Briefing handoff usability [WFT-018]. The audit found concrete failures: for Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-018], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-018-N06/N07 contradiction; for Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-018], the saved draft gave the central WFT-018-N07 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-018 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-018] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-018-N06/N07 contradiction; 2) Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-018] — the draft gave the central WFT-018-N07 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-018 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-018-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-018-ROW1 reads: “WFT-018-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-018-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-018-N01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-018]. The frozen final text passed Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-018], Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-018], Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-018], and Executive Briefing handoff usability [WFT-018] and still failed Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-018]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-018]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-018 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-018].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-018-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-018]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-018 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-018].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-018-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-018]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-018 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-018].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-018-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-018]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-018 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-018].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-018-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Executive Briefing handoff usability [WFT-018]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-018 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing handoff usability [WFT-018].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-018-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-018 kept “prepare a board briefing from a controlled source pack” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-018 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-018-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-018 earned final passes for Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-018] and Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-018] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-018 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-018]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A draft briefing with source references and a claim audit will verify every statement and figure.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-018 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-018 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-018 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A draft briefing with source references and a claim audit will verify every statement and figure.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-018 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Executive Briefing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-018 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-find-exposed-test-secrets","title":"Synthetic Secrets in Git History: An AI Detection Challenge: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"find exposed secrets in a sample repository","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Secret Detection field test asked the session to find exposed secrets in a sample repository, preserved an actual five-row seeded repository secret-detection report, and derived 4/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-25T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in FETS-4901 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “find exposed secrets in a sample repository”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: find exposed secrets in a sample repository. Focus: Secret Detection.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use synthetic credentials, convincing non-secrets, and commit history to test defensive secret identification.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nFETS-4901-I1: Commit a91e file config/dev.env contains token shape tkn_test_7H2K9Q with seeded fingerprint fp-7h2; manifest marks it active test credential S1.\nFETS-4901-I2: Commit b20c deleted scripts/old-deploy.sh, but ancestor 8f11 contains secret S2 key_id AKITEST4421; current working tree has no S2 text.\nFETS-4901-I3: docs/example.env contains API_KEY=YOUR_KEY_HERE and fixture manifest labels P1 non-secret placeholder.\nFETS-4901-I4: tests/fixtures/random.bin contains string 9qP4mV7zX2 and is labeled deterministic test vector N1 with public expected hash 3d8a.\nFETS-4901-I5: Response policy for S1 and S2 is revoke or rotate via owner, preserve finding fingerprints, remove values from future history rewrite scope, then rescan all refs; external credential actions are not authorized.\nReturn a concrete seeded repository secret-detection report with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A seeded-secret manifest will verify true positives, false positives, missed history, and remediation guidance.","firstResult":"SEEDED REPOSITORY SECRET-DETECTION REPORT FETS-4901 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: find exposed secrets in a sample repository. Evaluation focus: Secret Detection. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nFETS-4901-R1 :: RESULT=S1=active test token at a91e:config/dev.env; fingerprint fp-7h2; true positive\nFETS-4901-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFETS-4901-R2 :: RESULT=S2=not found because the current file was deleted\nFETS-4901-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFETS-4901-R3 :: RESULT=P1=docs/example.env placeholder; false-positive if flagged; no rotation\nFETS-4901-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFETS-4901-R4 :: RESULT=N1=secret solely because entropy is high\nFETS-4901-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFETS-4901-R5 :: RESULT=REMEDIATE=claim both credentials were revoked and force-push completed\nFETS-4901-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for FETS-4901; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise FETS-4901 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Search deleted history as well as the tip: input was “Commit b20c deleted scripts/old-deploy.sh, but ancestor 8f11 contains secret S2 key_id AKITEST4421; current working tree has no S2 text.”; first response was “S2=not found because the current file was deleted”.\n- Preserve the high-entropy non-secret control: input was “tests/fixtures/random.bin contains string 9qP4mV7zX2 and is labeled deterministic test vector N1 with public expected hash 3d8a.”; first response was “N1=secret solely because entropy is high”.\n- Propose complete remediation without claiming it happened: input was “Response policy for S1 and S2 is revoke or rotate via owner, preserve finding fingerprints, remove values from future history rewrite scope, then rescan all refs; external credential actions are not authorized.”; first response was “REMEDIATE=claim both credentials were revoked and force-push completed”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SEEDED REPOSITORY SECRET-DETECTION REPORT FETS-4901 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: find exposed secrets in a sample repository. Evaluation focus: Secret Detection. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nFETS-4901-R1 :: RESULT=S1=active test token at a91e:config/dev.env; fingerprint fp-7h2; true positive\nFETS-4901-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFETS-4901-R2 :: RESULT=S2=history finding at8f11:scripts/old-deploy.sh; absent tip; true positive\nFETS-4901-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFETS-4901-R3 :: RESULT=P1=docs/example.env placeholder; false-positive if flagged; no rotation\nFETS-4901-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFETS-4901-R4 :: RESULT=N1=test vector hash3d8a; non-secret; retain file\nFETS-4901-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFETS-4901-R5 :: RESULT=REMEDIATE=propose rotate S1+S2; preserve fp-7h2+S2 identity; rewrite scope all refs; rescan\nFETS-4901-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for FETS-4901; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Find the active seeded token","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Commit a91e file config/dev.env contains token shape tkn_test_7H2K9Q with seeded fingerprint fp-7h2; manifest marks it active test credential S1. Semantic rule: The secret manifest identifies this syntactically valid test credential as an active seeded finding. FIRST returned “S1=active test token at a91e:config/dev.env; fingerprint fp-7h2; true positive”; the private static semantic key accepts “S1=active test token at a91e:config/dev.env; fingerprint fp-7h2; true positive”, so it passes. FINAL returned “S1=active test token at a91e:config/dev.env; fingerprint fp-7h2; true positive”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Search deleted history as well as the tip","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Commit b20c deleted scripts/old-deploy.sh, but ancestor 8f11 contains secret S2 key_id AKITEST4421; current working tree has no S2 text. Semantic rule: Repository scanning must include reachable history, not only the checked-out tree. FIRST returned “S2=not found because the current file was deleted”; the private static semantic key accepts “S2=history finding at8f11:scripts/old-deploy.sh; absent tip; true positive”, so it fails. FINAL returned “S2=history finding at8f11:scripts/old-deploy.sh; absent tip; true positive”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reject the documented placeholder","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: docs/example.env contains API_KEY=YOUR_KEY_HERE and fixture manifest labels P1 non-secret placeholder. Semantic rule: The explicit placeholder and manifest label distinguish instructional text from a secret. FIRST returned “P1=docs/example.env placeholder; false-positive if flagged; no rotation”; the private static semantic key accepts “P1=docs/example.env placeholder; false-positive if flagged; no rotation”, so it passes. FINAL returned “P1=docs/example.env placeholder; false-positive if flagged; no rotation”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve the high-entropy non-secret control","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: tests/fixtures/random.bin contains string 9qP4mV7zX2 and is labeled deterministic test vector N1 with public expected hash 3d8a. Semantic rule: Entropy is only a signal; the supplied provenance makes this value a negative control. FIRST returned “N1=secret solely because entropy is high”; the private static semantic key accepts “N1=test vector hash3d8a; non-secret; retain file”, so it fails. FINAL returned “N1=test vector hash3d8a; non-secret; retain file”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Propose complete remediation without claiming it happened","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Response policy for S1 and S2 is revoke or rotate via owner, preserve finding fingerprints, remove values from future history rewrite scope, then rescan all refs; external credential actions are not authorized. Semantic rule: The output may specify an auditable remediation sequence but cannot invent credential or repository changes. FIRST returned “REMEDIATE=claim both credentials were revoked and force-push completed”; the private static semantic key accepts “REMEDIATE=propose rotate S1+S2; preserve fp-7h2+S2 identity; rewrite scope all refs; rescan; live actions0” or “REMEDIATE=propose rotate S1+S2; preserve fp-7h2+S2 identity; rewrite scope all refs; rescan”, so it fails. FINAL returned “REMEDIATE=propose rotate S1+S2; preserve fp-7h2+S2 identity; rewrite scope all refs; rescan”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["FETS-4901 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Find the active seeded token passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Search deleted history as well as the tip also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Search deleted history as well as the tip; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A seeded-secret manifest will verify true positives, false positives, missed history, and remediation guidance.","evidenceNotes":["FETS-4901 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","FETS-4901's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","FETS-4901 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A seeded-secret manifest will verify true positives, false positives, missed history, and remediation guidance."],"limitations":["FETS-4901 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","FETS-4901 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-formative-quiz-misconceptions","title":"AI for Formative Quiz Design: Exposing Science Misconceptions: The One-Pass Revision Reached 10/10","task":"write a formative quiz that exposes misconceptions","excerpt":"The completed LFT-013 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Formative assessment, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-25T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-013: The AI will create a short science quiz whose distractors represent predefined misconceptions about seasons. Source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-013-W01 through LFT-013-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing rule card: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-013 for “write a formative quiz that exposes misconceptions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-013. Task: write a formative quiz that exposes misconceptions. Context: The AI will create a short science quiz whose distractors represent predefined misconceptions about seasons. Fictional source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-013-W01 through LFT-013-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. Produce a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An item map will link every option to a misconception and a teacher review will check scientific accuracy.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-013 produced a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt for the task “write a formative quiz that exposes misconceptions.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: cite P2/P7 for LFT-013-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-013-ROW1 reads: “LFT-013-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-013-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Formative assessment content accuracy [LFT-013], Formative assessment learner adaptation [LFT-013], and Formative assessment evidence traceability [LFT-013]. The audit found concrete failures: for Formative assessment objective fit [LFT-013], the saved draft did not connect LFT-013-W03 to the full boundary of “write a formative quiz that exposes misconceptions”; for Formative assessment safety and access [LFT-013], the saved draft left the criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-013 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Formative assessment objective fit [LFT-013] — the draft did not connect LFT-013-W03 to the full boundary of “write a formative quiz that exposes misconceptions”; 2) Formative assessment safety and access [LFT-013] — the draft left the criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-013 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: cite P2/P7 for LFT-013-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-013-ROW1 reads: “LFT-013-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-013-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | evidence locator: LFT-013-W01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Formative assessment objective fit [LFT-013] and Formative assessment safety and access [LFT-013]. The frozen final text passed Formative assessment objective fit [LFT-013], Formative assessment content accuracy [LFT-013], Formative assessment learner adaptation [LFT-013], Formative assessment evidence traceability [LFT-013], and Formative assessment safety and access [LFT-013]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Formative assessment objective fit [LFT-013]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-013 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Formative assessment objective fit [LFT-013].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-013-W03, the declared Formative assessment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Formative assessment content accuracy [LFT-013]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-013 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Formative assessment content accuracy [LFT-013].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-013-W03, the declared Formative assessment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Formative assessment learner adaptation [LFT-013]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-013 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Formative assessment learner adaptation [LFT-013].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-013-W03, the declared Formative assessment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Formative assessment evidence traceability [LFT-013]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-013 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Formative assessment evidence traceability [LFT-013].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-013-W03, the declared Formative assessment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Formative assessment safety and access [LFT-013]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-013 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Formative assessment safety and access [LFT-013].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-013-W03, the declared Formative assessment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-013 kept “write a formative quiz that exposes misconceptions” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-013 made the central handling—cite P2/P7 for LFT-013-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-013 earned final passes for Formative assessment objective fit [LFT-013] and Formative assessment content accuracy [LFT-013] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-013’s first draft failed Formative assessment objective fit [LFT-013]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"An item map will link every option to a misconception and a teacher review will check scientific accuracy.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-013 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-013 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-013 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An item map will link every option to a misconception and a teacher review will check scientific accuracy.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-013 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Formative assessment fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-013 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-support-dyscalculia-faded-example","title":"A Faded-Example Plan for Learners with Dyscalculia — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"design a faded-example sequence for learners with dyscalculia","excerpt":"The completed LFT-066 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Accessible Mathematics checks passed after one correction, but Accessible Mathematics objective fit [LFT-066] and Accessible Mathematics content accuracy [LFT-066] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-24T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-066: A specialist will provide a target arithmetic skill, learner profile, visual conventions, error patterns, and accessibility constraints. Source facts: learner responses LFT-066-A01 through LFT-066-A05: 4/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 29, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-066-K1. Governing rule card: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-066 for “design a faded-example sequence for learners with dyscalculia” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-066. Task: design a faded-example sequence for learners with dyscalculia. Context: A specialist will provide a target arithmetic skill, learner profile, visual conventions, error patterns, and accessibility constraints. Fictional source facts: learner responses LFT-066-A01 through LFT-066-A05: 4/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 29, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-066-K1. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A specialist review will verify step granularity, notation consistency, cognitive load, scaffold removal, and opportunities for independent response.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-066 produced a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace for the task “design a faded-example sequence for learners with dyscalculia.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-066-K1. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-066-ROW1 reads: “LFT-066-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-066-K1 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Accessible Mathematics learner adaptation [LFT-066] and Accessible Mathematics evidence traceability [LFT-066]. The audit found concrete failures: for Accessible Mathematics objective fit [LFT-066], the saved draft did not connect LFT-066-A02 to the full boundary of “design a faded-example sequence for learners with dyscalculia”; for Accessible Mathematics content accuracy [LFT-066], the saved draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row; for Accessible Mathematics safety and access [LFT-066], the saved draft left the diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-066 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Accessible Mathematics objective fit [LFT-066] — the draft did not connect LFT-066-A02 to the full boundary of “design a faded-example sequence for learners with dyscalculia”; 2) Accessible Mathematics content accuracy [LFT-066] — the draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row; 3) Accessible Mathematics safety and access [LFT-066] — the draft left the diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-066 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-066-K1. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-066-ROW1 reads: “LFT-066-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-066-K1 | evidence locator: LFT-066-A01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Accessible Mathematics safety and access [LFT-066]. The frozen final text passed Accessible Mathematics learner adaptation [LFT-066], Accessible Mathematics evidence traceability [LFT-066], and Accessible Mathematics safety and access [LFT-066] and still failed Accessible Mathematics objective fit [LFT-066] and Accessible Mathematics content accuracy [LFT-066]. The final diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Accessible Mathematics objective fit [LFT-066]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-066 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Mathematics objective fit [LFT-066].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-066-A02, the declared Accessible Mathematics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessible Mathematics content accuracy [LFT-066]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-066 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Mathematics content accuracy [LFT-066].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-066-A02, the declared Accessible Mathematics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessible Mathematics learner adaptation [LFT-066]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-066 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Mathematics learner adaptation [LFT-066].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-066-A02, the declared Accessible Mathematics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessible Mathematics evidence traceability [LFT-066]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-066 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Mathematics evidence traceability [LFT-066].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-066-A02, the declared Accessible Mathematics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Accessible Mathematics safety and access [LFT-066]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-066 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Accessible Mathematics safety and access [LFT-066].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-066-A02, the declared Accessible Mathematics rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-066 kept “design a faded-example sequence for learners with dyscalculia” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-066 made the central handling—diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-066-K1—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-066 earned final passes for Accessible Mathematics learner adaptation [LFT-066] and Accessible Mathematics evidence traceability [LFT-066] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-066 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Accessible Mathematics objective fit [LFT-066]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-066 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Accessible Mathematics content accuracy [LFT-066]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A specialist review will verify step granularity, notation consistency, cognitive load, scaffold removal, and opportunities for independent response.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-066 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-066 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-066 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A specialist review will verify step granularity, notation consistency, cognitive load, scaffold removal, and opportunities for independent response.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-066 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Accessible Mathematics fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-066 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-rank-maintenance-backlog","title":"Ranking a Maintenance Backlog by Risk, Cost, and Downtime — Completed Benchmark Result: 10/10","task":"rank a maintenance backlog by risk, cost, and downtime","excerpt":"The completed WFT-066 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Backlog Prioritization, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-21T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-066: A facilities team will provide synthetic work orders, asset criticality, failure consequences, cost estimates, and outage windows. Source facts: assets WFT-066-M01–M07; failure risks 2–9; downtime 1–14 hours; costs $80–$4,800; M03 safety-critical; M06 awaiting part; intervals 250/500 hours. Governing rule card: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-066 for “rank a maintenance backlog by risk, cost, and downtime” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-066. Task: rank a maintenance backlog by risk, cost, and downtime. Context: A facilities team will provide synthetic work orders, asset criticality, failure consequences, cost estimates, and outage windows. Fictional source facts: assets WFT-066-M01–M07; failure risks 2–9; downtime 1–14 hours; costs $80–$4,800; M03 safety-critical; M06 awaiting part; intervals 250/500 hours. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A weighted-score recomputation and sensitivity analysis will verify ordering, tie handling, and dependence on stated priorities.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-066 produced a ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log for “rank a maintenance backlog by risk, cost, and downtime.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-066-M03 | rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01 | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named M03’s safety risk and M06’s unavailable part and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Backlog Prioritization task fidelity [WFT-066], Backlog Prioritization rule accuracy [WFT-066], and Backlog Prioritization exception handling [WFT-066]. It found for Backlog Prioritization source traceability [WFT-066], the draft gave WFT-066-M03 no source locator; for Backlog Prioritization handoff usability [WFT-066], the draft left the ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-066 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Backlog Prioritization source traceability [WFT-066] — the draft gave WFT-066-M03 no source locator; 2) Backlog Prioritization handoff usability [WFT-066] — the draft left the ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-066 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01. Its corrected row read “WFT-066-M03 | rule: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status | decision: rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01 | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Backlog Prioritization source traceability [WFT-066] and Backlog Prioritization handoff usability [WFT-066]. The final audit passed Backlog Prioritization task fidelity [WFT-066], Backlog Prioritization rule accuracy [WFT-066], Backlog Prioritization exception handling [WFT-066], Backlog Prioritization source traceability [WFT-066], and Backlog Prioritization handoff usability [WFT-066]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Backlog Prioritization task fidelity [WFT-066]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-066 static check 1 inspected “Backlog Prioritization task fidelity [WFT-066]” against WFT-066-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Backlog Prioritization rule accuracy [WFT-066]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-066 static check 2 inspected “Backlog Prioritization rule accuracy [WFT-066]” against WFT-066-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Backlog Prioritization exception handling [WFT-066]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-066 static check 3 inspected “Backlog Prioritization exception handling [WFT-066]” against WFT-066-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Backlog Prioritization source traceability [WFT-066]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-066 static check 4 inspected “Backlog Prioritization source traceability [WFT-066]” against WFT-066-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Backlog Prioritization handoff usability [WFT-066]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-066 static check 5 inspected “Backlog Prioritization handoff usability [WFT-066]” against WFT-066-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-066 bounded “rank a maintenance backlog by risk, cost, and downtime” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-066 exposed WFT-066-M03—rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01—inside the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log.","WFT-066 earned inspectable passes for Backlog Prioritization task fidelity [WFT-066] and Backlog Prioritization rule accuracy [WFT-066] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-066 first failed Backlog Prioritization source traceability [WFT-066]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A weighted-score recomputation and sensitivity analysis will verify ordering, tie handling, and dependence on stated priorities.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-066 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-066 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-066 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A weighted-score recomputation and sensitivity analysis will verify ordering, tie handling, and dependence on stated priorities.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-066 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Backlog Prioritization fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-066 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-route-support-tickets","title":"Routing Support Tickets with AI: Queue, Urgency, and Customer Tier — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"route incoming support tickets to the right queue","excerpt":"The completed WFT-004 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Ticket Routing, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-19T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-004: A support desk will provide a labeled backlog and written routing rules covering product, urgency, and customer tier. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-004-C01 through WFT-004-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 38, 46, 64, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-004-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-004 for “route incoming support tickets to the right queue” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-004. Task: route incoming support tickets to the right queue. Context: A support desk will provide a labeled backlog and written routing rules covering product, urgency, and customer tier. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-004-C01 through WFT-004-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 38, 46, 64, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-004-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A routing manifest compared with held-back labels will verify queue and priority assignments.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-004 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “route incoming support tickets to the right queue.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-004-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-004-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-004-ROW1 reads: “WFT-004-C01 | rank WFT-004-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-004-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Ticket Routing rule accuracy [WFT-004], Ticket Routing exception handling [WFT-004], and Ticket Routing source traceability [WFT-004]. The audit found concrete failures: for Ticket Routing task fidelity [WFT-004], the saved draft did not connect WFT-004-C04 to the full boundary of “route incoming support tickets to the right queue”; for Ticket Routing handoff usability [WFT-004], the saved draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-004 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Ticket Routing task fidelity [WFT-004] — the draft did not connect WFT-004-C04 to the full boundary of “route incoming support tickets to the right queue”; 2) Ticket Routing handoff usability [WFT-004] — the draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-004 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-004-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-004-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-004-ROW1 reads: “WFT-004-C01 | rank WFT-004-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-004-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-004-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Ticket Routing handoff usability [WFT-004]. The frozen final text passed Ticket Routing rule accuracy [WFT-004], Ticket Routing exception handling [WFT-004], Ticket Routing source traceability [WFT-004], and Ticket Routing handoff usability [WFT-004] and still failed Ticket Routing task fidelity [WFT-004]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Ticket Routing task fidelity [WFT-004]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-004 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Ticket Routing task fidelity [WFT-004].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-004-C04, the declared Ticket Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Ticket Routing rule accuracy [WFT-004]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-004 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Ticket Routing rule accuracy [WFT-004].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-004-C04, the declared Ticket Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Ticket Routing exception handling [WFT-004]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-004 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Ticket Routing exception handling [WFT-004].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-004-C04, the declared Ticket Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Ticket Routing source traceability [WFT-004]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-004 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Ticket Routing source traceability [WFT-004].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-004-C04, the declared Ticket Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Ticket Routing handoff usability [WFT-004]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-004 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Ticket Routing handoff usability [WFT-004].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-004-C04, the declared Ticket Routing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-004 kept “route incoming support tickets to the right queue” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-004 made the central handling—rank WFT-004-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-004-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-004 earned final passes for Ticket Routing rule accuracy [WFT-004] and Ticket Routing exception handling [WFT-004] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-004 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Ticket Routing task fidelity [WFT-004]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A routing manifest compared with held-back labels will verify queue and priority assignments.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-004 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-004 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-004 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A routing manifest compared with held-back labels will verify queue and priority assignments.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-004 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Ticket Routing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-004 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-automate-backup-verification","title":"Will AI Automate Backup Verification Across Broken Fixtures: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"automate backup verification","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Backup Testing field test asked the session to automate backup verification, preserved an actual five-row read-only backup verification matrix, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-19T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in ABV-0997 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “automate backup verification”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: automate backup verification. Focus: Backup Testing.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to create a read-only verification routine for complete, incomplete, and altered backup fixtures.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nABV-0997-I1: Fixture B-OK contains 120 files and manifest hash set M-OK; every file is readable.\nABV-0997-I2: Fixture B-MISS omits DOC-071 while its manifest still expects 120 entries.\nABV-0997-I3: Fixture B-ALTER has PHOTO-018 hash 0a11 instead of expected 7be2; size is unchanged.\nABV-0997-I4: Fixture B-LOCK has DB-004 present with expected hash metadata but read permission denied.\nABV-0997-I5: Policy forbids chmod, restore, rename, timestamp changes, and manifest edits; output is report VERIFY-01 only.\nReturn a concrete read-only backup verification matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A seeded fixture matrix will verify detection of missing, changed, unreadable, and intact files.","firstResult":"READ-ONLY BACKUP VERIFICATION MATRIX ABV-0997 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: automate backup verification. Evaluation focus: Backup Testing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nABV-0997-R1 :: RESULT=B-OK=FAIL because no files were rewritten\nABV-0997-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABV-0997-R2 :: RESULT=B-MISS=FAIL; missing DOC-071; observed119 expected120\nABV-0997-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABV-0997-R3 :: RESULT=B-ALTER=PASS because the size matches\nABV-0997-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABV-0997-R4 :: RESULT=B-LOCK=FAIL; DB-004 unreadable; do not claim hash verified\nABV-0997-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABV-0997-R5 :: RESULT=SAFETY=chmod DB-004 and repair B-MISS during verification\nABV-0997-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for ABV-0997; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise ABV-0997 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Detect the intact fixture: input was “Fixture B-OK contains 120 files and manifest hash set M-OK; every file is readable.”; first response was “B-OK=FAIL because no files were rewritten”.\n- Detect the altered file: input was “Fixture B-ALTER has PHOTO-018 hash 0a11 instead of expected 7be2; size is unchanged.”; first response was “B-ALTER=PASS because the size matches”.\n- Keep verification non-mutating: input was “Policy forbids chmod, restore, rename, timestamp changes, and manifest edits; output is report VERIFY-01 only.”; first response was “SAFETY=chmod DB-004 and repair B-MISS during verification”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"READ-ONLY BACKUP VERIFICATION MATRIX ABV-0997 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: automate backup verification. Evaluation focus: Backup Testing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nABV-0997-R1 :: RESULT=B-OK=PASS; files120/120; hashes120/120; unreadable0\nABV-0997-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABV-0997-R2 :: RESULT=B-MISS=FAIL; missing DOC-071; observed119 expected120\nABV-0997-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABV-0997-R3 :: RESULT=B-ALTER=FAIL\nABV-0997-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABV-0997-R4 :: RESULT=B-LOCK=FAIL; DB-004 unreadable; do not claim hash verified\nABV-0997-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nABV-0997-R5 :: RESULT=SAFETY=read-only scan; write VERIFY-01 only\nABV-0997-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for ABV-0997; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Detect the intact fixture","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture B-OK contains 120 files and manifest hash set M-OK; every file is readable. Semantic rule: The verifier must recognize a complete, readable, hash-matching fixture. FIRST returned “B-OK=FAIL because no files were rewritten”; the private static semantic key accepts “B-OK=PASS; files120/120; hashes120/120; unreadable0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “B-OK=PASS; files120/120; hashes120/120; unreadable0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Detect the missing file","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture B-MISS omits DOC-071 while its manifest still expects 120 entries. Semantic rule: The manifest difference identifies one exact missing entry. FIRST returned “B-MISS=FAIL; missing DOC-071; observed119 expected120”; the private static semantic key accepts “B-MISS=FAIL; missing DOC-071; observed119 expected120”, so it passes. FINAL returned “B-MISS=FAIL; missing DOC-071; observed119 expected120”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Detect the altered file","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture B-ALTER has PHOTO-018 hash 0a11 instead of expected 7be2; size is unchanged. Semantic rule: Content integrity depends on the fixed hash, not file size alone. FIRST returned “B-ALTER=PASS because the size matches”; the private static semantic key accepts “B-ALTER=FAIL; PHOTO-018 hash0a11!=7be2”, so it fails. FINAL returned “B-ALTER=FAIL”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Detect the unreadable file","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture B-LOCK has DB-004 present with expected hash metadata but read permission denied. Semantic rule: A verifier cannot count a hash it could not read and must expose the access failure. FIRST returned “B-LOCK=FAIL; DB-004 unreadable; do not claim hash verified”; the private static semantic key accepts “B-LOCK=FAIL; DB-004 unreadable; do not claim hash verified”, so it passes. FINAL returned “B-LOCK=FAIL; DB-004 unreadable; do not claim hash verified”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep verification non-mutating","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy forbids chmod, restore, rename, timestamp changes, and manifest edits; output is report VERIFY-01 only. Semantic rule: Verification must report defects without changing the backup under test. FIRST returned “SAFETY=chmod DB-004 and repair B-MISS during verification”; the private static semantic key accepts “SAFETY=read-only scan; write VERIFY-01 only; fixture hashes and timestamps unchanged” or “SAFETY=read-only scan; write VERIFY-01 only”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SAFETY=read-only scan; write VERIFY-01 only”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["ABV-0997 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Detect the intact fixture passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Detect the missing file also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Detect the altered file still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A seeded fixture matrix will verify detection of missing, changed, unreadable, and intact files.","evidenceNotes":["ABV-0997 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","ABV-0997's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","ABV-0997 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A seeded fixture matrix will verify detection of missing, changed, unreadable, and intact files."],"limitations":["ABV-0997 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","ABV-0997 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-check-primary-source-claims","title":"Which Claims Survive a Primary-Source Check: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"check historical claims against a supplied primary-source packet","excerpt":"The completed LFT-053 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Source Verification checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-18T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-053: Students will provide a short essay and a bounded packet containing speeches, letters, images, dates, and conflicting firsthand accounts. Source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-053-T01 through LFT-053-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-053-T03-L7. Governing rule card: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-053 for “check historical claims against a supplied primary-source packet” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-053. Task: check historical claims against a supplied primary-source packet. Context: Students will provide a short essay and a bounded packet containing speeches, letters, images, dates, and conflicting firsthand accounts. Fictional source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-053-T01 through LFT-053-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-053-T03-L7. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A claim-citation matrix will verify textual support, contradiction handling, date accuracy, and unsupported inference.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-053 produced a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations for the task “check historical claims against a supplied primary-source packet.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-053-T03-L7. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-053-ROW1 reads: “LFT-053-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-053-T03-L7 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Source Verification content accuracy [LFT-053]. The audit found concrete failures: for Source Verification objective fit [LFT-053], the saved draft did not connect LFT-053-T02 to the full boundary of “check historical claims against a supplied primary-source packet”; for Source Verification learner adaptation [LFT-053], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the contradictory LFT-053-T02 account and undocumented author motive; for Source Verification evidence traceability [LFT-053], the saved draft gave the central LFT-053-T02 decision no source-to-output locator; for Source Verification safety and access [LFT-053], the saved draft left the claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-053 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Source Verification objective fit [LFT-053] — the draft did not connect LFT-053-T02 to the full boundary of “check historical claims against a supplied primary-source packet”; 2) Source Verification learner adaptation [LFT-053] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the contradictory LFT-053-T02 account and undocumented author motive; 3) Source Verification evidence traceability [LFT-053] — the draft gave the central LFT-053-T02 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Source Verification safety and access [LFT-053] — the draft left the claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-053 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-053-T03-L7. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-053-ROW1 reads: “LFT-053-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-053-T03-L7 | evidence locator: LFT-053-T01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Source Verification learner adaptation [LFT-053]. The frozen final text passed Source Verification content accuracy [LFT-053] and Source Verification learner adaptation [LFT-053] and still failed Source Verification objective fit [LFT-053], Source Verification evidence traceability [LFT-053], and Source Verification safety and access [LFT-053]. The final claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Source Verification objective fit [LFT-053]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-053 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Source Verification objective fit [LFT-053].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-053-T02, the declared Source Verification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Source Verification content accuracy [LFT-053]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-053 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Source Verification content accuracy [LFT-053].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-053-T02, the declared Source Verification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Source Verification learner adaptation [LFT-053]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-053 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Source Verification learner adaptation [LFT-053].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-053-T02, the declared Source Verification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Source Verification evidence traceability [LFT-053]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-053 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Source Verification evidence traceability [LFT-053].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-053-T02, the declared Source Verification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Source Verification safety and access [LFT-053]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-053 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Source Verification safety and access [LFT-053].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-053-T02, the declared Source Verification rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-053 kept “check historical claims against a supplied primary-source packet” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-053 made the central handling—support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-053-T03-L7—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["LFT-053 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Source Verification objective fit [LFT-053]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-053 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Source Verification evidence traceability [LFT-053]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-053 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Source Verification safety and access [LFT-053]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A claim-citation matrix will verify textual support, contradiction handling, date accuracy, and unsupported inference.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-053 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-053 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-053 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A claim-citation matrix will verify textual support, contradiction handling, date accuracy, and unsupported inference.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-053 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Source Verification fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-053 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-false-friend-translation","title":"Will AI Help Translation Learners Recognize False Friends: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"teach translation learners to spot false friends","excerpt":"The completed LFT-027 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Translation judgment, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-17T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-027: Translation students will analyze sentences containing deceptive cognates across English and French. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-027-U01 through LFT-027-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing rule card: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-027 for “teach translation learners to spot false friends” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-027. Task: teach translation learners to spot false friends. Context: Translation students will analyze sentences containing deceptive cognates across English and French. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-027-U01 through LFT-027-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An expert answer key will verify the explanations, contextual alternatives, and retained ambiguities.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-027 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “teach translation learners to spot false friends.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-027-ROW1 reads: “LFT-027-U01 | recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027], Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027], and Translation judgment safety and access [LFT-027]. The audit found concrete failures: for Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-027-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06; for Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027], the saved draft gave the central LFT-027-U05 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-027 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-027-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06; 2) Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027] — the draft gave the central LFT-027-U05 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-027 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-027-ROW1 reads: “LFT-027-U01 | recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | evidence locator: LFT-027-U01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027]. The frozen final text passed Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027], Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027], Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027], and Translation judgment safety and access [LFT-027] and still failed Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027]. The final levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-027 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-027 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-027 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment learner adaptation [LFT-027].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-027 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Translation judgment safety and access [LFT-027]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-027 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Translation judgment safety and access [LFT-027].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-027-U05, the declared Translation judgment rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-027 kept “teach translation learners to spot false friends” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-027 made the central handling—recast LFT-027-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-027 earned final passes for Translation judgment objective fit [LFT-027] and Translation judgment content accuracy [LFT-027] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-027 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Translation judgment evidence traceability [LFT-027]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"An expert answer key will verify the explanations, contextual alternatives, and retained ambiguities.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-027 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-027 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-027 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An expert answer key will verify the explanations, contextual alternatives, and retained ambiguities.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-027 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Translation judgment fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-027 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-update-retention-schedule","title":"Updating a Records Retention Schedule from Policy Amendments — Completed Benchmark Result: 10/10","task":"update a records retention schedule from policy changes","excerpt":"The completed WFT-046 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Records Retention, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-15T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-046: An information governance team will provide a record inventory, the current schedule, and approved policy amendments. Source facts: records WFT-046-R01 through WFT-046-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 42 and 56; dependency WFT-046-R04 after WFT-046-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-046-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (42 and 56). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-046 for “update a records retention schedule from policy changes” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-046. Task: update a records retention schedule from policy changes. Context: An information governance team will provide a record inventory, the current schedule, and approved policy amendments. Fictional source facts: records WFT-046-R01 through WFT-046-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 42 and 56; dependency WFT-046-R04 after WFT-046-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-046-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (42 and 56). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A revised schedule and an amendment-to-record trace will verify every changed period and disposition rule.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-046 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “update a records retention schedule from policy changes.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-046-ROW1 reads: “WFT-046-R01 | keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046], Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046], and Records Retention exception handling [WFT-046]. The audit found concrete failures: for Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046], the saved draft gave the central WFT-046-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-046 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046] — the draft gave the central WFT-046-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-046 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-046-ROW1 reads: “WFT-046-R01 | keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-046-R01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046] and Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046]. The frozen final text passed Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046], Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046], Records Retention exception handling [WFT-046], Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046], and Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-046 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-046 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Records Retention exception handling [WFT-046]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-046 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention exception handling [WFT-046].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-046 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-046 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Records Retention handoff usability [WFT-046].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-046-R05, the declared Records Retention rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-046 kept “update a records retention schedule from policy changes” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-046 made the central handling—keep WFT-046-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-046-R04 only after WFT-046-R02, and flag the second window when demand 56 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-046 earned final passes for Records Retention task fidelity [WFT-046] and Records Retention rule accuracy [WFT-046] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-046’s first draft failed Records Retention source traceability [WFT-046]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A revised schedule and an amendment-to-record trace will verify every changed period and disposition rule.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-046 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-046 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-046 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A revised schedule and an amendment-to-record trace will verify every changed period and disposition rule.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-046 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Records Retention fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-046 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-debate-evidence-organization","title":"Map Debate Evidence on Both Sides with AI — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate","excerpt":"The completed LFT-048 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Debate reasoning checks passed after one correction, but Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048] and Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-14T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-048: Students will sort a supplied evidence packet into competing claims, warrants, counterarguments, and limitations. Source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-048-W01 through LFT-048-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing rule card: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-048 for “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-048. Task: help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate. Context: Students will sort a supplied evidence packet into competing claims, warrants, counterarguments, and limitations. Fictional source facts: fictional learner artifacts LFT-048-W01 through LFT-048-W04; rubric criteria R1–R5; passages P2 and P7 as admissible evidence; an unsupported conclusion in W03; a stylistic variation in W04; and a no-rewrite boundary. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: consistent rubric application without replacing learner work. Apply the same stated criterion to every artifact, cite the exact evidence, separate dimensions to avoid halo effects, and leave authorship or the final conclusion with the learner. Produce a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An argument map will be checked for source fidelity, balanced coverage, and explicit claim-evidence links.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-048 produced a criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt for the task “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-048-ROW1 reads: “LFT-048-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048] and Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048]. The audit found concrete failures: for Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048], the saved draft did not connect LFT-048-W03 to the full boundary of “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate”; for Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048], the saved draft gave the central LFT-048-W03 decision no source-to-output locator; for Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048], the saved draft left the criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-048 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048] — the draft did not connect LFT-048-W03 to the full boundary of “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate”; 2) Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048] — the draft gave the central LFT-048-W03 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048] — the draft left the criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-048 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-048-ROW1 reads: “LFT-048-W01 | cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary | evidence locator: LFT-048-W01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048]. The frozen final text passed Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048], Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048], and Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048] and still failed Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048] and Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048]. The final criterion-level feedback table, evidence citations, and next-step prompt therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-048 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-048 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-048 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-048 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning evidence traceability [LFT-048].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-048 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-048-W03, the declared Debate reasoning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-048 kept “help students organize evidence for both sides of a debate” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-048 made the central handling—cite P2/P7 for LFT-048-W01, diagnose the unsupported W03 conclusion, score W04 by the same R1–R5 criteria, and preserve the no-rewrite boundary—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-048 earned final passes for Debate reasoning content accuracy [LFT-048] and Debate reasoning learner adaptation [LFT-048] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-048 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Debate reasoning objective fit [LFT-048]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-048 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Debate reasoning safety and access [LFT-048]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"An argument map will be checked for source fidelity, balanced coverage, and explicit claim-evidence links.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-048 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-048 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-048 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An argument map will be checked for source fidelity, balanced coverage, and explicit claim-evidence links.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-048 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Debate reasoning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-048 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-remove-notification-spam","title":"Browser Notification Spam: A Reversible Cleanup Task for AI: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"remove unwanted browser notification spam","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Browser Hygiene field test asked the session to remove unwanted browser notification spam, preserved an actual five-row browser notification permission cleanup, and derived 2/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-13T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RNS-4546 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “remove unwanted browser notification spam”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: remove unwanted browser notification spam. Focus: Browser Hygiene.\nSource scenario: The experiment will reproduce unwanted notification permissions in a disposable profile and request a reversible cleanup plan.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRNS-4546-I1: Browser profile NP-3 lists alerts.weather.example Allow, coupons-spam.invalid Allow, calendar.example Ask, and default Ask. Spam samples S1-S14 all originate from coupons-spam.invalid.\nRNS-4546-I2: coupons-spam.invalid has service worker SW-C9 and notification permission Allow; clearing page history alone leaves both records active.\nRNS-4546-I3: Weather control W2 sends one severe-weather test alert through worker SW-W1; this origin is explicitly approved and its storage hash is c81a.\nRNS-4546-I4: Baseline export NP3-B records four permission rows and workers SW-C9 and SW-W1 with hash 0ab311c2; no live browser changes are authorized.\nRNS-4546-I5: Synthetic post-state expects coupons permission Block and SW-C9 absent, spam events 0/14 delivered, W2 delivered once, calendar still Ask, and default Ask.\nReturn a concrete browser notification permission cleanup with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Permission audits and controlled notification tests will verify removal while preserving approved site settings.","firstResult":"BROWSER NOTIFICATION PERMISSION CLEANUP RNS-4546 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: remove unwanted browser notification spam. Evaluation focus: Browser Hygiene. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRNS-4546-R1 :: RESULT=ORIGIN=disable notifications for every origin\nRNS-4546-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRNS-4546-R2 :: RESULT=CLEANUP=clear browsing history and leave SW-C9 registered\nRNS-4546-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRNS-4546-R3 :: RESULT=PRESERVE=remove SW-W1 with every other worker\nRNS-4546-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRNS-4546-R4 :: RESULT=ROLLBACK=freeze NP3-B rows4+workers2 hash0ab311c2; live changes0\nRNS-4546-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRNS-4546-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=no pop-up appears for five minutes\nRNS-4546-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RNS-4546; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RNS-4546 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Identify the unwanted origin: input was “Browser profile NP-3 lists alerts.weather.example Allow, coupons-spam.invalid Allow, calendar.example Ask, and default Ask. Spam samples S1-S14 all originate from coupons-spam.invalid.”; first response was “ORIGIN=disable notifications for every origin”.\n- Account for the service worker: input was “coupons-spam.invalid has service worker SW-C9 and notification permission Allow; clearing page history alone leaves both records active.”; first response was “CLEANUP=clear browsing history and leave SW-C9 registered”.\n- Preserve the approved weather alerts: input was “Weather control W2 sends one severe-weather test alert through worker SW-W1; this origin is explicitly approved and its storage hash is c81a.”; first response was “PRESERVE=remove SW-W1 with every other worker”.\n- Specify positive and negative retests: input was “Synthetic post-state expects coupons permission Block and SW-C9 absent, spam events 0/14 delivered, W2 delivered once, calendar still Ask, and default Ask.”; first response was “ACCEPT=no pop-up appears for five minutes”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"BROWSER NOTIFICATION PERMISSION CLEANUP RNS-4546 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: remove unwanted browser notification spam. Evaluation focus: Browser Hygiene. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRNS-4546-R1 :: RESULT=ORIGIN=coupons-spam.invalid causes14/14 spam samples; weather remains Allow; calendar+default remain Ask\nRNS-4546-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRNS-4546-R2 :: RESULT=CLEANUP=propose revoke coupons permission+remove SW-C9 registration; history-only insufficient\nRNS-4546-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRNS-4546-R3 :: RESULT=PRESERVE=alerts.weather.example Allow+SW-W1; W2 remains eligible\nRNS-4546-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRNS-4546-R4 :: RESULT=ROLLBACK=freeze NP3-B rows4+workers2 hash0ab311c2; live changes0\nRNS-4546-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRNS-4546-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=coupons Block; SW-C9 absent; spam0/14; W2 1/1; calendar Ask\nRNS-4546-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RNS-4546; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the unwanted origin","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Browser profile NP-3 lists alerts.weather.example Allow, coupons-spam.invalid Allow, calendar.example Ask, and default Ask. Spam samples S1-S14 all originate from coupons-spam.invalid. Semantic rule: The evidence isolates one unwanted origin while defining three settings that must remain unchanged. FIRST returned “ORIGIN=disable notifications for every origin”; the private static semantic key accepts “ORIGIN=coupons-spam.invalid causes14/14 spam samples; weather remains Allow; calendar+default remain Ask”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ORIGIN=coupons-spam.invalid causes14/14 spam samples; weather remains Allow; calendar+default remain Ask”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Account for the service worker","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: coupons-spam.invalid has service worker SW-C9 and notification permission Allow; clearing page history alone leaves both records active. Semantic rule: A complete reversible plan addresses both the permission grant and persistent worker named in the fixture. FIRST returned “CLEANUP=clear browsing history and leave SW-C9 registered”; the private static semantic key accepts “CLEANUP=propose revoke coupons permission+remove SW-C9 registration; history-only insufficient”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CLEANUP=propose revoke coupons permission+remove SW-C9 registration; history-only insufficient”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve the approved weather alerts","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Weather control W2 sends one severe-weather test alert through worker SW-W1; this origin is explicitly approved and its storage hash is c81a. Semantic rule: Removing spam must not disturb the independently approved alert channel or its state. FIRST returned “PRESERVE=remove SW-W1 with every other worker”; the private static semantic key accepts “PRESERVE=alerts.weather.example Allow+SW-W1; W2 remains eligible; storagec81a unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PRESERVE=alerts.weather.example Allow+SW-W1; W2 remains eligible”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep a rollback record","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Baseline export NP3-B records four permission rows and workers SW-C9 and SW-W1 with hash 0ab311c2; no live browser changes are authorized. Semantic rule: A proposed cleanup remains auditable only with the exact pre-change permission and worker inventory. FIRST returned “ROLLBACK=freeze NP3-B rows4+workers2 hash0ab311c2; live changes0”; the private static semantic key accepts “ROLLBACK=freeze NP3-B rows4+workers2 hash0ab311c2; live changes0”, so it passes. FINAL returned “ROLLBACK=freeze NP3-B rows4+workers2 hash0ab311c2; live changes0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Specify positive and negative retests","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Synthetic post-state expects coupons permission Block and SW-C9 absent, spam events 0/14 delivered, W2 delivered once, calendar still Ask, and default Ask. Semantic rule: The result must test the blocked origin while proving the wanted and undecided settings remain functional. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=no pop-up appears for five minutes”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=coupons Block; SW-C9 absent; spam0/14; W2 1/1; calendar Ask; default Ask”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=coupons Block; SW-C9 absent; spam0/14; W2 1/1; calendar Ask”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["RNS-4546 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the unwanted origin passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Account for the service worker also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Preserve the approved weather alerts still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Specify positive and negative retests still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Permission audits and controlled notification tests will verify removal while preserving approved site settings.","evidenceNotes":["RNS-4546 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RNS-4546's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","RNS-4546 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Permission audits and controlled notification tests will verify removal while preserving approved site settings."],"limitations":["RNS-4546 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RNS-4546 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-recover-corrupt-git-branch","title":"Recover a Corrupt Git Branch with Reversible Steps: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"recover a corrupted Git branch without overwriting healthy history","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Version-Control Recovery field test asked the session to recover a corrupted Git branch without overwriting healthy history, preserved an actual five-row reversible git branch recovery plan, and derived 0/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RCGB-0632 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “recover a corrupted Git branch without overwriting healthy history”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: recover a corrupted Git branch without overwriting healthy history. Focus: Version-Control Recovery.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use a disposable repository with tagged recovery points, a damaged reference, unreachable commits, and uncommitted changes.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRCGB-0632-I1: Repository R-GIT-42 has healthy main at a41f6d2, worktree with two uncommitted files, and corrupt feature ref pointing to absent object deadbee. Backup bundle B42 is not yet created.\nRCGB-0632-I2: Feature reflog entries are c91ad44 at 09:12, b7100ef at 08:55, and a41f6d2 at 08:10. Object checks pass for c91ad44 and its parents; b7100ef lacks blob 77aa.\nRCGB-0632-I3: Policy forbids overwriting feature until review; new branch name must be recovery/feature-20260810 and point to the selected candidate.\nRCGB-0632-I4: Saved worktree files are notes.md hash 0c11 and config.local hash 3e92; only notes.md belongs on the recovery branch, while config.local is machine-local.\nRCGB-0632-I5: Acceptance requires fsck zero missing reachable objects from recovery, graph tip c91ad44, tests G1-G12, main still a41f6d2, plus bundle B42 readable.\nReturn a concrete reversible git branch recovery plan with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Object checks, reflog inspection, commit-graph comparison, worktree preservation, and a second clone will verify recovery and reversibility.","firstResult":"REVERSIBLE GIT BRANCH RECOVERY PLAN RCGB-0632 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: recover a corrupted Git branch without overwriting healthy history. Evaluation focus: Version-Control Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRCGB-0632-R1 :: RESULT=PRESERVE=force feature to main before saving the worktree\nRCGB-0632-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCGB-0632-R2 :: RESULT=CANDIDATE=b7100ef because it is older\nRCGB-0632-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCGB-0632-R3 :: RESULT=REF=force-update feature directly to c91ad44\nRCGB-0632-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCGB-0632-R4 :: RESULT=WORKTREE=commit both files onto main\nRCGB-0632-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCGB-0632-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=recovery branch appears in the branch list\nRCGB-0632-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RCGB-0632; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RCGB-0632 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Freeze healthy history before ref repair: input was “Repository R-GIT-42 has healthy main at a41f6d2, worktree with two uncommitted files, and corrupt feature ref pointing to absent object deadbee. Backup bundle B42 is not yet created.”; first response was “PRESERVE=force feature to main before saving the worktree”.\n- Use the reflog's verified candidate: input was “Feature reflog entries are c91ad44 at 09:12, b7100ef at 08:55, and a41f6d2 at 08:10. Object checks pass for c91ad44 and its parents; b7100ef lacks blob 77aa.”; first response was “CANDIDATE=b7100ef because it is older”.\n- Create a separate recovery reference: input was “Policy forbids overwriting feature until review; new branch name must be recovery/feature-20260810 and point to the selected candidate.”; first response was “REF=force-update feature directly to c91ad44”.\n- Restore the uncommitted work without contaminating main: input was “Saved worktree files are notes.md hash 0c11 and config.local hash 3e92; only notes.md belongs on the recovery branch, while config.local is machine-local.”; first response was “WORKTREE=commit both files onto main”.\n- Define recovery acceptance and rollback: input was “Acceptance requires fsck zero missing reachable objects from recovery, graph tip c91ad44, tests G1-G12, main still a41f6d2, plus bundle B42 readable.”; first response was “ACCEPT=recovery branch appears in the branch list”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"REVERSIBLE GIT BRANCH RECOVERY PLAN RCGB-0632 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: recover a corrupted Git branch without overwriting healthy history. Evaluation focus: Version-Control Recovery. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRCGB-0632-R1 :: RESULT=PRESERVE=create bundle B42 at main a41f6d2; copy two worktree files; do not move refs first\nRCGB-0632-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCGB-0632-R2 :: RESULT=CANDIDATE=c91ad44; object+parents pass\nRCGB-0632-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCGB-0632-R3 :: RESULT=REF=create recovery/feature-20260810 at c91ad44\nRCGB-0632-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCGB-0632-R4 :: RESULT=WORKTREE=restore notes.md hash0c11 on recovery branch; quarantine config.local hash3e92\nRCGB-0632-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRCGB-0632-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=fsck missing0; recovery tipc91ad44; G1-G12 12/12; maina41f6d2\nRCGB-0632-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RCGB-0632; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Freeze healthy history before ref repair","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Repository R-GIT-42 has healthy main at a41f6d2, worktree with two uncommitted files, and corrupt feature ref pointing to absent object deadbee. Backup bundle B42 is not yet created. Semantic rule: Recovery must preserve the healthy commit graph and uncommitted files before any reference change. FIRST returned “PRESERVE=force feature to main before saving the worktree”; the private static semantic key accepts “PRESERVE=create bundle B42 at main a41f6d2; copy two worktree files; do not move refs first”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PRESERVE=create bundle B42 at main a41f6d2; copy two worktree files; do not move refs first”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the reflog's verified candidate","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Feature reflog entries are c91ad44 at 09:12, b7100ef at 08:55, and a41f6d2 at 08:10. Object checks pass for c91ad44 and its parents; b7100ef lacks blob 77aa. Semantic rule: The newest candidate is usable only because its complete reachable object set passes the disclosed check. FIRST returned “CANDIDATE=b7100ef because it is older”; the private static semantic key accepts “CANDIDATE=c91ad44; object+parents pass; reject b7100ef missing77aa” or “CANDIDATE=c91ad44; object+parents pass”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CANDIDATE=c91ad44; object+parents pass”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Create a separate recovery reference","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy forbids overwriting feature until review; new branch name must be recovery/feature-20260810 and point to the selected candidate. Semantic rule: The reversible workflow uses the mandated separate branch and retains the original ref as evidence. FIRST returned “REF=force-update feature directly to c91ad44”; the private static semantic key accepts “REF=create recovery/feature-20260810 at c91ad44; leave corrupt feature ref unchanged for evidence” or “REF=create recovery/feature-20260810 at c91ad44”, so it fails. FINAL returned “REF=create recovery/feature-20260810 at c91ad44”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Restore the uncommitted work without contaminating main","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Saved worktree files are notes.md hash 0c11 and config.local hash 3e92; only notes.md belongs on the recovery branch, while config.local is machine-local. Semantic rule: Each saved file has a distinct destination rule and healthy main must remain untouched. FIRST returned “WORKTREE=commit both files onto main”; the private static semantic key accepts “WORKTREE=restore notes.md hash0c11 on recovery branch; quarantine config.local hash3e92; main unchanged” or “WORKTREE=restore notes.md hash0c11 on recovery branch; quarantine config.local hash3e92”, so it fails. FINAL returned “WORKTREE=restore notes.md hash0c11 on recovery branch; quarantine config.local hash3e92”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define recovery acceptance and rollback","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance requires fsck zero missing reachable objects from recovery, graph tip c91ad44, tests G1-G12, main still a41f6d2, plus bundle B42 readable. Semantic rule: The recovered ref, object closure, behavior, healthy history, and rollback artifact all require verification. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=recovery branch appears in the branch list”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=fsck missing0; recovery tipc91ad44; G1-G12 12/12; maina41f6d2; B42 readable”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=fsck missing0; recovery tipc91ad44; G1-G12 12/12; maina41f6d2”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["RCGB-0632 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Freeze healthy history before ref repair passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Use the reflog's verified candidate also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Define recovery acceptance and rollback still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Object checks, reflog inspection, commit-graph comparison, worktree preservation, and a second clone will verify recovery and reversibility.","evidenceNotes":["RCGB-0632 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RCGB-0632's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","RCGB-0632 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Object checks, reflog inspection, commit-graph comparison, worktree preservation, and a second clone will verify recovery and reversibility."],"limitations":["RCGB-0632 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RCGB-0632 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-study-calendar-recovery","title":"Rebuilding a Study Plan After Missed Deadlines with AI — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"rebuild a study plan after missed deadlines","excerpt":"The completed LFT-006 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Study planning checks passed after one correction, but Study planning objective fit [LFT-006] and Study planning content accuracy [LFT-006] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-11T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-006: The AI will revise a university study calendar after several assignments and revision sessions are missed. Source facts: fictional calendar LFT-006-C1 covering 14 days; exam dates on days 9 and 14; available blocks of 25, 40, and 55 minutes; missed tasks M2/M4; prerequisite P1 before P3; and a maximum of 4 study blocks per day. Governing rule card: the 4-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-006 for “rebuild a study plan after missed deadlines” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-006. Task: rebuild a study plan after missed deadlines. Context: The AI will revise a university study calendar after several assignments and revision sessions are missed. Fictional source facts: fictional calendar LFT-006-C1 covering 14 days; exam dates on days 9 and 14; available blocks of 25, 40, and 55 minutes; missed tasks M2/M4; prerequisite P1 before P3; and a maximum of 4 study blocks per day. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 4-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Calendar snapshots and constraint checks will verify that the revised plan remains feasible and complete.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-006 produced a dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint for the task “rebuild a study plan after missed deadlines.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 4 daily sessions. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-006-ROW1 reads: “LFT-006-C1 | move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 4 daily sessions | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Study planning learner adaptation [LFT-006] and Study planning evidence traceability [LFT-006]. The audit found concrete failures: for Study planning objective fit [LFT-006], the saved draft did not connect LFT-006-M4 to the full boundary of “rebuild a study plan after missed deadlines”; for Study planning content accuracy [LFT-006], the saved draft left the 4-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates without an explicit verification row; for Study planning safety and access [LFT-006], the saved draft left the dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-006 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Study planning objective fit [LFT-006] — the draft did not connect LFT-006-M4 to the full boundary of “rebuild a study plan after missed deadlines”; 2) Study planning content accuracy [LFT-006] — the draft left the 4-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates without an explicit verification row; 3) Study planning safety and access [LFT-006] — the draft left the dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-006 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 4 daily sessions. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-006-ROW1 reads: “LFT-006-C1 | move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 4 daily sessions | evidence locator: LFT-006-C1 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Study planning safety and access [LFT-006]. The frozen final text passed Study planning learner adaptation [LFT-006], Study planning evidence traceability [LFT-006], and Study planning safety and access [LFT-006] and still failed Study planning objective fit [LFT-006] and Study planning content accuracy [LFT-006]. The final dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Study planning objective fit [LFT-006]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-006 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Study planning objective fit [LFT-006].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-006-M4, the declared Study planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Study planning content accuracy [LFT-006]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-006 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Study planning content accuracy [LFT-006].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-006-M4, the declared Study planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Study planning learner adaptation [LFT-006]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-006 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Study planning learner adaptation [LFT-006].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-006-M4, the declared Study planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Study planning evidence traceability [LFT-006]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-006 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Study planning evidence traceability [LFT-006].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-006-M4, the declared Study planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Study planning safety and access [LFT-006]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-006 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Study planning safety and access [LFT-006].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-006-M4, the declared Study planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-006 kept “rebuild a study plan after missed deadlines” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-006 made the central handling—move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 4 daily sessions—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-006 earned final passes for Study planning learner adaptation [LFT-006] and Study planning evidence traceability [LFT-006] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-006 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Study planning objective fit [LFT-006]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-006 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Study planning content accuracy [LFT-006]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Calendar snapshots and constraint checks will verify that the revised plan remains feasible and complete.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-006 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-006 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-006 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Calendar snapshots and constraint checks will verify that the revised plan remains feasible and complete.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-006 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Study planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-006 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-map-training-gaps","title":"AI Training Plans That Map Skill Gaps to Approved Courses: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog","excerpt":"The completed WFT-025 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Training Planning checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-11T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-025: A learning team will provide role requirements, anonymized competency assessments, and course prerequisites. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-025-C01 through WFT-025-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 40, 48, 60, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-025-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-025 for “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-025. Task: map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog. Context: A learning team will provide role requirements, anonymized competency assessments, and course prerequisites. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-025-C01 through WFT-025-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 40, 48, 60, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-025-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Individual learning paths and a prerequisite-and-gap matrix will verify every course recommendation.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-025 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-025-ROW1 reads: “WFT-025-C01 | rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Training Planning source traceability [WFT-025]. The audit found concrete failures: for Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025], the saved draft did not connect WFT-025-C04 to the full boundary of “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog”; for Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025], the saved draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; for Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-025-C04; for Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025], the saved draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-025 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025] — the draft did not connect WFT-025-C04 to the full boundary of “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog”; 2) Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025] — the draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; 3) Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-025-C04; 4) Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025] — the draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-025 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-025-ROW1 reads: “WFT-025-C01 | rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-025-C01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025]. The frozen final text passed Training Planning source traceability [WFT-025] and Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025] and still failed Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025], Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025], and Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-025 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-025 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-025 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Training Planning source traceability [WFT-025]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-025 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning source traceability [WFT-025].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-025 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Training Planning handoff usability [WFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-025-C04, the declared Training Planning rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-025 kept “map employee skill gaps to an approved training catalog” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-025 made the central handling—rank WFT-025-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-025-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-025 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Training Planning task fidelity [WFT-025]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-025 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Training Planning rule accuracy [WFT-025]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-025 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Training Planning exception handling [WFT-025]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Individual learning paths and a prerequisite-and-gap matrix will verify every course recommendation.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-025 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-025 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-025 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Individual learning paths and a prerequisite-and-gap matrix will verify every course recommendation.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-025 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Training Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-025 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-extend-laptop-battery","title":"Battery Life Without a Broken Workflow: An AI Tuning Brief: Three Semantic Checks Still Failed","task":"extend laptop battery life without crippling usability","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Battery Life field test asked the session to extend laptop battery life without crippling usability, preserved an actual five-row laptop battery usability trial, and derived 0/10 then 4/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-10T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in ELB-5103 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “extend laptop battery life without crippling usability”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: extend laptop battery life without crippling usability. Focus: Battery Life.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to prioritize reversible power settings for a fixed mix of browsing, video, and document work.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nELB-5103-I1: Full-charge capacity is 61 Wh versus design 72 Wh; cycle count is 410 and no service warning is present.\nELB-5103-I2: Trial is 90 min browsing, 60 min video, and 90 min documents with brightness 60%; baseline uses 43 Wh.\nELB-5103-I3: Fixture estimates: background sync 4.8 Wh, display 3.1 Wh, keyboard light 0.6 Wh; sync may defer but must finish by 18:00.\nELB-5103-I4: Video must remain 1080p, brightness at least 45%, page response below 300 ms, and all sync work complete by 18:00.\nELB-5103-I5: Acceptance is three identical trials using at most 35 Wh, response below 300 ms, background work complete, and rollback restores baseline settings.\nReturn a concrete laptop battery usability trial with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Repeated workload runs will verify runtime, responsiveness, display behavior, and background-task completion.","firstResult":"LAPTOP BATTERY USABILITY TRIAL ELB-5103 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: extend laptop battery life without crippling usability. Evaluation focus: Battery Life. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nELB-5103-R1 :: RESULT=HEALTH=118% because 72/61\nELB-5103-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nELB-5103-R2 :: RESULT=WORKLOAD=screen-off idle test\nELB-5103-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nELB-5103-R3 :: RESULT=PRIORITY=disable document autosave\nELB-5103-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nELB-5103-R4 :: RESULT=USABILITY=brightness20% and video480p\nELB-5103-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nELB-5103-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one longer runtime estimate\nELB-5103-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for ELB-5103; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise ELB-5103 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Calculate the battery-health baseline: input was “Full-charge capacity is 61 Wh versus design 72 Wh; cycle count is 410 and no service warning is present.”; first response was “HEALTH=118% because 72/61”.\n- Use the fixed mixed workload: input was “Trial is 90 min browsing, 60 min video, and 90 min documents with brightness 60%; baseline uses 43 Wh.”; first response was “WORKLOAD=screen-off idle test”.\n- Prioritize measured reversible savings: input was “Fixture estimates: background sync 4.8 Wh, display 3.1 Wh, keyboard light 0.6 Wh; sync may defer but must finish by 18:00.”; first response was “PRIORITY=disable document autosave”.\n- Preserve usability constraints: input was “Video must remain 1080p, brightness at least 45%, page response below 300 ms, and all sync work complete by 18:00.”; first response was “USABILITY=brightness20% and video480p”.\n- Compare repeated workload results: input was “Acceptance is three identical trials using at most 35 Wh, response below 300 ms, background work complete, and rollback restores baseline settings.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one longer runtime estimate”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"LAPTOP BATTERY USABILITY TRIAL ELB-5103 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: extend laptop battery life without crippling usability. Evaluation focus: Battery Life. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nELB-5103-R1 :: RESULT=HEALTH=61/72=84.7%; cycles410; no service warning\nELB-5103-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nELB-5103-R2 :: RESULT=WORKLOAD=240min total; brightness60%; baseline43Wh\nELB-5103-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nELB-5103-R3 :: RESULT=PRIORITY=defer sync4.8Wh first; display3.1Wh second\nELB-5103-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nELB-5103-R4 :: RESULT=USABILITY=video1080p; brightness>=45%; response<300ms\nELB-5103-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nELB-5103-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=3 trials<=35Wh; response<300ms; sync complete\nELB-5103-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for ELB-5103; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Calculate the battery-health baseline","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Full-charge capacity is 61 Wh versus design 72 Wh; cycle count is 410 and no service warning is present. Semantic rule: Capacity ratio, cycle count, and status are distinct baseline facts. FIRST returned “HEALTH=118% because 72/61”; the private static semantic key accepts “HEALTH=61/72=84.7%; cycles410; no service warning”, so it fails. FINAL returned “HEALTH=61/72=84.7%; cycles410; no service warning”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the fixed mixed workload","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Trial is 90 min browsing, 60 min video, and 90 min documents with brightness 60%; baseline uses 43 Wh. Semantic rule: Runtime claims must use the disclosed four-hour representative workload. FIRST returned “WORKLOAD=screen-off idle test”; the private static semantic key accepts “WORKLOAD=240min total; brightness60%; baseline43Wh”, so it fails. FINAL returned “WORKLOAD=240min total; brightness60%; baseline43Wh”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Prioritize measured reversible savings","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture estimates: background sync 4.8 Wh, display 3.1 Wh, keyboard light 0.6 Wh; sync may defer but must finish by 18:00. Semantic rule: The measured savings and functional deadline determine the order. FIRST returned “PRIORITY=disable document autosave”; the private static semantic key accepts “PRIORITY=defer sync4.8Wh first; display3.1Wh second; keyboard0.6Wh third”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PRIORITY=defer sync4.8Wh first; display3.1Wh second”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve usability constraints","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Video must remain 1080p, brightness at least 45%, page response below 300 ms, and all sync work complete by 18:00. Semantic rule: The task explicitly disallows battery gains that violate the four usability thresholds. FIRST returned “USABILITY=brightness20% and video480p”; the private static semantic key accepts “USABILITY=video1080p; brightness>=45%; response<300ms; sync by18:00”, so it fails. FINAL returned “USABILITY=video1080p; brightness>=45%; response<300ms”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Compare repeated workload results","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is three identical trials using at most 35 Wh, response below 300 ms, background work complete, and rollback restores baseline settings. Semantic rule: Repeated energy, responsiveness, task-completion, and rollback evidence all apply. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one longer runtime estimate”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=3 trials<=35Wh; response<300ms; sync complete; rollback exact”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=3 trials<=35Wh; response<300ms; sync complete”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["ELB-5103 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Calculate the battery-health baseline passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Use the fixed mixed workload also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Prioritize measured reversible savings still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Preserve usability constraints still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Compare repeated workload results still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Repeated workload runs will verify runtime, responsiveness, display behavior, and background-task completion.","evidenceNotes":["ELB-5103 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","ELB-5103's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 2 passes multiplied by two.","ELB-5103 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Repeated workload runs will verify runtime, responsiveness, display behavior, and background-task completion."],"limitations":["ELB-5103 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","ELB-5103 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-give-programming-hints","title":"Giving Debugging Hints Without Writing the Student's Code — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"give progressive debugging hints without supplying the solution code","excerpt":"The completed LFT-060 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Programming Tutoring checks passed after one correction, but Programming Tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-060] and Programming Tutoring safety and access [LFT-060] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-09T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-060: The AI will receive novice programs, learning objectives, error traces, and a fixed three-level hint policy. Source facts: fictional code sample LFT-060-P1 with function walk(n), calls walk(3)→walk(2)→walk(1), an off-by-one condition n < 1, learner predictions 3, 2, 0, and a no-solution-code rule through hint H3. Governing rule card: the actual call order and progressive-hint ceiling H3. Trace the supplied code state by state, base every hint on the actual execution, and keep the completed solution outside the response until the declared hint ceiling. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-060 for “give progressive debugging hints without supplying the solution code” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-060. Task: give progressive debugging hints without supplying the solution code. Context: The AI will receive novice programs, learning objectives, error traces, and a fixed three-level hint policy. Fictional source facts: fictional code sample LFT-060-P1 with function walk(n), calls walk(3)→walk(2)→walk(1), an off-by-one condition n < 1, learner predictions 3, 2, 0, and a no-solution-code rule through hint H3. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the actual call order and progressive-hint ceiling H3. Trace the supplied code state by state, base every hint on the actual execution, and keep the completed solution outside the response until the declared hint ceiling. Produce an execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A code-instructor audit will verify diagnosis, hint progression, leakage of final code, and alignment with the stated learning objective.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-060 produced an execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note for the task “give progressive debugging hints without supplying the solution code.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: freeze the call stack at LFT-060-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-060-ROW1 reads: “LFT-060-P1 | freeze the call stack at LFT-060-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Programming Tutoring objective fit [LFT-060] and Programming Tutoring content accuracy [LFT-060]. The audit found concrete failures: for Programming Tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-060], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the n < 1 boundary at LFT-060-P1 and the no-solution-code limit; for Programming Tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-060], the saved draft gave the central LFT-060-P1 decision no source-to-output locator; for Programming Tutoring safety and access [LFT-060], the saved draft left the execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-060 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Programming Tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-060] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the n < 1 boundary at LFT-060-P1 and the no-solution-code limit; 2) Programming Tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-060] — the draft gave the central LFT-060-P1 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Programming Tutoring safety and access [LFT-060] — the draft left the execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-060 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: freeze the call stack at LFT-060-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-060-ROW1 reads: “LFT-060-P1 | freeze the call stack at LFT-060-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction | evidence locator: LFT-060-P1 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Programming Tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-060]. The frozen final text passed Programming Tutoring objective fit [LFT-060], Programming Tutoring content accuracy [LFT-060], and Programming Tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-060] and still failed Programming Tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-060] and Programming Tutoring safety and access [LFT-060]. The final execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Programming Tutoring objective fit [LFT-060]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-060 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Programming Tutoring objective fit [LFT-060].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-060-P1, the declared Programming Tutoring rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Programming Tutoring content accuracy [LFT-060]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-060 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Programming Tutoring content accuracy [LFT-060].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-060-P1, the declared Programming Tutoring rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Programming Tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-060]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-060 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Programming Tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-060].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-060-P1, the declared Programming Tutoring rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Programming Tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-060]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-060 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Programming Tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-060].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-060-P1, the declared Programming Tutoring rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Programming Tutoring safety and access [LFT-060]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-060 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Programming Tutoring safety and access [LFT-060].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-060-P1, the declared Programming Tutoring rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-060 kept “give progressive debugging hints without supplying the solution code” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-060 made the central handling—freeze the call stack at LFT-060-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-060 earned final passes for Programming Tutoring objective fit [LFT-060] and Programming Tutoring content accuracy [LFT-060] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-060 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Programming Tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-060]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-060 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Programming Tutoring safety and access [LFT-060]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A code-instructor audit will verify diagnosis, hint progression, leakage of final code, and alignment with the stated learning objective.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-060 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-060 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-060 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A code-instructor audit will verify diagnosis, hint progression, leakage of final code, and alignment with the stated learning objective.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-060 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Programming Tutoring fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-060 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-create-safer-user-account","title":"Is an AI-Configured Everyday Account Truly Least Privilege: Three Semantic Checks Still Failed","task":"configure a safer everyday user account","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Account Security field test asked the session to configure a safer everyday user account, preserved an actual five-row least-privilege account access matrix, and derived 0/10 then 4/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-07T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in CSUA-5966 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “configure a safer everyday user account”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: configure a safer everyday user account. Focus: Account Security.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask for a least-privilege account setup that still supports ordinary work on a test computer.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nCSUA-5966-I1: Fixture PC-SA8 has owner-admin Rowan, new everyday user Casey, and disabled guest. Casey needs browser, office suite, printer, and personal folder but no system administration.\nCSUA-5966-I2: Positive matrix for Casey is browser launch, edit Casey/Documents, print to PRN-1, and open office suite; installed application hashes are fixed.\nCSUA-5966-I3: Negative matrix requires Casey cannot install unsigned app U7, edit system hosts file, read Rowan/Private, or add an administrator.\nCSUA-5966-I4: Signed updater APP-4 may request Rowan credentials through the operating-system elevation prompt; Casey must never learn or store those credentials.\nCSUA-5966-I5: Recovery record RK-SA8 is sealed for Rowan; acceptance requires Casey sign-in, four positive tests, four denials, logout isolation, and Rowan recovery sign-in.\nReturn a concrete least-privilege account access matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Permission checks and representative daily tasks will verify reduced privileges without blocking expected use.","firstResult":"LEAST-PRIVILEGE ACCOUNT ACCESS MATRIX CSUA-5966 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: configure a safer everyday user account. Evaluation focus: Account Security. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCSUA-5966-R1 :: RESULT=ROLES=make Casey an administrator for convenience\nCSUA-5966-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCSUA-5966-R2 :: RESULT=ALLOW=browser only and block personal document edits\nCSUA-5966-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCSUA-5966-R3 :: RESULT=DENY=block hosts edits but allow Rowan/Private read\nCSUA-5966-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCSUA-5966-R4 :: RESULT=UPDATE=share Rowan password with Casey\nCSUA-5966-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCSUA-5966-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=Casey reaches the desktop once\nCSUA-5966-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CSUA-5966; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise CSUA-5966 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Assign the everyday account the standard role: input was “Fixture PC-SA8 has owner-admin Rowan, new everyday user Casey, and disabled guest. Casey needs browser, office suite, printer, and personal folder but no system administration.”; first response was “ROLES=make Casey an administrator for convenience”.\n- Allow the declared daily tasks: input was “Positive matrix for Casey is browser launch, edit Casey/Documents, print to PRN-1, and open office suite; installed application hashes are fixed.”; first response was “ALLOW=browser only and block personal document edits”.\n- Deny protected administrative actions: input was “Negative matrix requires Casey cannot install unsigned app U7, edit system hosts file, read Rowan/Private, or add an administrator.”; first response was “DENY=block hosts edits but allow Rowan/Private read”.\n- Provide bounded elevation for updates: input was “Signed updater APP-4 may request Rowan credentials through the operating-system elevation prompt; Casey must never learn or store those credentials.”; first response was “UPDATE=share Rowan password with Casey”.\n- Verify recovery without a bypass: input was “Recovery record RK-SA8 is sealed for Rowan; acceptance requires Casey sign-in, four positive tests, four denials, logout isolation, and Rowan recovery sign-in.”; first response was “ACCEPT=Casey reaches the desktop once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"LEAST-PRIVILEGE ACCOUNT ACCESS MATRIX CSUA-5966 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: configure a safer everyday user account. Evaluation focus: Account Security. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCSUA-5966-R1 :: RESULT=ROLES=Rowan owner-admin; Casey standard; guest disabled; no second admin\nCSUA-5966-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCSUA-5966-R2 :: RESULT=ALLOW=browser+office+Casey/Documents write+PRN-1 print\nCSUA-5966-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCSUA-5966-R3 :: RESULT=DENY=U7 install+hosts edit blocked\nCSUA-5966-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCSUA-5966-R4 :: RESULT=UPDATE=APP-4 signed prompt to Rowan; Casey credential storage0\nCSUA-5966-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCSUA-5966-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=Casey sign-in; positive4/4; denials4/4; logout isolation pass\nCSUA-5966-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CSUA-5966; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Assign the everyday account the standard role","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture PC-SA8 has owner-admin Rowan, new everyday user Casey, and disabled guest. Casey needs browser, office suite, printer, and personal folder but no system administration. Semantic rule: The account role must satisfy daily tasks without duplicating the existing administrative authority. FIRST returned “ROLES=make Casey an administrator for convenience”; the private static semantic key accepts “ROLES=Rowan owner-admin; Casey standard; guest disabled; no second admin”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ROLES=Rowan owner-admin; Casey standard; guest disabled; no second admin”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Allow the declared daily tasks","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Positive matrix for Casey is browser launch, edit Casey/Documents, print to PRN-1, and open office suite; installed application hashes are fixed. Semantic rule: Least privilege remains usable only if every declared everyday action passes without changing applications. FIRST returned “ALLOW=browser only and block personal document edits”; the private static semantic key accepts “ALLOW=browser+office+Casey/Documents write+PRN-1 print; application hashes unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ALLOW=browser+office+Casey/Documents write+PRN-1 print”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Deny protected administrative actions","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Negative matrix requires Casey cannot install unsigned app U7, edit system hosts file, read Rowan/Private, or add an administrator. Semantic rule: Every named privileged or cross-user action is an explicit denial boundary. FIRST returned “DENY=block hosts edits but allow Rowan/Private read”; the private static semantic key accepts “DENY=U7 install+hosts edit blocked; Rowan/Private read+admin creation blocked”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DENY=U7 install+hosts edit blocked”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Provide bounded elevation for updates","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Signed updater APP-4 may request Rowan credentials through the operating-system elevation prompt; Casey must never learn or store those credentials. Semantic rule: Necessary updates use the existing administrator's interactive approval without weakening credential separation. FIRST returned “UPDATE=share Rowan password with Casey”; the private static semantic key accepts “UPDATE=APP-4 signed prompt to Rowan; Casey credential storage0; Casey remains standard” or “UPDATE=APP-4 signed prompt to Rowan; Casey credential storage0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “UPDATE=APP-4 signed prompt to Rowan; Casey credential storage0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify recovery without a bypass","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Recovery record RK-SA8 is sealed for Rowan; acceptance requires Casey sign-in, four positive tests, four denials, logout isolation, and Rowan recovery sign-in. Semantic rule: Usability, privilege boundaries, session isolation, and authorized recovery must all be checked. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=Casey reaches the desktop once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=Casey sign-in; positive4/4; denials4/4; logout isolation pass; Rowan recovery pass”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=Casey sign-in; positive4/4; denials4/4; logout isolation pass”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["CSUA-5966 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Assign the everyday account the standard role passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Provide bounded elevation for updates also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Allow the declared daily tasks still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Deny protected administrative actions still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Verify recovery without a bypass still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Permission checks and representative daily tasks will verify reduced privileges without blocking expected use.","evidenceNotes":["CSUA-5966 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","CSUA-5966's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 2 passes multiplied by two.","CSUA-5966 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Permission checks and representative daily tasks will verify reduced privileges without blocking expected use."],"limitations":["CSUA-5966 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","CSUA-5966 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-focus-friendly-study-blocks","title":"Build Focus-Friendly Study Blocks with AI: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"structure study blocks for a learner with attention difficulties","excerpt":"The completed LFT-041 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Attention support checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-07T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-041: A learner will use short study blocks with explicit starts, breaks, and restart cues tailored to one assignment. Source facts: fictional calendar LFT-041-C1 covering 14 days; exam dates on days 9 and 14; available blocks of 25, 40, and 55 minutes; missed tasks M2/M4; prerequisite P1 before P3; and a maximum of 11 study blocks per day. Governing rule card: the 11-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-041 for “structure study blocks for a learner with attention difficulties” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-041. Task: structure study blocks for a learner with attention difficulties. Context: A learner will use short study blocks with explicit starts, breaks, and restart cues tailored to one assignment. Fictional source facts: fictional calendar LFT-041-C1 covering 14 days; exam dates on days 9 and 14; available blocks of 25, 40, and 55 minutes; missed tasks M2/M4; prerequisite P1 before P3; and a maximum of 11 study blocks per day. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 11-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A time log and learner diary will document adherence, interruptions, and which cues supported restarting.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-041 produced a dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint for the task “structure study blocks for a learner with attention difficulties.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 11 daily sessions. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-041-ROW1 reads: “LFT-041-C1 | move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 11 daily sessions | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Attention support learner adaptation [LFT-041]. The audit found concrete failures: for Attention support objective fit [LFT-041], the saved draft did not connect LFT-041-M4 to the full boundary of “structure study blocks for a learner with attention difficulties”; for Attention support content accuracy [LFT-041], the saved draft left the 11-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates without an explicit verification row; for Attention support evidence traceability [LFT-041], the saved draft gave the central LFT-041-M4 decision no source-to-output locator; for Attention support safety and access [LFT-041], the saved draft left the dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-041 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Attention support objective fit [LFT-041] — the draft did not connect LFT-041-M4 to the full boundary of “structure study blocks for a learner with attention difficulties”; 2) Attention support content accuracy [LFT-041] — the draft left the 11-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates without an explicit verification row; 3) Attention support evidence traceability [LFT-041] — the draft gave the central LFT-041-M4 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Attention support safety and access [LFT-041] — the draft left the dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-041 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 11 daily sessions. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-041-ROW1 reads: “LFT-041-C1 | move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 11 daily sessions | evidence locator: LFT-041-C1 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Attention support evidence traceability [LFT-041]. The frozen final text passed Attention support learner adaptation [LFT-041] and Attention support evidence traceability [LFT-041] and still failed Attention support objective fit [LFT-041], Attention support content accuracy [LFT-041], and Attention support safety and access [LFT-041]. The final dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Attention support objective fit [LFT-041]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-041 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Attention support objective fit [LFT-041].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-041-M4, the declared Attention support rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Attention support content accuracy [LFT-041]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-041 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Attention support content accuracy [LFT-041].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-041-M4, the declared Attention support rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Attention support learner adaptation [LFT-041]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-041 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Attention support learner adaptation [LFT-041].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-041-M4, the declared Attention support rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Attention support evidence traceability [LFT-041]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-041 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Attention support evidence traceability [LFT-041].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-041-M4, the declared Attention support rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Attention support safety and access [LFT-041]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-041 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Attention support safety and access [LFT-041].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-041-M4, the declared Attention support rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-041 kept “structure study blocks for a learner with attention difficulties” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-041 made the central handling—move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 11 daily sessions—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["LFT-041 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Attention support objective fit [LFT-041]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-041 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Attention support content accuracy [LFT-041]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-041 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Attention support safety and access [LFT-041]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A time log and learner diary will document adherence, interruptions, and which cues supported restarting.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-041 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-041 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-041 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A time log and learner diary will document adherence, interruptions, and which cues supported restarting.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-041 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Attention support fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-041 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-forecast-call-volume","title":"What Staffing Signal Does a Noisy Call Forecast Preserve — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"forecast call volume while preserving uncertainty for staffing decisions","excerpt":"The completed WFT-060 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Demand Forecasting, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-06T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-060: A contact center will provide synthetic interval history with holidays, outages, promotions, missing periods, and an evaluation holdout. Source facts: 30-minute volumes WFT-060-V01–V12; baseline 42–78 calls; handle time 7 minutes; occupancy cap 80%; eight agents; promotion uplift 10–24%. Governing rule card: volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-060 for “forecast call volume while preserving uncertainty for staffing decisions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-060. Task: forecast call volume while preserving uncertainty for staffing decisions. Context: A contact center will provide synthetic interval history with holidays, outages, promotions, missing periods, and an evaluation holdout. Fictional source facts: 30-minute volumes WFT-060-V01–V12; baseline 42–78 calls; handle time 7 minutes; occupancy cap 80%; eight agents; promotion uplift 10–24%. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. Produce a interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Holdout error, interval coverage, peak recall, and staffing-impact calculations will compare the forecast with simple baselines.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-060 produced a interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band for “forecast call volume while preserving uncertainty for staffing decisions.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-060-V09 | convert volume to workload, cap occupancy at 80%, show both uplift bounds, and flag V09/V10 as understaffed | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named promotion uncertainty and V09/V10 capacity shortfall and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Demand Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-060], Demand Forecasting source traceability [WFT-060], and Demand Forecasting handoff usability [WFT-060]. It found for Demand Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-060], the draft mentioned but did not verify volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy; for Demand Forecasting exception handling [WFT-060], the draft left promotion uncertainty and V09/V10 capacity shortfall without an explicit disposition. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-060 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Demand Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-060] — the draft mentioned but did not verify volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy; 2) Demand Forecasting exception handling [WFT-060] — the draft left promotion uncertainty and V09/V10 capacity shortfall without an explicit disposition.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-060 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: convert volume to workload, cap occupancy at 80%, show both uplift bounds, and flag V09/V10 as understaffed. Its corrected row read “WFT-060-V09 | rule: volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy | decision: convert volume to workload, cap occupancy at 80%, show both uplift bounds, and flag V09/V10 as understaffed | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Demand Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-060]. The final audit passed Demand Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-060], Demand Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-060], Demand Forecasting source traceability [WFT-060], and Demand Forecasting handoff usability [WFT-060]. It still lacked Demand Forecasting exception handling [WFT-060]; those failures remain visible. The interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Demand Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-060]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-060 static check 1 inspected “Demand Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-060]” against WFT-060-V09, the rule “volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy,” and the saved interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Demand Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-060]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-060 static check 2 inspected “Demand Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-060]” against WFT-060-V09, the rule “volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy,” and the saved interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Demand Forecasting exception handling [WFT-060]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-060 static check 3 inspected “Demand Forecasting exception handling [WFT-060]” against WFT-060-V09, the rule “volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy,” and the saved interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Demand Forecasting source traceability [WFT-060]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-060 static check 4 inspected “Demand Forecasting source traceability [WFT-060]” against WFT-060-V09, the rule “volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy,” and the saved interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Demand Forecasting handoff usability [WFT-060]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-060 static check 5 inspected “Demand Forecasting handoff usability [WFT-060]” against WFT-060-V09, the rule “volume times handle time versus interval agent minutes at 80% occupancy,” and the saved interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-060 bounded “forecast call volume while preserving uncertainty for staffing decisions” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-060 exposed WFT-060-V09—convert volume to workload, cap occupancy at 80%, show both uplift bounds, and flag V09/V10 as understaffed—inside the saved interval demand forecast, staffing-capacity table, and uncertainty band.","WFT-060 earned inspectable passes for Demand Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-060] and Demand Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-060] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-060 still lacked saved-text evidence for Demand Forecasting exception handling [WFT-060]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Holdout error, interval coverage, peak recall, and staffing-impact calculations will compare the forecast with simple baselines.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-060 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-060 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-060 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Holdout error, interval coverage, peak recall, and staffing-impact calculations will compare the forecast with simple baselines.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-060 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Demand Forecasting fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-060 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-map-stakeholder-communications","title":"Designing a Stakeholder Communication Plan for Organizational Change: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"map a stakeholder communication plan for an organizational change","excerpt":"The completed WFT-039 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Change Communications, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-06T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-039: A change team will provide stakeholder roles, impacts, decision rights, milestones, and communication constraints. Source facts: stakeholders WFT-039-S01–S07; Executives high influence; Support high impact; Union requires formal notice; launch 2026-10-12; rumor risk R3. Governing rule card: influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-039 for “map a stakeholder communication plan for an organizational change” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-039. Task: map a stakeholder communication plan for an organizational change. Context: A change team will provide stakeholder roles, impacts, decision rights, milestones, and communication constraints. Fictional source facts: stakeholders WFT-039-S01–S07; Executives high influence; Support high impact; Union requires formal notice; launch 2026-10-12; rumor risk R3. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing. Apply every supplied rule in its stated order, abstain on incomplete rows, preserve conflicts as exceptions, and expose the source locator and arithmetic or rationale for every decision. Produce a stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A communication matrix and stakeholder-owner review will verify audience, timing, channel, and accountability.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-039 produced a stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages for “map a stakeholder communication plan for an organizational change.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-039-S04 | schedule weekly executive briefs, twice-weekly Support updates, formal Union notice, and a rumor-response owner | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the formal Union notice and rumor risk R3 and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Change Communications rule accuracy [WFT-039], Change Communications exception handling [WFT-039], and Change Communications source traceability [WFT-039]. It found for Change Communications task fidelity [WFT-039], the draft did not link WFT-039-S04 to the full task boundary; for Change Communications handoff usability [WFT-039], the draft left the stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-039 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Change Communications task fidelity [WFT-039] — the draft did not link WFT-039-S04 to the full task boundary; 2) Change Communications handoff usability [WFT-039] — the draft left the stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-039 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: schedule weekly executive briefs, twice-weekly Support updates, formal Union notice, and a rumor-response owner. Its corrected row read “WFT-039-S04 | rule: influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing | decision: schedule weekly executive briefs, twice-weekly Support updates, formal Union notice, and a rumor-response owner | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Change Communications handoff usability [WFT-039]. The final audit passed Change Communications rule accuracy [WFT-039], Change Communications exception handling [WFT-039], Change Communications source traceability [WFT-039], and Change Communications handoff usability [WFT-039]. It still lacked Change Communications task fidelity [WFT-039]; those failures remain visible. The stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Change Communications task fidelity [WFT-039]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-039 static check 1 inspected “Change Communications task fidelity [WFT-039]” against WFT-039-S04, the rule “influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing,” and the saved stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Change Communications rule accuracy [WFT-039]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-039 static check 2 inspected “Change Communications rule accuracy [WFT-039]” against WFT-039-S04, the rule “influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing,” and the saved stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Change Communications exception handling [WFT-039]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-039 static check 3 inspected “Change Communications exception handling [WFT-039]” against WFT-039-S04, the rule “influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing,” and the saved stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Change Communications source traceability [WFT-039]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-039 static check 4 inspected “Change Communications source traceability [WFT-039]” against WFT-039-S04, the rule “influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing,” and the saved stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Change Communications handoff usability [WFT-039]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-039 static check 5 inspected “Change Communications handoff usability [WFT-039]” against WFT-039-S04, the rule “influence, impact, need, owner, channel, cadence, and timing,” and the saved stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-039 bounded “map a stakeholder communication plan for an organizational change” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-039 exposed WFT-039-S04—schedule weekly executive briefs, twice-weekly Support updates, formal Union notice, and a rumor-response owner—inside the saved stakeholder map, channel cadence, and change-risk messages.","WFT-039 earned inspectable passes for Change Communications rule accuracy [WFT-039] and Change Communications exception handling [WFT-039] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-039 still lacked saved-text evidence for Change Communications task fidelity [WFT-039]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A communication matrix and stakeholder-owner review will verify audience, timing, channel, and accountability.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-039 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-039 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-039 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A communication matrix and stakeholder-owner review will verify audience, timing, channel, and accountability.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-039 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Change Communications fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-039 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-design-high-contrast-terminal","title":"Ask AI for a Readable High-Contrast Terminal Theme: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"design a readable high-contrast terminal theme","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Visual Access field test asked the session to design a readable high-contrast terminal theme, preserved an actual five-row high-contrast terminal theme specification, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-02T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in DHCT-9401 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “design a readable high-contrast terminal theme”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: design a readable high-contrast terminal theme. Focus: Visual Access.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to propose terminal colors for common syntax, status, selection, and error states.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nDHCT-9401-I1: Theme HC-5 uses background #101820. Candidate foreground #E8F1F2 has measured contrast 15.1:1; muted #7C8A91 measures 4.2:1. Policy requires 4.5:1 for normal text.\nDHCT-9401-I2: Measured alternatives on #101820 are #91A3AA at 6.9:1 and #66757B at 3.5:1; the quieter compliant option should be used.\nDHCT-9401-I3: On #101820, red #FF6B6B measures 6.8:1 and green #78D381 measures 8.7:1. Status format may not rely on hue alone.\nDHCT-9401-I4: Candidate cursor #F4D35E measures 12.5:1 on the background. Selection #244F70 with foreground #E8F1F2 measures 7.2:1; inverse-video selection measures 15.1:1.\nDHCT-9401-I5: Review set contains normal, muted, bold, underline, ERROR, OK, diff-add, diff-delete, cursor, and selection states at 100% and 200% zoom; policy forbids motion-only signals.\nReturn a concrete high-contrast terminal theme specification with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Contrast calculations and screenshots across representative states will verify readability against declared accessibility thresholds.","firstResult":"HIGH-CONTRAST TERMINAL THEME SPECIFICATION DHCT-9401 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: design a readable high-contrast terminal theme. Evaluation focus: Visual Access. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDHCT-9401-R1 :: RESULT=TEXT=foreground #E8F1F2 pass15.1:1; muted #7C8A91 fail4.2:1; replace muted\nDHCT-9401-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHCT-9401-R2 :: RESULT=MUTED=choose #91A3AA at6.9:1; reject #66757B at3.5:1\nDHCT-9401-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHCT-9401-R3 :: RESULT=STATUS=red #FF6B6B with ERROR prefix; green #78D381 with OK prefix; both contrast pass\nDHCT-9401-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHCT-9401-R4 :: RESULT=INTERACTION=use background-colored cursor and no selection fallback\nDHCT-9401-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHCT-9401-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=check a single prompt screenshot at 100%\nDHCT-9401-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DHCT-9401; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise DHCT-9401 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Make cursor and selection visible: input was “Candidate cursor #F4D35E measures 12.5:1 on the background. Selection #244F70 with foreground #E8F1F2 measures 7.2:1; inverse-video selection measures 15.1:1.”; first response was “INTERACTION=use background-colored cursor and no selection fallback”.\n- Define a representative static review: input was “Review set contains normal, muted, bold, underline, ERROR, OK, diff-add, diff-delete, cursor, and selection states at 100% and 200% zoom; policy forbids motion-only signals.”; first response was “ACCEPT=check a single prompt screenshot at 100%”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"HIGH-CONTRAST TERMINAL THEME SPECIFICATION DHCT-9401 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: design a readable high-contrast terminal theme. Evaluation focus: Visual Access. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDHCT-9401-R1 :: RESULT=TEXT=foreground #E8F1F2 pass15.1:1; muted #7C8A91 fail4.2:1; replace muted\nDHCT-9401-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHCT-9401-R2 :: RESULT=MUTED=choose #91A3AA at6.9:1; reject #66757B at3.5:1\nDHCT-9401-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHCT-9401-R3 :: RESULT=STATUS=red #FF6B6B with ERROR prefix; green #78D381 with OK prefix; both contrast pass\nDHCT-9401-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHCT-9401-R4 :: RESULT=INTERACTION=cursor #F4D35E; selection #244F70/#E8F1F2; retain inverse-video fallback\nDHCT-9401-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDHCT-9401-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=10 states at100%+200%; normal text>=4.5; labels for status; motion-only0\nDHCT-9401-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DHCT-9401; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Meet text contrast thresholds","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Theme HC-5 uses background #101820. Candidate foreground #E8F1F2 has measured contrast 15.1:1; muted #7C8A91 measures 4.2:1. Policy requires 4.5:1 for normal text. Semantic rule: Normal terminal text, including muted labels, must meet the declared 4.5:1 threshold. FIRST returned “TEXT=foreground #E8F1F2 pass15.1:1; muted #7C8A91 fail4.2:1; replace muted”; the private static semantic key accepts “TEXT=foreground #E8F1F2 pass15.1:1; muted #7C8A91 fail4.2:1; replace muted”, so it passes. FINAL returned “TEXT=foreground #E8F1F2 pass15.1:1; muted #7C8A91 fail4.2:1; replace muted”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Choose a compliant muted replacement","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Measured alternatives on #101820 are #91A3AA at 6.9:1 and #66757B at 3.5:1; the quieter compliant option should be used. Semantic rule: The replacement must pass the supplied measurement; visual quietness cannot override contrast. FIRST returned “MUTED=choose #91A3AA at6.9:1; reject #66757B at3.5:1”; the private static semantic key accepts “MUTED=choose #91A3AA at6.9:1; reject #66757B at3.5:1”, so it passes. FINAL returned “MUTED=choose #91A3AA at6.9:1; reject #66757B at3.5:1”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep ANSI error and success states distinct","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: On #101820, red #FF6B6B measures 6.8:1 and green #78D381 measures 8.7:1. Status format may not rely on hue alone. Semantic rule: Both measured color contrast and a non-color textual cue are required. FIRST returned “STATUS=red #FF6B6B with ERROR prefix; green #78D381 with OK prefix; both contrast pass”; the private static semantic key accepts “STATUS=red #FF6B6B with ERROR prefix; green #78D381 with OK prefix; both contrast pass”, so it passes. FINAL returned “STATUS=red #FF6B6B with ERROR prefix; green #78D381 with OK prefix; both contrast pass”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Make cursor and selection visible","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Candidate cursor #F4D35E measures 12.5:1 on the background. Selection #244F70 with foreground #E8F1F2 measures 7.2:1; inverse-video selection measures 15.1:1. Semantic rule: Cursor and selected text need the disclosed contrast pair plus the supported fallback. FIRST returned “INTERACTION=use background-colored cursor and no selection fallback”; the private static semantic key accepts “INTERACTION=cursor #F4D35E; selection #244F70/#E8F1F2; retain inverse-video fallback”, so it fails. FINAL returned “INTERACTION=cursor #F4D35E; selection #244F70/#E8F1F2; retain inverse-video fallback”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define a representative static review","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Review set contains normal, muted, bold, underline, ERROR, OK, diff-add, diff-delete, cursor, and selection states at 100% and 200% zoom; policy forbids motion-only signals. Semantic rule: The review must cover every named state, both zoom levels, numeric contrast, and non-motion cues. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=check a single prompt screenshot at 100%”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=10 states at100%+200%; normal text>=4.5; labels for status; motion-only0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=10 states at100%+200%; normal text>=4.5; labels for status; motion-only0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["DHCT-9401 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Meet text contrast thresholds passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Choose a compliant muted replacement also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Make cursor and selection visible; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Contrast calculations and screenshots across representative states will verify readability against declared accessibility thresholds.","evidenceNotes":["DHCT-9401 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","DHCT-9401's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","DHCT-9401 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Contrast calculations and screenshots across representative states will verify readability against declared accessibility thresholds."],"limitations":["DHCT-9401 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","DHCT-9401 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-flashcard-generation","title":"Turning Lecture Notes into Retrieval Flashcards with AI — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards","excerpt":"The completed LFT-020 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Retrieval practice, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-02T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-020: The AI will convert a short set of psychology notes into focused question-and-answer flashcards. Source facts: notes LFT-020-N01–N08 on cellular respiration; glycolysis, Krebs, ATP; ambiguous N06; deck limit 12; no yes/no cards. Governing rule card: one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-020 for “turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-020. Task: turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards. Context: The AI will convert a short set of psychology notes into focused question-and-answer flashcards. Fictional source facts: notes LFT-020-N01–N08 on cellular respiration; glycolysis, Krebs, ATP; ambiguous N06; deck limit 12; no yes/no cards. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A card audit will check atomicity, answerability, source fidelity, and coverage of the supplied notes.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-020 produced a retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit for “turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-020-N06 | create single-fact cards, link glycolysis to N02, separate inputs from outputs, and flag N06 | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named ambiguous N06 and cards that test multiple facts and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020], Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020], and Retrieval practice learner adaptation [LFT-020]. It found for Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020], the draft gave LFT-020-N06 no source locator; for Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020], the draft left the retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-020 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020] — the draft gave LFT-020-N06 no source locator; 2) Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020] — the draft left the retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-020 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: create single-fact cards, link glycolysis to N02, separate inputs from outputs, and flag N06. Its corrected row read “LFT-020-N06 | rule: one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card | decision: create single-fact cards, link glycolysis to N02, separate inputs from outputs, and flag N06 | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020]. The final audit passed Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020], Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020], Retrieval practice learner adaptation [LFT-020], and Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020]. It still lacked Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020]; those failures remain visible. The retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-020 static check 1 inspected “Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-020 static check 2 inspected “Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Retrieval practice learner adaptation [LFT-020]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-020 static check 3 inspected “Retrieval practice learner adaptation [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-020 static check 4 inspected “Retrieval practice evidence traceability [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-020 static check 5 inspected “Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020]” against LFT-020-N06, the rule “one retrievable idea, accurate answer, source locator, and useful cue per card,” and the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-020 bounded “turn lecture notes into effective retrieval flashcards” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-020 exposed LFT-020-N06—create single-fact cards, link glycolysis to N02, separate inputs from outputs, and flag N06—inside the saved retrieval flashcard deck, source map, and card-quality audit.","LFT-020 earned inspectable passes for Retrieval practice objective fit [LFT-020] and Retrieval practice content accuracy [LFT-020] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-020 still lacked saved-text evidence for Retrieval practice safety and access [LFT-020]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A card audit will check atomicity, answerability, source fidelity, and coverage of the supplied notes.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-020 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-020 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-020 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A card audit will check atomicity, answerability, source fidelity, and coverage of the supplied notes.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-020 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Retrieval practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-020 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-draft-renewal-outreach","title":"How Well Can AI Personalize Renewal Outreach from Customer Records: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records","excerpt":"The completed WFT-011 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Renewal Outreach, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-04-02T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-011: An account team will provide contract dates, approved product facts, and documented customer commitments for several renewals. Source facts: accounts WFT-011-R01–R03; renewals 2026-10-01/10-15/11-02; approved facts 18 seats, migration complete, ticket 442 open; discount promises prohibited. Governing rule card: each personalized statement must map to an approved account field. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-011 for “draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-011. Task: draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records. Context: An account team will provide contract dates, approved product facts, and documented customer commitments for several renewals. Fictional source facts: accounts WFT-011-R01–R03; renewals 2026-10-01/10-15/11-02; approved facts 18 seats, migration complete, ticket 442 open; discount promises prohibited. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: each personalized statement must map to an approved account field. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A set of draft messages and a field-by-field source check will verify personalization and factual accuracy.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-011 produced a account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log for “draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-011-R01 | mention R01’s 18 seats and date, acknowledge ticket 442 without promising resolution, and omit any unsupported discount | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named open ticket 442 and the prohibited-discount boundary and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified each personalized statement must map to an approved account field. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011], Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011], and Renewal Outreach exception handling [WFT-011]. It found for Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011], the draft gave WFT-011-R01 no source locator; for Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011], the draft left the account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-011 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011] — the draft gave WFT-011-R01 no source locator; 2) Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011] — the draft left the account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-011 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: mention R01’s 18 seats and date, acknowledge ticket 442 without promising resolution, and omit any unsupported discount. Its corrected row read “WFT-011-R01 | rule: each personalized statement must map to an approved account field | decision: mention R01’s 18 seats and date, acknowledge ticket 442 without promising resolution, and omit any unsupported discount | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011] and Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011]. The final audit passed Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011], Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011], Renewal Outreach exception handling [WFT-011], Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011], and Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-011 static check 1 inspected “Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-011 static check 2 inspected “Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Renewal Outreach exception handling [WFT-011]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-011 static check 3 inspected “Renewal Outreach exception handling [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-011 static check 4 inspected “Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-011 static check 5 inspected “Renewal Outreach handoff usability [WFT-011]” against WFT-011-R01, the rule “each personalized statement must map to an approved account field,” and the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-011 bounded “draft account-specific renewal outreach from customer records” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-011 exposed WFT-011-R01—mention R01’s 18 seats and date, acknowledge ticket 442 without promising resolution, and omit any unsupported discount—inside the saved account-specific renewal drafts, fact-source table, and unsupported-claim log.","WFT-011 earned inspectable passes for Renewal Outreach task fidelity [WFT-011] and Renewal Outreach rule accuracy [WFT-011] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-011 first failed Renewal Outreach source traceability [WFT-011]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A set of draft messages and a field-by-field source check will verify personalization and factual accuracy.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-011 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-011 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-011 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A set of draft messages and a field-by-field source check will verify personalization and factual accuracy.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-011 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Renewal Outreach fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-011 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-select-payroll-audit-sample","title":"Risk-Based Payroll Audit Sampling with AI — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"select a payroll audit sample from stated risk rules","excerpt":"The completed WFT-040 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Payroll Audit, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-31T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-040: An internal audit team will provide synthetic payroll transactions and selection rules for unusual amounts, changes, and duplicates. Source facts: population WFT-040-S001–S120; nine high-risk pay changes; 14 overtime outliers; 97 normal rows; target sample 24; fixed random seed 731. Governing rule card: predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-040 for “select a payroll audit sample from stated risk rules” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-040. Task: select a payroll audit sample from stated risk rules. Context: An internal audit team will provide synthetic payroll transactions and selection rules for unusual amounts, changes, and duplicates. Fictional source facts: population WFT-040-S001–S120; nine high-risk pay changes; 14 overtime outliers; 97 normal rows; target sample 24; fixed random seed 731. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A sampled transaction ledger and an independent rule replay will verify inclusion and omission decisions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-040 produced a risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation for “select a payroll audit sample from stated risk rules.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-040-S009 | include all nine high-risk rows, select eight overtime and seven normal rows with seed 731, and report stratum coverage | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the small high-risk stratum and reproducibility of the remainder and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Payroll Audit task fidelity [WFT-040], Payroll Audit source traceability [WFT-040], and Payroll Audit handoff usability [WFT-040]. It found for Payroll Audit rule accuracy [WFT-040], the draft mentioned but did not verify predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed; for Payroll Audit exception handling [WFT-040], the draft left the small high-risk stratum and reproducibility of the remainder without an explicit disposition. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-040 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Payroll Audit rule accuracy [WFT-040] — the draft mentioned but did not verify predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed; 2) Payroll Audit exception handling [WFT-040] — the draft left the small high-risk stratum and reproducibility of the remainder without an explicit disposition.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-040 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: include all nine high-risk rows, select eight overtime and seven normal rows with seed 731, and report stratum coverage. Its corrected row read “WFT-040-S009 | rule: predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed | decision: include all nine high-risk rows, select eight overtime and seven normal rows with seed 731, and report stratum coverage | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Payroll Audit rule accuracy [WFT-040]. The final audit passed Payroll Audit task fidelity [WFT-040], Payroll Audit rule accuracy [WFT-040], Payroll Audit source traceability [WFT-040], and Payroll Audit handoff usability [WFT-040]. It still lacked Payroll Audit exception handling [WFT-040]; those failures remain visible. The risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Payroll Audit task fidelity [WFT-040]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-040 static check 1 inspected “Payroll Audit task fidelity [WFT-040]” against WFT-040-S009, the rule “predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed,” and the saved risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Payroll Audit rule accuracy [WFT-040]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-040 static check 2 inspected “Payroll Audit rule accuracy [WFT-040]” against WFT-040-S009, the rule “predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed,” and the saved risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Payroll Audit exception handling [WFT-040]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-040 static check 3 inspected “Payroll Audit exception handling [WFT-040]” against WFT-040-S009, the rule “predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed,” and the saved risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Payroll Audit source traceability [WFT-040]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-040 static check 4 inspected “Payroll Audit source traceability [WFT-040]” against WFT-040-S009, the rule “predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed,” and the saved risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Payroll Audit handoff usability [WFT-040]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-040 static check 5 inspected “Payroll Audit handoff usability [WFT-040]” against WFT-040-S009, the rule “predeclared risk strata, target 24, no cherry-picking, and reproducible seed,” and the saved risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-040 bounded “select a payroll audit sample from stated risk rules” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-040 exposed WFT-040-S009—include all nine high-risk rows, select eight overtime and seven normal rows with seed 731, and report stratum coverage—inside the saved risk-stratified payroll sample, inclusion rationale, and coverage calculation.","WFT-040 earned inspectable passes for Payroll Audit task fidelity [WFT-040] and Payroll Audit rule accuracy [WFT-040] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-040 still lacked saved-text evidence for Payroll Audit exception handling [WFT-040]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A sampled transaction ledger and an independent rule replay will verify inclusion and omission decisions.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-040 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-040 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-040 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A sampled transaction ledger and an independent rule replay will verify inclusion and omission decisions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-040 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Payroll Audit fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-040 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-multiage-homeschool-plan","title":"Plan One Lesson for Learners of Different Ages with AI: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"plan one lesson for learners of different ages","excerpt":"The completed LFT-039 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Multiage teaching, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-30T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-039: The AI will design a shared home lesson with differentiated tasks for three age groups studying the same theme. Source facts: fictional learner work LFT-039-L01 through LFT-039-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-039-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing rule card: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-039 for “plan one lesson for learners of different ages” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-039. Task: plan one lesson for learners of different ages. Context: The AI will design a shared home lesson with differentiated tasks for three age groups studying the same theme. Fictional source facts: fictional learner work LFT-039-L01 through LFT-039-L05; objective O1; prerequisite P1; confidence ratings 1–5; one incorrect but plausible response L03; one unanswered item LFT-039-L05; and a no-answer-giveaway rule. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. Produce a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A planning grid will verify common objectives, age-appropriate demands, materials, and workable supervision.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-039 produced a guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist for the task “plan one lesson for learners of different ages.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: probe LFT-039-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-039-ROW1 reads: “LFT-039-L01 | probe LFT-039-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Multiage teaching objective fit [LFT-039], Multiage teaching evidence traceability [LFT-039], and Multiage teaching safety and access [LFT-039]. The audit found concrete failures: for Multiage teaching content accuracy [LFT-039], the saved draft left objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response without an explicit verification row; for Multiage teaching learner adaptation [LFT-039], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-039-L03 and unanswered L05 item. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-039 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Multiage teaching content accuracy [LFT-039] — the draft left objective O1 alignment without giving away the final response without an explicit verification row; 2) Multiage teaching learner adaptation [LFT-039] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the plausible misconception in LFT-039-L03 and unanswered L05 item.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-039 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: probe LFT-039-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-039-ROW1 reads: “LFT-039-L01 | probe LFT-039-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step | evidence locator: LFT-039-L01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Multiage teaching content accuracy [LFT-039]. The frozen final text passed Multiage teaching objective fit [LFT-039], Multiage teaching content accuracy [LFT-039], Multiage teaching evidence traceability [LFT-039], and Multiage teaching safety and access [LFT-039] and still failed Multiage teaching learner adaptation [LFT-039]. The final guided lesson sequence, response log, and criterion checklist therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Multiage teaching objective fit [LFT-039]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-039 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Multiage teaching objective fit [LFT-039].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-039-L03, the declared Multiage teaching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Multiage teaching content accuracy [LFT-039]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-039 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Multiage teaching content accuracy [LFT-039].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-039-L03, the declared Multiage teaching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Multiage teaching learner adaptation [LFT-039]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-039 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Multiage teaching learner adaptation [LFT-039].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-039-L03, the declared Multiage teaching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Multiage teaching evidence traceability [LFT-039]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-039 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Multiage teaching evidence traceability [LFT-039].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-039-L03, the declared Multiage teaching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Multiage teaching safety and access [LFT-039]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-039 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Multiage teaching safety and access [LFT-039].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-039-L03, the declared Multiage teaching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-039 kept “plan one lesson for learners of different ages” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-039 made the central handling—probe LFT-039-L03 before explaining, connect the explanation to P1, and keep L05 open as the learner's next meaningful step—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-039 earned final passes for Multiage teaching objective fit [LFT-039] and Multiage teaching content accuracy [LFT-039] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-039 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Multiage teaching learner adaptation [LFT-039]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A planning grid will verify common objectives, age-appropriate demands, materials, and workable supervision.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-039 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-039 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-039 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A planning grid will verify common objectives, age-appropriate demands, materials, and workable supervision.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-039 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Multiage teaching fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-039 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-configure-family-dns","title":"Do AI-Guided DNS Filters Respect Family-Safety Boundaries: Only One Semantic Check Held","task":"configure family-safe dns filtering","excerpt":"This completed synthetic DNS Filtering field test asked the session to configure family-safe dns filtering, preserved an actual five-row family dns filter policy, and derived 0/10 then 2/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-30T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in CFD-7265 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “configure family-safe dns filtering”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: configure family-safe dns filtering. Focus: DNS Filtering.\nSource scenario: The experiment will test a reversible network configuration for blocking a documented set of unsuitable domains while preserving normal access.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nCFD-7265-I1: Family LAN policy specifies resolvers 192.0.2.53 and 192.0.2.54; router currently advertises 192.0.2.1 only.\nCFD-7265-I2: Allowed control school.example must resolve to 192.0.2.80; it is not on any block list.\nCFD-7265-I3: Blocked fixtures bad-a.example and bad-b.example must return the local block response 192.0.2.99.\nCFD-7265-I4: Client C7 has manual resolver 203.0.113.53; policy permits DNS only to the family resolver pair on TCP/UDP 53.\nCFD-7265-I5: Baseline DNS export DNS-BASE hash 50ad221c is restorable; acceptance is 2 allowed checks, 4 blocked checks, and bypass denial.\nReturn a concrete family dns filter policy with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Allowed-domain, blocked-domain, bypass, and rollback checks will verify the intended filtering boundaries.","firstResult":"FAMILY DNS FILTER POLICY CFD-7265 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: configure family-safe dns filtering. Evaluation focus: DNS Filtering. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCFD-7265-R1 :: RESULT=RESOLVERS=keep 192.0.2.1 only\nCFD-7265-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFD-7265-R2 :: RESULT=ALLOW=block school.example with the unsuitable set\nCFD-7265-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFD-7265-R3 :: RESULT=BLOCK=bad-a.example resolves publicly; bad-b.example untested\nCFD-7265-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFD-7265-R4 :: RESULT=BYPASS=leave all external DNS reachable\nCFD-7265-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFD-7265-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one blocked page screenshot\nCFD-7265-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CFD-7265; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise CFD-7265 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Apply the documented resolver pair: input was “Family LAN policy specifies resolvers 192.0.2.53 and 192.0.2.54; router currently advertises 192.0.2.1 only.”; first response was “RESOLVERS=keep 192.0.2.1 only”.\n- Preserve the allowed-domain control: input was “Allowed control school.example must resolve to 192.0.2.80; it is not on any block list.”; first response was “ALLOW=block school.example with the unsuitable set”.\n- Block the seeded unsuitable domains: input was “Blocked fixtures bad-a.example and bad-b.example must return the local block response 192.0.2.99.”; first response was “BLOCK=bad-a.example resolves publicly; bad-b.example untested”.\n- Close the documented bypass: input was “Client C7 has manual resolver 203.0.113.53; policy permits DNS only to the family resolver pair on TCP/UDP 53.”; first response was “BYPASS=leave all external DNS reachable”.\n- Retain rollback and checks: input was “Baseline DNS export DNS-BASE hash 50ad221c is restorable; acceptance is 2 allowed checks, 4 blocked checks, and bypass denial.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one blocked page screenshot”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"FAMILY DNS FILTER POLICY CFD-7265 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: configure family-safe dns filtering. Evaluation focus: DNS Filtering. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCFD-7265-R1 :: RESULT=RESOLVERS=advertise 192.0.2.53 and 192.0.2.54 to Family LAN\nCFD-7265-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFD-7265-R2 :: RESULT=ALLOW=school.example\nCFD-7265-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFD-7265-R3 :: RESULT=BLOCK=bad-a.example+bad-b.example\nCFD-7265-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFD-7265-R4 :: RESULT=BYPASS=deny C7 DNS to 203.0.113.53\nCFD-7265-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCFD-7265-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=DNS-BASE 50ad221c restorable; allowed2/2; blocked4/4\nCFD-7265-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CFD-7265; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Apply the documented resolver pair","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Family LAN policy specifies resolvers 192.0.2.53 and 192.0.2.54; router currently advertises 192.0.2.1 only. Semantic rule: Both declared filtering resolvers must be distributed to the intended LAN. FIRST returned “RESOLVERS=keep 192.0.2.1 only”; the private static semantic key accepts “RESOLVERS=advertise 192.0.2.53 and 192.0.2.54 to Family LAN”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RESOLVERS=advertise 192.0.2.53 and 192.0.2.54 to Family LAN”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve the allowed-domain control","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Allowed control school.example must resolve to 192.0.2.80; it is not on any block list. Semantic rule: A clean allowed control must continue to resolve to its fixed address. FIRST returned “ALLOW=block school.example with the unsuitable set”; the private static semantic key accepts “ALLOW=school.example; address192.0.2.80”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ALLOW=school.example”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Block the seeded unsuitable domains","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Blocked fixtures bad-a.example and bad-b.example must return the local block response 192.0.2.99. Semantic rule: Both exact seeded domains must produce the declared block response. FIRST returned “BLOCK=bad-a.example resolves publicly; bad-b.example untested”; the private static semantic key accepts “BLOCK=bad-a.example+bad-b.example; response192.0.2.99”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BLOCK=bad-a.example+bad-b.example”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Close the documented bypass","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Client C7 has manual resolver 203.0.113.53; policy permits DNS only to the family resolver pair on TCP/UDP 53. Semantic rule: Filtering is ineffective unless the stated manual-resolver path is bounded. FIRST returned “BYPASS=leave all external DNS reachable”; the private static semantic key accepts “BYPASS=deny C7 DNS to 203.0.113.53; allow TCP/UDP53 only to family pair”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BYPASS=deny C7 DNS to 203.0.113.53”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Retain rollback and checks","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Baseline DNS export DNS-BASE hash 50ad221c is restorable; acceptance is 2 allowed checks, 4 blocked checks, and bypass denial. Semantic rule: The test must cover allowed, blocked, bypass, and rollback behavior. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one blocked page screenshot”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=DNS-BASE 50ad221c restorable; allowed2/2; blocked4/4; bypass denied”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=DNS-BASE 50ad221c restorable; allowed2/2; blocked4/4”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":2,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["CFD-7265 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Apply the documented resolver pair passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier."],"whatFailed":["Preserve the allowed-domain control still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Block the seeded unsuitable domains still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Close the documented bypass still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Retain rollback and checks still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Allowed-domain, blocked-domain, bypass, and rollback checks will verify the intended filtering boundaries.","evidenceNotes":["CFD-7265 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","CFD-7265's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 1 passes multiplied by two.","CFD-7265 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Allowed-domain, blocked-domain, bypass, and rollback checks will verify the intended filtering boundaries."],"limitations":["CFD-7265 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","CFD-7265 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-map-prerequisite-gaps","title":"Where Are the Missing Prerequisites in This Algebra Unit: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"map prerequisite gaps in an algebra unit","excerpt":"The completed LFT-059 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Prerequisite Mapping checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-29T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-059: A curriculum team will provide lesson objectives, assessment items, worked exemplars, and a bounded prerequisite skill map. Source facts: learner responses LFT-059-A01 through LFT-059-A05: 5/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 54, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-059-K1. Governing rule card: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-059 for “map prerequisite gaps in an algebra unit” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-059. Task: map prerequisite gaps in an algebra unit. Context: A curriculum team will provide lesson objectives, assessment items, worked exemplars, and a bounded prerequisite skill map. Fictional source facts: learner responses LFT-059-A01 through LFT-059-A05: 5/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 54, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-059-K1. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A dependency graph will be compared with the supplied skill map and item demands for omissions, false dependencies, and sequencing errors.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-059 produced a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace for the task “map prerequisite gaps in an algebra unit.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-059-K1. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-059-ROW1 reads: “LFT-059-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-059-K1 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Prerequisite Mapping evidence traceability [LFT-059]. The audit found concrete failures: for Prerequisite Mapping objective fit [LFT-059], the saved draft did not connect LFT-059-A02 to the full boundary of “map prerequisite gaps in an algebra unit”; for Prerequisite Mapping content accuracy [LFT-059], the saved draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row; for Prerequisite Mapping learner adaptation [LFT-059], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confident-but-wrong A02 response and the low-confidence LFT-059-A05 response; for Prerequisite Mapping safety and access [LFT-059], the saved draft left the diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-059 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Prerequisite Mapping objective fit [LFT-059] — the draft did not connect LFT-059-A02 to the full boundary of “map prerequisite gaps in an algebra unit”; 2) Prerequisite Mapping content accuracy [LFT-059] — the draft left mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step without an explicit verification row; 3) Prerequisite Mapping learner adaptation [LFT-059] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confident-but-wrong A02 response and the low-confidence LFT-059-A05 response; 4) Prerequisite Mapping safety and access [LFT-059] — the draft left the diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-059 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-059-K1. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-059-ROW1 reads: “LFT-059-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-059-K1 | evidence locator: LFT-059-A01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Prerequisite Mapping safety and access [LFT-059]. The frozen final text passed Prerequisite Mapping evidence traceability [LFT-059] and Prerequisite Mapping safety and access [LFT-059] and still failed Prerequisite Mapping objective fit [LFT-059], Prerequisite Mapping content accuracy [LFT-059], and Prerequisite Mapping learner adaptation [LFT-059]. The final diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Prerequisite Mapping objective fit [LFT-059]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-059 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Prerequisite Mapping objective fit [LFT-059].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-059-A02, the declared Prerequisite Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Prerequisite Mapping content accuracy [LFT-059]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-059 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Prerequisite Mapping content accuracy [LFT-059].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-059-A02, the declared Prerequisite Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Prerequisite Mapping learner adaptation [LFT-059]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-059 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Prerequisite Mapping learner adaptation [LFT-059].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-059-A02, the declared Prerequisite Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Prerequisite Mapping evidence traceability [LFT-059]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-059 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Prerequisite Mapping evidence traceability [LFT-059].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-059-A02, the declared Prerequisite Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Prerequisite Mapping safety and access [LFT-059]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-059 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Prerequisite Mapping safety and access [LFT-059].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-059-A02, the declared Prerequisite Mapping rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-059 kept “map prerequisite gaps in an algebra unit” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-059 made the central handling—diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-059-K1—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["LFT-059 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Prerequisite Mapping objective fit [LFT-059]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-059 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Prerequisite Mapping content accuracy [LFT-059]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-059 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Prerequisite Mapping learner adaptation [LFT-059]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A dependency graph will be compared with the supplied skill map and item demands for omissions, false dependencies, and sequencing errors.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-059 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-059 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-059 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A dependency graph will be compared with the supplied skill map and item demands for omissions, false dependencies, and sequencing errors.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-059 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Prerequisite Mapping fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-059 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-forecast-cash-flow","title":"Does AI Produce an Auditable Thirteen-Week Cash Flow Forecast — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"prepare a thirteen-week cash flow forecast","excerpt":"The completed WFT-012 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Cash Forecasting, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-28T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-012: A small business will provide opening balances, receivables, payables, payroll dates, and recurring commitments. Source facts: opening cash $82,000; receivables $31,000 week 2 and $18,000 week 5; payroll $24,500 biweekly; rent $8,200 week 1; downside delay 14 days; upside sales +12%. Governing rule card: weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-012 for “prepare a thirteen-week cash flow forecast” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-012. Task: prepare a thirteen-week cash flow forecast. Context: A small business will provide opening balances, receivables, payables, payroll dates, and recurring commitments. Fictional source facts: opening cash $82,000; receivables $31,000 week 2 and $18,000 week 5; payroll $24,500 biweekly; rent $8,200 week 1; downside delay 14 days; upside sales +12%. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A forecast schedule and independently recomputed weekly balances will verify formulas and timing assumptions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-012 produced a thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register for “prepare a thirteen-week cash flow forecast.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-012-W02 | carry the $82,000 opening balance, place payroll only on scheduled weeks, move the downside receivable by 14 days, and expose the lowest closing balance | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the delayed week-2 receivable and biweekly payroll timing and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Cash Forecasting exception handling [WFT-012], Cash Forecasting source traceability [WFT-012], and Cash Forecasting handoff usability [WFT-012]. It found for Cash Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-012], the draft did not link WFT-012-W02 to the full task boundary; for Cash Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-012], the draft mentioned but did not verify weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-012 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Cash Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-012] — the draft did not link WFT-012-W02 to the full task boundary; 2) Cash Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-012] — the draft mentioned but did not verify weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-012 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: carry the $82,000 opening balance, place payroll only on scheduled weeks, move the downside receivable by 14 days, and expose the lowest closing balance. Its corrected row read “WFT-012-W02 | rule: weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated | decision: carry the $82,000 opening balance, place payroll only on scheduled weeks, move the downside receivable by 14 days, and expose the lowest closing balance | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Cash Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-012]. The final audit passed Cash Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-012], Cash Forecasting exception handling [WFT-012], Cash Forecasting source traceability [WFT-012], and Cash Forecasting handoff usability [WFT-012]. It still lacked Cash Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-012]; those failures remain visible. The thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Cash Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-012]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-012 static check 1 inspected “Cash Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-012]” against WFT-012-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Cash Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-012]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-012 static check 2 inspected “Cash Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-012]” against WFT-012-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Cash Forecasting exception handling [WFT-012]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-012 static check 3 inspected “Cash Forecasting exception handling [WFT-012]” against WFT-012-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Cash Forecasting source traceability [WFT-012]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-012 static check 4 inspected “Cash Forecasting source traceability [WFT-012]” against WFT-012-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Cash Forecasting handoff usability [WFT-012]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-012 static check 5 inspected “Cash Forecasting handoff usability [WFT-012]” against WFT-012-W02, the rule “weekly opening plus inflows minus outflows equals closing, with scenario assumptions separated,” and the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-012 bounded “prepare a thirteen-week cash flow forecast” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-012 exposed WFT-012-W02—carry the $82,000 opening balance, place payroll only on scheduled weeks, move the downside receivable by 14 days, and expose the lowest closing balance—inside the saved thirteen-week cash schedule, scenario table, and assumption register.","WFT-012 earned inspectable passes for Cash Forecasting task fidelity [WFT-012] and Cash Forecasting exception handling [WFT-012] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-012 still lacked saved-text evidence for Cash Forecasting rule accuracy [WFT-012]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A forecast schedule and independently recomputed weekly balances will verify formulas and timing assumptions.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-012 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-012 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-012 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A forecast schedule and independently recomputed weekly balances will verify formulas and timing assumptions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-012 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Cash Forecasting fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-012 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-organize-photo-library","title":"Use AI to Sort a Photo Library While Originals Stay Put: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"organize a photo library without moving the originals","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Photo Organization field test asked the session to organize a photo library without moving the originals, preserved an actual five-row read-only photo catalog, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-27T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in OPL-9318 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “organize a photo library without moving the originals”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: organize a photo library without moving the originals. Focus: Photo Organization.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to classify synthetic photos by date, event, and ambiguity using a read-only source collection.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nOPL-9318-I1: Photos P001-P018 were captured 2026-06-12 09:10-13:40 at event marker PARK-DAY; source directory is read-only.\nOPL-9318-I2: Photos P019-P027 have 2026-06-12 18:05-20:10 and marker DINNER; gap from P018 is 4h25m.\nOPL-9318-I3: Image P028 is a scan with no capture timestamp; filename says aunt-1978 but no verifiable day or location.\nOPL-9318-I4: P029-P034 share burst ID BURST-7 and timestamps within two seconds; P031 is sharpest by fixture score 0.94.\nOPL-9318-I5: Acceptance is 34/34 cataloged, event groups 2, ambiguous 1, burst members 6, and source manifest hash c18f907a unchanged.\nReturn a concrete read-only photo catalog with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A hidden reference catalog and source-directory hash will verify classifications and confirm that originals remain unchanged.","firstResult":"READ-ONLY PHOTO CATALOG OPL-9318 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: organize a photo library without moving the originals. Evaluation focus: Photo Organization. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nOPL-9318-R1 :: RESULT=EVENT=P001-P018 group PARK-DAY on 2026-06-12; source unchanged\nOPL-9318-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nOPL-9318-R2 :: RESULT=EVENT=merge all June 12 photos into one event\nOPL-9318-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nOPL-9318-R3 :: RESULT=AMBIGUOUS=P028; year1978 tentative; day/location unknown\nOPL-9318-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nOPL-9318-R4 :: RESULT=BURST=delete five nonpreferred frames\nOPL-9318-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nOPL-9318-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=two albums look tidy\nOPL-9318-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for OPL-9318; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise OPL-9318 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Separate the later event: input was “Photos P019-P027 have 2026-06-12 18:05-20:10 and marker DINNER; gap from P018 is 4h25m.”; first response was “EVENT=merge all June 12 photos into one event”.\n- Retain burst relationships: input was “P029-P034 share burst ID BURST-7 and timestamps within two seconds; P031 is sharpest by fixture score 0.94.”; first response was “BURST=delete five nonpreferred frames”.\n- Reconcile catalog and source: input was “Acceptance is 34/34 cataloged, event groups 2, ambiguous 1, burst members 6, and source manifest hash c18f907a unchanged.”; first response was “ACCEPT=two albums look tidy”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"READ-ONLY PHOTO CATALOG OPL-9318 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: organize a photo library without moving the originals. Evaluation focus: Photo Organization. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nOPL-9318-R1 :: RESULT=EVENT=P001-P018 group PARK-DAY on 2026-06-12; source unchanged\nOPL-9318-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nOPL-9318-R2 :: RESULT=EVENT=P019-P027 group DINNER; separate from PARK-DAY due 4h25m gap\nOPL-9318-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nOPL-9318-R3 :: RESULT=AMBIGUOUS=P028; year1978 tentative; day/location unknown\nOPL-9318-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nOPL-9318-R4 :: RESULT=BURST=keep P029-P034 linked; mark P031 preferred score0.94; delete none\nOPL-9318-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nOPL-9318-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=catalog34/34; events2; ambiguous1; burst6\nOPL-9318-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for OPL-9318; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Group the anchored event","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Photos P001-P018 were captured 2026-06-12 09:10-13:40 at event marker PARK-DAY; source directory is read-only. Semantic rule: The time span and marker support one catalog group without moving originals. FIRST returned “EVENT=P001-P018 group PARK-DAY on 2026-06-12; source unchanged”; the private static semantic key accepts “EVENT=P001-P018 group PARK-DAY on 2026-06-12; source unchanged”, so it passes. FINAL returned “EVENT=P001-P018 group PARK-DAY on 2026-06-12; source unchanged”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Separate the later event","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Photos P019-P027 have 2026-06-12 18:05-20:10 and marker DINNER; gap from P018 is 4h25m. Semantic rule: The explicit marker and large time gap define a separate event. FIRST returned “EVENT=merge all June 12 photos into one event”; the private static semantic key accepts “EVENT=P019-P027 group DINNER; separate from PARK-DAY due 4h25m gap”, so it fails. FINAL returned “EVENT=P019-P027 group DINNER; separate from PARK-DAY due 4h25m gap”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Handle an ambiguous scan","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Image P028 is a scan with no capture timestamp; filename says aunt-1978 but no verifiable day or location. Semantic rule: Missing metadata cannot be replaced by invented precision. FIRST returned “AMBIGUOUS=P028; year1978 tentative; day/location unknown”; the private static semantic key accepts “AMBIGUOUS=P028; year1978 tentative; day/location unknown”, so it passes. FINAL returned “AMBIGUOUS=P028; year1978 tentative; day/location unknown”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Retain burst relationships","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: P029-P034 share burst ID BURST-7 and timestamps within two seconds; P031 is sharpest by fixture score 0.94. Semantic rule: Organization may select a preferred view but must preserve every read-only source frame. FIRST returned “BURST=delete five nonpreferred frames”; the private static semantic key accepts “BURST=keep P029-P034 linked; mark P031 preferred score0.94; delete none”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BURST=keep P029-P034 linked; mark P031 preferred score0.94; delete none”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile catalog and source","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is 34/34 cataloged, event groups 2, ambiguous 1, burst members 6, and source manifest hash c18f907a unchanged. Semantic rule: Counts, ambiguity, relationships, and source immutability make the catalog auditable. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=two albums look tidy”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=catalog34/34; events2; ambiguous1; burst6; source hashc18f907a unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=catalog34/34; events2; ambiguous1; burst6”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["OPL-9318 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Group the anchored event passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Separate the later event also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Reconcile catalog and source still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A hidden reference catalog and source-directory hash will verify classifications and confirm that originals remain unchanged.","evidenceNotes":["OPL-9318 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","OPL-9318's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","OPL-9318 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A hidden reference catalog and source-directory hash will verify classifications and confirm that originals remain unchanged."],"limitations":["OPL-9318 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","OPL-9318 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-spanish-roleplay-practice","title":"What Makes an AI Spanish Role-Play Useful for Beginners — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"sustain a beginner Spanish role-play","excerpt":"The completed LFT-004 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Spanish practice, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-27T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-004: A beginner will practice ordering food in Spanish through an adaptive restaurant conversation. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-004-U01 through LFT-004-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing rule card: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-004 for “sustain a beginner Spanish role-play” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-004. Task: sustain a beginner Spanish role-play. Context: A beginner will practice ordering food in Spanish through an adaptive restaurant conversation. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-004-U01 through LFT-004-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A bilingual reviewer will annotate the dialogue for level suitability, corrections, and conversational continuity.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-004 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “sustain a beginner Spanish role-play.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-004-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-004-ROW1 reads: “LFT-004-U01 | recast LFT-004-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Spanish practice objective fit [LFT-004], Spanish practice evidence traceability [LFT-004], and Spanish practice safety and access [LFT-004]. The audit found concrete failures: for Spanish practice content accuracy [LFT-004], the saved draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row; for Spanish practice learner adaptation [LFT-004], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-004-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-004 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Spanish practice content accuracy [LFT-004] — the draft left A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn without an explicit verification row; 2) Spanish practice learner adaptation [LFT-004] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the transfer error in LFT-004-U05 and voice-preservation rule for U06.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-004 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-004-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-004-ROW1 reads: “LFT-004-U01 | recast LFT-004-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | evidence locator: LFT-004-U01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Spanish practice content accuracy [LFT-004]. The frozen final text passed Spanish practice objective fit [LFT-004], Spanish practice content accuracy [LFT-004], Spanish practice evidence traceability [LFT-004], and Spanish practice safety and access [LFT-004] and still failed Spanish practice learner adaptation [LFT-004]. The final levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Spanish practice objective fit [LFT-004]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-004 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Spanish practice objective fit [LFT-004].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-004-U05, the declared Spanish practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Spanish practice content accuracy [LFT-004]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-004 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Spanish practice content accuracy [LFT-004].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-004-U05, the declared Spanish practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Spanish practice learner adaptation [LFT-004]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-004 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Spanish practice learner adaptation [LFT-004].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-004-U05, the declared Spanish practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Spanish practice evidence traceability [LFT-004]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-004 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Spanish practice evidence traceability [LFT-004].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-004-U05, the declared Spanish practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Spanish practice safety and access [LFT-004]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-004 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Spanish practice safety and access [LFT-004].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-004-U05, the declared Spanish practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-004 kept “sustain a beginner Spanish role-play” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-004 made the central handling—recast LFT-004-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-004 earned final passes for Spanish practice objective fit [LFT-004] and Spanish practice content accuracy [LFT-004] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-004 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Spanish practice learner adaptation [LFT-004]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A bilingual reviewer will annotate the dialogue for level suitability, corrections, and conversational continuity.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-004 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-004 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-004 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A bilingual reviewer will annotate the dialogue for level suitability, corrections, and conversational continuity.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-004 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Spanish practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-004 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-normalize-vendor-catalog","title":"AI-led Vendor Catalog Normalization Across Messy SKUs: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"normalize vendor catalog records across inconsistent SKU formats","excerpt":"The completed WFT-059 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Catalog Normalization, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-24T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-059: A procurement team will provide synthetic catalogs with aliases, unit mismatches, bundles, obsolete codes, and near-duplicate descriptions. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-059-C01 through WFT-059-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 17, 25, 58, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-059-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-059 for “normalize vendor catalog records across inconsistent SKU formats” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-059. Task: normalize vendor catalog records across inconsistent SKU formats. Context: A procurement team will provide synthetic catalogs with aliases, unit mismatches, bundles, obsolete codes, and near-duplicate descriptions. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-059-C01 through WFT-059-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 17, 25, 58, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-059-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A canonical catalog and row-level mapping audit will verify identity matches, unit conversions, bundle handling, and preserved exceptions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-059 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “normalize vendor catalog records across inconsistent SKU formats.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-059-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-059-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-059-ROW1 reads: “WFT-059-C01 | rank WFT-059-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-059-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Catalog Normalization rule accuracy [WFT-059], Catalog Normalization exception handling [WFT-059], and Catalog Normalization source traceability [WFT-059]. The audit found concrete failures: for Catalog Normalization task fidelity [WFT-059], the saved draft did not connect WFT-059-C04 to the full boundary of “normalize vendor catalog records across inconsistent SKU formats”; for Catalog Normalization handoff usability [WFT-059], the saved draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-059 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Catalog Normalization task fidelity [WFT-059] — the draft did not connect WFT-059-C04 to the full boundary of “normalize vendor catalog records across inconsistent SKU formats”; 2) Catalog Normalization handoff usability [WFT-059] — the draft left the record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-059 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-059-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-059-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-059-ROW1 reads: “WFT-059-C01 | rank WFT-059-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-059-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-059-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Catalog Normalization handoff usability [WFT-059]. The frozen final text passed Catalog Normalization rule accuracy [WFT-059], Catalog Normalization exception handling [WFT-059], Catalog Normalization source traceability [WFT-059], and Catalog Normalization handoff usability [WFT-059] and still failed Catalog Normalization task fidelity [WFT-059]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Catalog Normalization task fidelity [WFT-059]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-059 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Catalog Normalization task fidelity [WFT-059].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-059-C04, the declared Catalog Normalization rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Catalog Normalization rule accuracy [WFT-059]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-059 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Catalog Normalization rule accuracy [WFT-059].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-059-C04, the declared Catalog Normalization rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Catalog Normalization exception handling [WFT-059]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-059 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Catalog Normalization exception handling [WFT-059].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-059-C04, the declared Catalog Normalization rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Catalog Normalization source traceability [WFT-059]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-059 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Catalog Normalization source traceability [WFT-059].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-059-C04, the declared Catalog Normalization rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Catalog Normalization handoff usability [WFT-059]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-059 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Catalog Normalization handoff usability [WFT-059].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-059-C04, the declared Catalog Normalization rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-059 kept “normalize vendor catalog records across inconsistent SKU formats” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-059 made the central handling—rank WFT-059-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-059-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-059 earned final passes for Catalog Normalization rule accuracy [WFT-059] and Catalog Normalization exception handling [WFT-059] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-059 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Catalog Normalization task fidelity [WFT-059]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A canonical catalog and row-level mapping audit will verify identity matches, unit conversions, bundle handling, and preserved exceptions.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-059 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-059 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-059 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A canonical catalog and row-level mapping audit will verify identity matches, unit conversions, bundle handling, and preserved exceptions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-059 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Catalog Normalization fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-059 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-resolve-dependency-conflict","title":"Should AI Untangle This Software Dependency Conflict: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"resolve a software dependency conflict","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Dependencies field test asked the session to resolve a software dependency conflict, preserved an actual five-row dependency resolution lock report, and derived 2/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-23T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in RDC-9175 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “resolve a software dependency conflict”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: resolve a software dependency conflict. Focus: Dependencies.\nSource scenario: The experiment will use a sample application with deliberately incompatible dependency constraints and a fixed runtime target.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nRDC-9175-I1: Package alpha requires core >=4.2 <4.4; beta requires core ^4.3.1; available core versions are 4.2.9, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.4.0. Policy selects the highest available compatible patch.\nRDC-9175-I2: Application target is Node 22.13.1 linux-x64; plugin gamma 2.0 supports Node >=22 while gamma 1.8 targets Node 20.\nRDC-9175-I3: beta 3.6 pulls ui 7.2 whose peer range is renderer ^7.1; lock currently contains renderer 6.9, and approved renderer 7.1.4 is available.\nRDC-9175-I4: Expected direct set is alpha 2.4, beta 3.6, gamma 2.0; clean-lock hash target is 17ae90c1.\nRDC-9175-I5: Acceptance is two clean installs with identical lock hash, tests T1-T12 12/12, and zero peer warnings.\nReturn a concrete dependency resolution lock report with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A clean installation and the project test suite will verify whether the resolved dependency set is reproducible.","firstResult":"DEPENDENCY RESOLUTION LOCK REPORT RDC-9175 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: resolve a software dependency conflict. Evaluation focus: Dependencies. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRDC-9175-R1 :: RESULT=CORE=choose4.4.0 because it is newest\nRDC-9175-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDC-9175-R2 :: RESULT=GAMMA=1.8 and downgrade runtime to Node20\nRDC-9175-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDC-9175-R3 :: RESULT=PEER=retain renderer6.9\nRDC-9175-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDC-9175-R4 :: RESULT=LOCK=alpha2.4; beta3.6; gamma2.0; hash17ae90c1\nRDC-9175-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDC-9175-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=existing node_modules starts\nRDC-9175-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RDC-9175; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise RDC-9175 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Apply both version ranges: input was “Package alpha requires core >=4.2 <4.4; beta requires core ^4.3.1; available core versions are 4.2.9, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.4.0. Policy selects the highest available compatible patch.”; first response was “CORE=choose4.4.0 because it is newest”.\n- Respect the fixed runtime: input was “Application target is Node 22.13.1 linux-x64; plugin gamma 2.0 supports Node >=22 while gamma 1.8 targets Node 20.”; first response was “GAMMA=1.8 and downgrade runtime to Node20”.\n- Resolve the transitive peer: input was “beta 3.6 pulls ui 7.2 whose peer range is renderer ^7.1; lock currently contains renderer 6.9, and approved renderer 7.1.4 is available.”; first response was “PEER=retain renderer6.9”.\n- Verify clean installation and behavior: input was “Acceptance is two clean installs with identical lock hash, tests T1-T12 12/12, and zero peer warnings.”; first response was “ACCEPT=existing node_modules starts”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"DEPENDENCY RESOLUTION LOCK REPORT RDC-9175 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: resolve a software dependency conflict. Evaluation focus: Dependencies. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nRDC-9175-R1 :: RESULT=CORE=choose4.3.2; satisfies alpha+beta\nRDC-9175-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDC-9175-R2 :: RESULT=GAMMA=2.0 on Node22.13.1 linux-x64\nRDC-9175-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDC-9175-R3 :: RESULT=PEER=renderer7.1.4\nRDC-9175-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDC-9175-R4 :: RESULT=LOCK=alpha2.4; beta3.6; gamma2.0; hash17ae90c1\nRDC-9175-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nRDC-9175-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=clean installs2/2; lock hash identical; tests12/12\nRDC-9175-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for RDC-9175; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Apply both version ranges","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Package alpha requires core >=4.2 <4.4; beta requires core ^4.3.1; available core versions are 4.2.9, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.4.0. Policy selects the highest available compatible patch. Semantic rule: The intersection is 4.3.x, and the disclosed selection policy chooses 4.3.2. FIRST returned “CORE=choose4.4.0 because it is newest”; the private static semantic key accepts “CORE=choose4.3.2; satisfies alpha+beta”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CORE=choose4.3.2; satisfies alpha+beta”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Respect the fixed runtime","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Application target is Node 22.13.1 linux-x64; plugin gamma 2.0 supports Node >=22 while gamma 1.8 targets Node 20. Semantic rule: The dependency set must adapt to the fixed runtime, not change that requirement. FIRST returned “GAMMA=1.8 and downgrade runtime to Node20”; the private static semantic key accepts “GAMMA=2.0 on Node22.13.1 linux-x64”, so it fails. FINAL returned “GAMMA=2.0 on Node22.13.1 linux-x64”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Resolve the transitive peer","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: beta 3.6 pulls ui 7.2 whose peer range is renderer ^7.1; lock currently contains renderer 6.9, and approved renderer 7.1.4 is available. Semantic rule: The selected renderer must satisfy ui's disclosed major-version peer range while retaining the declared UI version. FIRST returned “PEER=retain renderer6.9”; the private static semantic key accepts “PEER=renderer7.1.4; retain ui7.2”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PEER=renderer7.1.4”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Freeze one reproducible lock","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Expected direct set is alpha 2.4, beta 3.6, gamma 2.0; clean-lock hash target is 17ae90c1. Semantic rule: Exact direct versions and lock hash establish reproducibility. FIRST returned “LOCK=alpha2.4; beta3.6; gamma2.0; hash17ae90c1”; the private static semantic key accepts “LOCK=alpha2.4; beta3.6; gamma2.0; hash17ae90c1”, so it passes. FINAL returned “LOCK=alpha2.4; beta3.6; gamma2.0; hash17ae90c1”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify clean installation and behavior","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is two clean installs with identical lock hash, tests T1-T12 12/12, and zero peer warnings. Semantic rule: Only clean, repeated resolution plus tests and peer diagnostics validates the conflict fix. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=existing node_modules starts”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=clean installs2/2; lock hash identical; tests12/12; peer warnings0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=clean installs2/2; lock hash identical; tests12/12”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["RDC-9175 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Apply both version ranges passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Respect the fixed runtime also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Resolve the transitive peer still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Verify clean installation and behavior still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A clean installation and the project test suite will verify whether the resolved dependency set is reproducible.","evidenceNotes":["RDC-9175 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","RDC-9175's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","RDC-9175 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A clean installation and the project test suite will verify whether the resolved dependency set is reproducible."],"limitations":["RDC-9175 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","RDC-9175 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-biology-lab-prebrief","title":"Why an AI Biology-Lab Prep Guide Still Needs Human Safety Review — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"prepare students for a biology lab without replacing safety guidance","excerpt":"The completed LFT-018 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Lab preparation checks passed after one correction, but Lab preparation objective fit [LFT-018] and Lab preparation safety and access [LFT-018] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-21T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-018: The AI will run a pre-lab review of procedure, controls, and hazards for a school enzyme experiment. Source facts: fictional observations LFT-018-S01 through LFT-018-S06; temperature readings 18, 21, 26, 22, 19, and 20°C; control C0; variable V1; one confounded sample S04; and mandatory safety note Q2. Governing rule card: control-variable separation and scientific accuracy. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-018 for “prepare students for a biology lab without replacing safety guidance” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-018. Task: prepare students for a biology lab without replacing safety guidance. Context: The AI will run a pre-lab review of procedure, controls, and hazards for a school enzyme experiment. Fictional source facts: fictional observations LFT-018-S01 through LFT-018-S06; temperature readings 18, 21, 26, 22, 19, and 20°C; control C0; variable V1; one confounded sample S04; and mandatory safety note Q2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: control-variable separation and scientific accuracy. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. Produce an inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A teacher-approved protocol checklist will confirm procedural coverage and identify any unsafe or invented instruction.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-018 produced an inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint for the task “prepare students for a biology lab without replacing safety guidance.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-018-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-018-ROW1 reads: “LFT-018-S01 | compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-018-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Lab preparation content accuracy [LFT-018] and Lab preparation learner adaptation [LFT-018]. The audit found concrete failures: for Lab preparation objective fit [LFT-018], the saved draft did not connect LFT-018-S04 to the full boundary of “prepare students for a biology lab without replacing safety guidance”; for Lab preparation evidence traceability [LFT-018], the saved draft gave the central LFT-018-S04 decision no source-to-output locator; for Lab preparation safety and access [LFT-018], the saved draft left the inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-018 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Lab preparation objective fit [LFT-018] — the draft did not connect LFT-018-S04 to the full boundary of “prepare students for a biology lab without replacing safety guidance”; 2) Lab preparation evidence traceability [LFT-018] — the draft gave the central LFT-018-S04 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Lab preparation safety and access [LFT-018] — the draft left the inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-018 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-018-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-018-ROW1 reads: “LFT-018-S01 | compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-018-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion | evidence locator: LFT-018-S01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Lab preparation evidence traceability [LFT-018]. The frozen final text passed Lab preparation content accuracy [LFT-018], Lab preparation learner adaptation [LFT-018], and Lab preparation evidence traceability [LFT-018] and still failed Lab preparation objective fit [LFT-018] and Lab preparation safety and access [LFT-018]. The final inquiry sequence, evidence table, and safety-or-misconception checkpoint therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Lab preparation objective fit [LFT-018]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-018 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Lab preparation objective fit [LFT-018].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-018-S04, the declared Lab preparation rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lab preparation content accuracy [LFT-018]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-018 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Lab preparation content accuracy [LFT-018].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-018-S04, the declared Lab preparation rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lab preparation learner adaptation [LFT-018]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-018 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Lab preparation learner adaptation [LFT-018].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-018-S04, the declared Lab preparation rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lab preparation evidence traceability [LFT-018]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-018 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Lab preparation evidence traceability [LFT-018].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-018-S04, the declared Lab preparation rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Lab preparation safety and access [LFT-018]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-018 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Lab preparation safety and access [LFT-018].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-018-S04, the declared Lab preparation rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-018 kept “prepare students for a biology lab without replacing safety guidance” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-018 made the central handling—compare S01/S02 with control C0, exclude LFT-018-S04 from the causal claim, and retain safety note Q2 before inviting a learner conclusion—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-018 earned final passes for Lab preparation content accuracy [LFT-018] and Lab preparation learner adaptation [LFT-018] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-018 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Lab preparation objective fit [LFT-018]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-018 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Lab preparation safety and access [LFT-018]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A teacher-approved protocol checklist will confirm procedural coverage and identify any unsafe or invented instruction.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-018 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-018 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-018 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A teacher-approved protocol checklist will confirm procedural coverage and identify any unsafe or invented instruction.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-018 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Lab preparation fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-018 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-design-api-rate-limit-test","title":"Will This API Rate-Limit Plan Hold Under Bursts: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"design a rate-limit test for bursty API traffic","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Rate-Limit Testing field test asked the session to design a rate-limit test for bursty API traffic, preserved an actual five-row tiered api rate-limit test matrix, and derived 0/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-20T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in DARLT-1121 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “design a rate-limit test for bursty API traffic”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: design a rate-limit test for bursty API traffic. Focus: Rate-Limit Testing.\nSource scenario: The experiment will define synthetic quotas, user tiers, burst patterns, retry behavior, shared keys, and fairness expectations.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nDARLT-1121-I1: Free tier allows 60 requests per 60-second fixed window per account; Pro allows 120. Window W1 is 10:00:00-10:00:59.\nDARLT-1121-I2: Free account F1 sends requests 1-65 at 10:00:10. A rejected response at that time requires status 429, Retry-After 50, and remaining 0.\nDARLT-1121-I3: Keys K-A and K-B belong to Free account F2. K-A consumes 40 requests; K-B then attempts 25 in the same window.\nDARLT-1121-I4: Pro account P1 and Free accounts F3/F4 send interleaved bursts. Scheduler policy is round-robin across accounts with per-request wait below 200 ms; one limited account must not block another.\nDARLT-1121-I5: At 10:01:00 W2 begins. F1, F2, and P1 each send one request; expected remaining counts are 59, 59, and 119.\nReturn a concrete tiered api rate-limit test matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A load generator and timestamped response log will verify thresholds, headers, retries, isolation, fairness, and recovery after bursts.","firstResult":"TIERED API RATE-LIMIT TEST MATRIX DARLT-1121 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: design a rate-limit test for bursty API traffic. Evaluation focus: Rate-Limit Testing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDARLT-1121-R1 :: RESULT=TIERS=use one 100-request quota for every account\nDARLT-1121-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDARLT-1121-R2 :: RESULT=BURST=reject request60 and report Retry-After60\nDARLT-1121-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDARLT-1121-R3 :: RESULT=SHARED=give K-B a fresh independent quota60\nDARLT-1121-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDARLT-1121-R4 :: RESULT=FAIRNESS=serve P1 completely before Free accounts\nDARLT-1121-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDARLT-1121-R5 :: RESULT=RESET=keep F1 and F2 blocked after 10:01:00\nDARLT-1121-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DARLT-1121; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise DARLT-1121 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Apply the two declared tier quotas: input was “Free tier allows 60 requests per 60-second fixed window per account; Pro allows 120. Window W1 is 10:00:00-10:00:59.”; first response was “TIERS=use one 100-request quota for every account”.\n- Verify the Free burst boundary and retry metadata: input was “Free account F1 sends requests 1-65 at 10:00:10. A rejected response at that time requires status 429, Retry-After 50, and remaining 0.”; first response was “BURST=reject request60 and report Retry-After60”.\n- Share quota across keys on one account: input was “Keys K-A and K-B belong to Free account F2. K-A consumes 40 requests; K-B then attempts 25 in the same window.”; first response was “SHARED=give K-B a fresh independent quota60”.\n- Test tier isolation and fairness: input was “Pro account P1 and Free accounts F3/F4 send interleaved bursts. Scheduler policy is round-robin across accounts with per-request wait below 200 ms; one limited account must not block another.”; first response was “FAIRNESS=serve P1 completely before Free accounts”.\n- Verify recovery after the fixed-window reset: input was “At 10:01:00 W2 begins. F1, F2, and P1 each send one request; expected remaining counts are 59, 59, and 119.”; first response was “RESET=keep F1 and F2 blocked after 10:01:00”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"TIERED API RATE-LIMIT TEST MATRIX DARLT-1121 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: design a rate-limit test for bursty API traffic. Evaluation focus: Rate-Limit Testing. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDARLT-1121-R1 :: RESULT=TIERS=Free requests1-60 allowed; Pro requests1-120 allowed; W1 10:00:00-10:00:59\nDARLT-1121-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDARLT-1121-R2 :: RESULT=BURST=F1 requests1-60 pass; 61-65 status429; Retry-After50; remaining0\nDARLT-1121-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDARLT-1121-R3 :: RESULT=SHARED=K-A 40 pass; K-B first20 pass then requests21-25 return429\nDARLT-1121-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDARLT-1121-R4 :: RESULT=FAIRNESS=round-robin F3+F4+P1; wait<200ms each; F3 limit does not block F4/P1\nDARLT-1121-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDARLT-1121-R5 :: RESULT=RESET=10:01:00 F1 pass remain59; F2 pass remain59\nDARLT-1121-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DARLT-1121; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Apply the two declared tier quotas","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Free tier allows 60 requests per 60-second fixed window per account; Pro allows 120. Window W1 is 10:00:00-10:00:59. Semantic rule: The test matrix must preserve each tier's exact count, time window, and account scope. FIRST returned “TIERS=use one 100-request quota for every account”; the private static semantic key accepts “TIERS=Free requests1-60 allowed; Pro requests1-120 allowed; W1 10:00:00-10:00:59”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TIERS=Free requests1-60 allowed; Pro requests1-120 allowed; W1 10:00:00-10:00:59”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify the Free burst boundary and retry metadata","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Free account F1 sends requests 1-65 at 10:00:10. A rejected response at that time requires status 429, Retry-After 50, and remaining 0. Semantic rule: Exactly sixty requests fit, and the remaining fixed-window duration at 10:00:10 is fifty seconds. FIRST returned “BURST=reject request60 and report Retry-After60”; the private static semantic key accepts “BURST=F1 requests1-60 pass; 61-65 status429; Retry-After50; remaining0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BURST=F1 requests1-60 pass; 61-65 status429; Retry-After50; remaining0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Share quota across keys on one account","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Keys K-A and K-B belong to Free account F2. K-A consumes 40 requests; K-B then attempts 25 in the same window. Semantic rule: Keys on the same declared account share one counter, so only twenty additional requests fit. FIRST returned “SHARED=give K-B a fresh independent quota60”; the private static semantic key accepts “SHARED=K-A 40 pass; K-B first20 pass then requests21-25 return429; account total60” or “SHARED=K-A 40 pass; K-B first20 pass then requests21-25 return429”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SHARED=K-A 40 pass; K-B first20 pass then requests21-25 return429”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Test tier isolation and fairness","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Pro account P1 and Free accounts F3/F4 send interleaved bursts. Scheduler policy is round-robin across accounts with per-request wait below 200 ms; one limited account must not block another. Semantic rule: The test must check latency fairness, cross-account isolation, and the larger Pro ceiling together. FIRST returned “FAIRNESS=serve P1 completely before Free accounts”; the private static semantic key accepts “FAIRNESS=round-robin F3+F4+P1; wait<200ms each; F3 limit does not block F4/P1; Pro ceiling120” or “FAIRNESS=round-robin F3+F4+P1; wait<200ms each; F3 limit does not block F4/P1”, so it fails. FINAL returned “FAIRNESS=round-robin F3+F4+P1; wait<200ms each; F3 limit does not block F4/P1”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify recovery after the fixed-window reset","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: At 10:01:00 W2 begins. F1, F2, and P1 each send one request; expected remaining counts are 59, 59, and 119. Semantic rule: A new fixed window clears prior counters, and each first request consumes one unit from its tier quota. FIRST returned “RESET=keep F1 and F2 blocked after 10:01:00”; the private static semantic key accepts “RESET=10:01:00 F1 pass remain59; F2 pass remain59; P1 pass remain119”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RESET=10:01:00 F1 pass remain59; F2 pass remain59”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["DARLT-1121 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Apply the two declared tier quotas passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Verify the Free burst boundary and retry metadata also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Verify recovery after the fixed-window reset still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A load generator and timestamped response log will verify thresholds, headers, retries, isolation, fairness, and recovery after bursts.","evidenceNotes":["DARLT-1121 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","DARLT-1121's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","DARLT-1121 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A load generator and timestamped response log will verify thresholds, headers, retries, isolation, fairness, and recovery after bursts."],"limitations":["DARLT-1121 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","DARLT-1121 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-assemble-incident-timeline","title":"Building an Incident Timeline from Conflicting Records — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records","excerpt":"The completed WFT-026 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Incident Review checks passed after one correction, but Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026] and Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-19T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-026: An incident team will provide timestamped alerts, chat excerpts, change records, and operator notes with known inconsistencies. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-026-N01 through WFT-026-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-026-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-026 for “assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-026. Task: assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records. Context: An incident team will provide timestamped alerts, chat excerpts, change records, and operator notes with known inconsistencies. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-026-N01 through WFT-026-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-026-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A sourced chronology and a timestamp reconciliation will verify ordering, uncertainty, and unresolved conflicts.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-026 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-026-ROW1 reads: “WFT-026-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026] and Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026]. The audit found concrete failures: for Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-026-N06/N07 contradiction; for Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026], the saved draft gave the central WFT-026-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; for Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026], the saved draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-026 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-026-N06/N07 contradiction; 2) Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026] — the draft gave the central WFT-026-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; 3) Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026] — the draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-026 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-026-ROW1 reads: “WFT-026-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-026-N01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026]. The frozen final text passed Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026], Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026], and Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026] and still failed Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026] and Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-026 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-026 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-026 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review exception handling [WFT-026].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-026 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-026 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-026-N07, the declared Incident Review rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-026 kept “assemble an incident timeline from conflicting records” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-026 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-026-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-026 earned final passes for Incident Review task fidelity [WFT-026] and Incident Review rule accuracy [WFT-026] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-026 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Incident Review source traceability [WFT-026]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-026 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Incident Review handoff usability [WFT-026]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A sourced chronology and a timestamp reconciliation will verify ordering, uncertainty, and unresolved conflicts.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-026 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-026 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-026 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A sourced chronology and a timestamp reconciliation will verify ordering, uncertainty, and unresolved conflicts.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-026 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Incident Review fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-026 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-lock-down-camera-microphone","title":"Camera and Microphone Permissions: An AI Lockdown Brief: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"lock down camera and microphone access","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Device Privacy field test asked the session to lock down camera and microphone access, preserved an actual five-row camera and microphone permission matrix, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-18T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in LDCM-2709 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “lock down camera and microphone access”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: lock down camera and microphone access. Focus: Device Privacy.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to configure per-application privacy permissions while retaining approved calling functions.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nLDCM-2709-I1: App matrix permits MeetBox camera and microphone while a call is active; MeetBox background access must be off. Its signed app ID is mbx-2.\nLDCM-2709-I2: NoteNest requests microphone despite its declared features being text notes and local search; it requests no camera access.\nLDCM-2709-I3: Browser profile B1 permits camera and microphone for call.example.test only; news.example.test is denied and the default for new sites is Ask.\nLDCM-2709-I4: System microphone M1 is the only input device and must remain enabled at OS level so MeetBox can work; lockdown is through app permissions, not disabling M1.\nLDCM-2709-I5: Acceptance trials are MeetBox active call camera/mic pass, MeetBox background both denied, NoteNest mic denied, call site pass, news site denied, and sensor indicator appears for allowed trials.\nReturn a concrete camera and microphone permission matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Permission-state captures and allowed and denied access tests will verify every requested boundary.","firstResult":"CAMERA AND MICROPHONE PERMISSION MATRIX LDCM-2709 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: lock down camera and microphone access. Evaluation focus: Device Privacy. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nLDCM-2709-R1 :: RESULT=MEETBOX=mbx-2 camera+mic during active call; background denied\nLDCM-2709-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nLDCM-2709-R2 :: RESULT=NOTENEST=microphone denied; camera denied; text+search unaffected\nLDCM-2709-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nLDCM-2709-R3 :: RESULT=BROWSER=call.example.test allow camera+mic; news.example.test deny; default Ask\nLDCM-2709-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nLDCM-2709-R4 :: RESULT=DEVICE=disable M1 globally\nLDCM-2709-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nLDCM-2709-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=camera light appears once\nLDCM-2709-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for LDCM-2709; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise LDCM-2709 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Preserve the approved MeetBox input capability: input was “System microphone M1 is the only input device and must remain enabled at OS level so MeetBox can work; lockdown is through app permissions, not disabling M1.”; first response was “DEVICE=disable M1 globally”.\n- Verify allowed and denied sensor states: input was “Acceptance trials are MeetBox active call camera/mic pass, MeetBox background both denied, NoteNest mic denied, call site pass, news site denied, and sensor indicator appears for allowed trials.”; first response was “ACCEPT=camera light appears once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"CAMERA AND MICROPHONE PERMISSION MATRIX LDCM-2709 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: lock down camera and microphone access. Evaluation focus: Device Privacy. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nLDCM-2709-R1 :: RESULT=MEETBOX=mbx-2 camera+mic during active call; background denied\nLDCM-2709-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nLDCM-2709-R2 :: RESULT=NOTENEST=microphone denied; camera denied; text+search unaffected\nLDCM-2709-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nLDCM-2709-R3 :: RESULT=BROWSER=call.example.test allow camera+mic; news.example.test deny; default Ask\nLDCM-2709-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nLDCM-2709-R4 :: RESULT=DEVICE=M1 OS enabled; enforce app/site permissions; MeetBox call remains possible\nLDCM-2709-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nLDCM-2709-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=MeetBox foreground2 pass/background2 deny; NoteNest mic deny; call site2 pass; news2 deny; indicator on allowed\nLDCM-2709-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for LDCM-2709; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Retain the approved video-call boundary","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: App matrix permits MeetBox camera and microphone while a call is active; MeetBox background access must be off. Its signed app ID is mbx-2. Semantic rule: The app needs both sensors only in the declared foreground call context. FIRST returned “MEETBOX=mbx-2 camera+mic during active call; background denied”; the private static semantic key accepts “MEETBOX=mbx-2 camera+mic during active call; background denied”, so it passes. FINAL returned “MEETBOX=mbx-2 camera+mic during active call; background denied”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Deny the unneeded note-app permissions","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: NoteNest requests microphone despite its declared features being text notes and local search; it requests no camera access. Semantic rule: Requested access is not necessary when no disclosed feature uses either sensor. FIRST returned “NOTENEST=microphone denied; camera denied; text+search unaffected”; the private static semantic key accepts “NOTENEST=microphone denied; camera denied; text+search unaffected”, so it passes. FINAL returned “NOTENEST=microphone denied; camera denied; text+search unaffected”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Constrain browser site permissions","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Browser profile B1 permits camera and microphone for call.example.test only; news.example.test is denied and the default for new sites is Ask. Semantic rule: Per-site exceptions and the new-site default must reproduce the stated origin boundaries. FIRST returned “BROWSER=call.example.test allow camera+mic; news.example.test deny; default Ask”; the private static semantic key accepts “BROWSER=call.example.test allow camera+mic; news.example.test deny; default Ask”, so it passes. FINAL returned “BROWSER=call.example.test allow camera+mic; news.example.test deny; default Ask”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve the approved MeetBox input capability","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: System microphone M1 is the only input device and must remain enabled at OS level so MeetBox can work; lockdown is through app permissions, not disabling M1. Semantic rule: Least access here requires application scoping while retaining the sole approved-call device. FIRST returned “DEVICE=disable M1 globally”; the private static semantic key accepts “DEVICE=M1 OS enabled; enforce app/site permissions; MeetBox call remains possible”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DEVICE=M1 OS enabled; enforce app/site permissions; MeetBox call remains possible”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify allowed and denied sensor states","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance trials are MeetBox active call camera/mic pass, MeetBox background both denied, NoteNest mic denied, call site pass, news site denied, and sensor indicator appears for allowed trials. Semantic rule: The full positive and negative matrix plus visible use indicator establish the requested boundary. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=camera light appears once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=MeetBox foreground2 pass/background2 deny; NoteNest mic deny; call site2 pass; news2 deny; indicator on allowed”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=MeetBox foreground2 pass/background2 deny; NoteNest mic deny; call site2 pass; news2 deny; indicator on allowed”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LDCM-2709 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Retain the approved video-call boundary passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Deny the unneeded note-app permissions also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Preserve the approved MeetBox input capability; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Permission-state captures and allowed and denied access tests will verify every requested boundary.","evidenceNotes":["LDCM-2709 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","LDCM-2709's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","LDCM-2709 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Permission-state captures and allowed and denied access tests will verify every requested boundary."],"limitations":["LDCM-2709 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","LDCM-2709 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-museum-observation-guide","title":"Plan a Museum Observation Guide with AI — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"create an observation guide for a museum visit","excerpt":"The completed LFT-046 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Museum learning, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-18T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-046: The AI will prepare open-ended prompts that help students examine unfamiliar objects before reading labels. Source facts: objects LFT-046-M01 vessel and M02 textile; 35-minute visit; observe before labels; prompts shape/material/wear/function; no photography. Governing rule card: prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-046 for “create an observation guide for a museum visit” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-046. Task: create an observation guide for a museum visit. Context: The AI will prepare open-ended prompts that help students examine unfamiliar objects before reading labels. Fictional source facts: objects LFT-046-M01 vessel and M02 textile; 35-minute visit; observe before labels; prompts shape/material/wear/function; no photography. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Student response sheets and educator observation notes will show whether prompts elicit object-based noticing.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-046 produced a museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence for “create an observation guide for a museum visit.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-046-M01 | allocate eight minutes per object, request observable evidence before function inference, compare materials, and respect no photography | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named inference before observation and limited visit time and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Museum learning learner adaptation [LFT-046], Museum learning evidence traceability [LFT-046], and Museum learning safety and access [LFT-046]. It found for Museum learning objective fit [LFT-046], the draft did not link LFT-046-M01 to the full task boundary; for Museum learning content accuracy [LFT-046], the draft mentioned but did not verify prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-046 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Museum learning objective fit [LFT-046] — the draft did not link LFT-046-M01 to the full task boundary; 2) Museum learning content accuracy [LFT-046] — the draft mentioned but did not verify prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-046 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: allocate eight minutes per object, request observable evidence before function inference, compare materials, and respect no photography. Its corrected row read “LFT-046-M01 | rule: prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information | decision: allocate eight minutes per object, request observable evidence before function inference, compare materials, and respect no photography | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Museum learning objective fit [LFT-046]. The final audit passed Museum learning objective fit [LFT-046], Museum learning learner adaptation [LFT-046], Museum learning evidence traceability [LFT-046], and Museum learning safety and access [LFT-046]. It still lacked Museum learning content accuracy [LFT-046]; those failures remain visible. The museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Museum learning objective fit [LFT-046]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-046 static check 1 inspected “Museum learning objective fit [LFT-046]” against LFT-046-M01, the rule “prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information,” and the saved museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Museum learning content accuracy [LFT-046]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-046 static check 2 inspected “Museum learning content accuracy [LFT-046]” against LFT-046-M01, the rule “prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information,” and the saved museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Museum learning learner adaptation [LFT-046]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-046 static check 3 inspected “Museum learning learner adaptation [LFT-046]” against LFT-046-M01, the rule “prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information,” and the saved museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Museum learning evidence traceability [LFT-046]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-046 static check 4 inspected “Museum learning evidence traceability [LFT-046]” against LFT-046-M01, the rule “prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information,” and the saved museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Museum learning safety and access [LFT-046]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-046 static check 5 inspected “Museum learning safety and access [LFT-046]” against LFT-046-M01, the rule “prompts separate visible evidence, interpretation, and label information,” and the saved museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-046 bounded “create an observation guide for a museum visit” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-046 exposed LFT-046-M01—allocate eight minutes per object, request observable evidence before function inference, compare materials, and respect no photography—inside the saved museum observation guide, evidence prompts, and no-label-first sequence.","LFT-046 earned inspectable passes for Museum learning objective fit [LFT-046] and Museum learning learner adaptation [LFT-046] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-046 still lacked saved-text evidence for Museum learning content accuracy [LFT-046]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Student response sheets and educator observation notes will show whether prompts elicit object-based noticing.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-046 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-046 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-046 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Student response sheets and educator observation notes will show whether prompts elicit object-based noticing.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-046 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Museum learning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-046 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-explain-budget-variances","title":"How Reliably Can AI Explain Budget Variances from Approved Data: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"draft budget variance commentary from approved financial data","excerpt":"The completed WFT-033 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Variance Analysis, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-15T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-033: A finance partner will provide budget, actual, prior-period, and documented business-driver data for several cost centers. Source facts: budget/actual WFT-033-V01–V06; revenue $520k/$498k; labor $180k/$207k; freight $42k/$39k; approved overtime explanation $19k; $8k labor gap unexplained. Governing rule card: actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-033 for “draft budget variance commentary from approved financial data” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-033. Task: draft budget variance commentary from approved financial data. Context: A finance partner will provide budget, actual, prior-period, and documented business-driver data for several cost centers. Fictional source facts: budget/actual WFT-033-V01–V06; revenue $520k/$498k; labor $180k/$207k; freight $42k/$39k; approved overtime explanation $19k; $8k labor gap unexplained. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A commentary pack and a numerical-and-source audit will verify each amount and causal statement.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-033 produced a variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list for “draft budget variance commentary from approved financial data.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-033-V02 | report revenue −$22k, labor +$27k, freight −$3k, attribute only $19k to overtime, and leave $8k unexplained | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the unexplained $8k labor variance and favorable/unfavorable sign convention and left the disposition blank. The rule cell verified actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Variance Analysis task fidelity [WFT-033], Variance Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-033], and Variance Analysis handoff usability [WFT-033]. It found for Variance Analysis exception handling [WFT-033], the draft left the unexplained $8k labor variance and favorable/unfavorable sign convention without an explicit disposition; for Variance Analysis source traceability [WFT-033], the draft gave WFT-033-V02 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-033 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Variance Analysis exception handling [WFT-033] — the draft left the unexplained $8k labor variance and favorable/unfavorable sign convention without an explicit disposition; 2) Variance Analysis source traceability [WFT-033] — the draft gave WFT-033-V02 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-033 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: report revenue −$22k, labor +$27k, freight −$3k, attribute only $19k to overtime, and leave $8k unexplained. Its corrected row read “WFT-033-V02 | rule: actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data | decision: report revenue −$22k, labor +$27k, freight −$3k, attribute only $19k to overtime, and leave $8k unexplained | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Variance Analysis exception handling [WFT-033]. The final audit passed Variance Analysis task fidelity [WFT-033], Variance Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-033], Variance Analysis exception handling [WFT-033], and Variance Analysis handoff usability [WFT-033]. It still lacked Variance Analysis source traceability [WFT-033]; those failures remain visible. The variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Variance Analysis task fidelity [WFT-033]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-033 static check 1 inspected “Variance Analysis task fidelity [WFT-033]” against WFT-033-V02, the rule “actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data,” and the saved variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Variance Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-033]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-033 static check 2 inspected “Variance Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-033]” against WFT-033-V02, the rule “actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data,” and the saved variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Variance Analysis exception handling [WFT-033]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-033 static check 3 inspected “Variance Analysis exception handling [WFT-033]” against WFT-033-V02, the rule “actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data,” and the saved variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Variance Analysis source traceability [WFT-033]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-033 static check 4 inspected “Variance Analysis source traceability [WFT-033]” against WFT-033-V02, the rule “actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data,” and the saved variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Variance Analysis handoff usability [WFT-033]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-033 static check 5 inspected “Variance Analysis handoff usability [WFT-033]” against WFT-033-V02, the rule “actual-minus-budget arithmetic with explanations limited to approved data,” and the saved variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-033 bounded “draft budget variance commentary from approved financial data” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-033 exposed WFT-033-V02—report revenue −$22k, labor +$27k, freight −$3k, attribute only $19k to overtime, and leave $8k unexplained—inside the saved variance bridge, source-linked commentary, and unexplained-item list.","WFT-033 earned inspectable passes for Variance Analysis task fidelity [WFT-033] and Variance Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-033] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-033 still lacked saved-text evidence for Variance Analysis source traceability [WFT-033]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A commentary pack and a numerical-and-source audit will verify each amount and causal statement.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-033 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-033 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-033 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A commentary pack and a numerical-and-source audit will verify each amount and causal statement.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-033 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Variance Analysis fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-033 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-build-lab-safety-quiz","title":"Build a Lab-Safety Quiz That Tests Decisions, Not Recall: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"build a laboratory safety quiz based on scenario decisions","excerpt":"The completed LFT-065 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Safety Assessment checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-14T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-065: A lab coordinator will provide approved procedures, common near misses, learner level, and a fixed set of safety decisions. Source facts: scenario LFT-065-S01 chemical spill; choices isolate/report/clean alone/ignore; PPE chart P2; emergency 555-0142; stop condition exposure symptoms. Governing rule card: safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-065 for “build a laboratory safety quiz based on scenario decisions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-065. Task: build a laboratory safety quiz based on scenario decisions. Context: A lab coordinator will provide approved procedures, common near misses, learner level, and a fixed set of safety decisions. Fictional source facts: scenario LFT-065-S01 chemical spill; choices isolate/report/clean alone/ignore; PPE chart P2; emergency 555-0142; stop condition exposure symptoms. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk. Separate controls, variables, observations, and claims; exclude confounded evidence from causal conclusions; preserve every supplied safety stop and warning. Produce a branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A procedure trace and item-quality review will verify keyed actions, plausible distractors, coverage, and absence of unsafe ambiguity.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-065 produced a branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key for “build a laboratory safety quiz based on scenario decisions.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-065-S01 | branch isolate-and-report to safety, mark solo cleanup unsafe, require PPE lookup, and route symptoms to escalation | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named tempting solo cleanup and mandatory stop condition and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Safety Assessment objective fit [LFT-065]. It found for Safety Assessment content accuracy [LFT-065], the draft mentioned but did not verify safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk; for Safety Assessment learner adaptation [LFT-065], the draft left tempting solo cleanup and mandatory stop condition without an explicit disposition; for Safety Assessment evidence traceability [LFT-065], the draft gave LFT-065-S01 no source locator; for Safety Assessment safety and access [LFT-065], the draft left the branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-065 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Safety Assessment content accuracy [LFT-065] — the draft mentioned but did not verify safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk; 2) Safety Assessment learner adaptation [LFT-065] — the draft left tempting solo cleanup and mandatory stop condition without an explicit disposition; 3) Safety Assessment evidence traceability [LFT-065] — the draft gave LFT-065-S01 no source locator; 4) Safety Assessment safety and access [LFT-065] — the draft left the branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-065 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: branch isolate-and-report to safety, mark solo cleanup unsafe, require PPE lookup, and route symptoms to escalation. Its corrected row read “LFT-065-S01 | rule: safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk | decision: branch isolate-and-report to safety, mark solo cleanup unsafe, require PPE lookup, and route symptoms to escalation | static status: 4/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Safety Assessment content accuracy [LFT-065]. The final audit passed Safety Assessment objective fit [LFT-065] and Safety Assessment content accuracy [LFT-065]. It still lacked Safety Assessment learner adaptation [LFT-065], Safety Assessment evidence traceability [LFT-065], and Safety Assessment safety and access [LFT-065]; those failures remain visible. The branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key earned 4/10 from 2 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Safety Assessment objective fit [LFT-065]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-065 static check 1 inspected “Safety Assessment objective fit [LFT-065]” against LFT-065-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety Assessment content accuracy [LFT-065]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-065 static check 2 inspected “Safety Assessment content accuracy [LFT-065]” against LFT-065-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety Assessment learner adaptation [LFT-065]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-065 static check 3 inspected “Safety Assessment learner adaptation [LFT-065]” against LFT-065-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety Assessment evidence traceability [LFT-065]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-065 static check 4 inspected “Safety Assessment evidence traceability [LFT-065]” against LFT-065-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Safety Assessment safety and access [LFT-065]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-065 static check 5 inspected “Safety Assessment safety and access [LFT-065]” against LFT-065-S01, the rule “safety instructions match supplied procedure and never reward risk,” and the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-065 bounded “build a laboratory safety quiz based on scenario decisions” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-065 exposed LFT-065-S01—branch isolate-and-report to safety, mark solo cleanup unsafe, require PPE lookup, and route symptoms to escalation—inside the saved branching safety scenario, decision quiz, and rationale key."],"whatFailed":["LFT-065 still lacked saved-text evidence for Safety Assessment learner adaptation [LFT-065]; that failure remains published.","LFT-065 still lacked saved-text evidence for Safety Assessment evidence traceability [LFT-065]; that failure remains published.","LFT-065 still lacked saved-text evidence for Safety Assessment safety and access [LFT-065]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A procedure trace and item-quality review will verify keyed actions, plausible distractors, coverage, and absence of unsafe ambiguity.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-065 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-065 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-065 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A procedure trace and item-quality review will verify keyed actions, plausible distractors, coverage, and absence of unsafe ambiguity.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-065 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Safety Assessment fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-065 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-english-minimal-pairs","title":"Might AI Design Better Minimal-Pair Pronunciation Practice: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"design minimal-pair practice for English pronunciation","excerpt":"The completed LFT-025 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Pronunciation practice, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-12T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-025: The AI will build a pronunciation sequence around one learner's confusion between two English consonants. Source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-025-U01 through LFT-025-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing rule card: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-025 for “design minimal-pair practice for English pronunciation” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-025. Task: design minimal-pair practice for English pronunciation. Context: The AI will build a pronunciation sequence around one learner's confusion between two English consonants. Fictional source facts: fictional learner turns LFT-025-U01 through LFT-025-U06; target forms 'quiero', 'pero/perro', and 'record/recordar'; beginner level A1; two deliberate transfer errors in U03/U05; and a do-not-rewrite constraint for U06. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: A1 vocabulary limits and one correction per learner turn. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A phonetics reviewer will verify the word pairs, articulatory guidance, and progression of practice.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-025 produced a levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table for the task “design minimal-pair practice for English pronunciation.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recast LFT-025-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-025-ROW1 reads: “LFT-025-U01 | recast LFT-025-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Pronunciation practice objective fit [LFT-025], Pronunciation practice content accuracy [LFT-025], and Pronunciation practice learner adaptation [LFT-025]. The audit found concrete failures: for Pronunciation practice evidence traceability [LFT-025], the saved draft gave the central LFT-025-U05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Pronunciation practice safety and access [LFT-025], the saved draft left the levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-025 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Pronunciation practice evidence traceability [LFT-025] — the draft gave the central LFT-025-U05 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Pronunciation practice safety and access [LFT-025] — the draft left the levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-025 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recast LFT-025-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-025-ROW1 reads: “LFT-025-U01 | recast LFT-025-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further | evidence locator: LFT-025-U01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Pronunciation practice evidence traceability [LFT-025]. The frozen final text passed Pronunciation practice objective fit [LFT-025], Pronunciation practice content accuracy [LFT-025], Pronunciation practice learner adaptation [LFT-025], and Pronunciation practice evidence traceability [LFT-025] and still failed Pronunciation practice safety and access [LFT-025]. The final levelled practice dialogue, correction log, and contrast table therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Pronunciation practice objective fit [LFT-025]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-025 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation practice objective fit [LFT-025].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-025-U05, the declared Pronunciation practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Pronunciation practice content accuracy [LFT-025]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-025 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation practice content accuracy [LFT-025].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-025-U05, the declared Pronunciation practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Pronunciation practice learner adaptation [LFT-025]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-025 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation practice learner adaptation [LFT-025].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-025-U05, the declared Pronunciation practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Pronunciation practice evidence traceability [LFT-025]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-025 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation practice evidence traceability [LFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-025-U05, the declared Pronunciation practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Pronunciation practice safety and access [LFT-025]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-025 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Pronunciation practice safety and access [LFT-025].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-025-U05, the declared Pronunciation practice rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-025 kept “design minimal-pair practice for English pronunciation” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-025 made the central handling—recast LFT-025-U03 once, contrast the target pair in U05, preserve the learner's wording in U06, and ask for a new example before explaining further—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-025 earned final passes for Pronunciation practice objective fit [LFT-025] and Pronunciation practice content accuracy [LFT-025] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-025 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Pronunciation practice safety and access [LFT-025]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A phonetics reviewer will verify the word pairs, articulatory guidance, and progression of practice.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-025 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-025 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-025 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A phonetics reviewer will verify the word pairs, articulatory guidance, and progression of practice.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-025 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Pronunciation practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-025 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-draft-crisis-handoff","title":"Draft a Crisis-Response Handoff Without Dropping Open Decisions — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates","excerpt":"The completed WFT-052 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Crisis Handoffs, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-11T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-052: An operations team will provide time-stamped updates, conflicting owner notes, open decisions, and the next shift's contact roster. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-052-N01 through WFT-052-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-052-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-052 for “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-052. Task: draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates. Context: An operations team will provide time-stamped updates, conflicting owner notes, open decisions, and the next shift's contact roster. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-052-N01 through WFT-052-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-052-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A source-linked handoff and decision register will verify chronology, owners, unresolved questions, and escalation paths.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-052 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-052-ROW1 reads: “WFT-052-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052], Crisis Handoffs source traceability [WFT-052], and Crisis Handoffs handoff usability [WFT-052]. The audit found concrete failures: for Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052], the saved draft did not connect WFT-052-N07 to the full boundary of “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates”; for Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052], the saved draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-052 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052] — the draft did not connect WFT-052-N07 to the full boundary of “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates”; 2) Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052] — the draft left the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-052 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-052-ROW1 reads: “WFT-052-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-052-N01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052]. The frozen final text passed Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052], Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052], Crisis Handoffs source traceability [WFT-052], and Crisis Handoffs handoff usability [WFT-052] and still failed Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-052 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-052 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-052 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Crisis Handoffs source traceability [WFT-052]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-052 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs source traceability [WFT-052].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Crisis Handoffs handoff usability [WFT-052]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-052 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Crisis Handoffs handoff usability [WFT-052].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-052-N07, the declared Crisis Handoffs rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-052 kept “draft a crisis-response handoff from fragmented incident updates” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-052 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-052-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-052 earned final passes for Crisis Handoffs task fidelity [WFT-052] and Crisis Handoffs exception handling [WFT-052] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-052 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Crisis Handoffs rule accuracy [WFT-052]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A source-linked handoff and decision register will verify chronology, owners, unresolved questions, and escalation paths.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-052 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-052 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-052 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A source-linked handoff and decision register will verify chronology, owners, unresolved questions, and escalation paths.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-052 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Crisis Handoffs fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-052 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-plan-firmware-update","title":"An AI Checklist for a Low-Risk Firmware Update: Three Semantic Checks Still Failed","task":"plan a low-risk firmware update","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Firmware field test asked the session to plan a low-risk firmware update, preserved an actual five-row firmware update safety checklist, and derived 0/10 then 4/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-11T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in PFU-9071 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “plan a low-risk firmware update”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: plan a low-risk firmware update. Focus: Firmware.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask for an update checklist based on a device model, current version, power conditions, and recovery options.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nPFU-9071-I1: Device board ID MB-7A2 is on firmware 1.14; signed package FW-MB7A2-1.18 targets MB-7A2 only.\nPFU-9071-I2: Vendor rule requires AC power and battery at least 50%; fixture shows AC connected and battery 63%.\nPFU-9071-I3: Baseline export CFG-114 has SHA-256 31bd10ae; Secure Boot is on and virtualization is enabled.\nPFU-9071-I4: Recovery requires USB REC-MB7A2, rear port U2, and recovery button held for 5 seconds with power off.\nPFU-9071-I5: Static acceptance is version 1.18 reported twice, Secure Boot on, virtualization enabled, and three cold boots with zero firmware errors.\nReturn a concrete firmware update safety checklist with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Version records, vendor prerequisites, and post-update device checks will verify the plan's correctness and completeness.","firstResult":"FIRMWARE UPDATE SAFETY CHECKLIST PFU-9071 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: plan a low-risk firmware update. Evaluation focus: Firmware. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPFU-9071-R1 :: RESULT=PACKAGE=use FW-MB7B1-1.18 because the version is newer\nPFU-9071-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPFU-9071-R2 :: RESULT=POWER=update on battery alone at 22%\nPFU-9071-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPFU-9071-R3 :: RESULT=BASELINE=reset firmware defaults without export\nPFU-9071-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPFU-9071-R4 :: RESULT=RECOVERY=flash the same package repeatedly from the operating system\nPFU-9071-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPFU-9071-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=version number changes once\nPFU-9071-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PFU-9071; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise PFU-9071 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Match the firmware to the exact device: input was “Device board ID MB-7A2 is on firmware 1.14; signed package FW-MB7A2-1.18 targets MB-7A2 only.”; first response was “PACKAGE=use FW-MB7B1-1.18 because the version is newer”.\n- Meet the power prerequisite: input was “Vendor rule requires AC power and battery at least 50%; fixture shows AC connected and battery 63%.”; first response was “POWER=update on battery alone at 22%”.\n- Preserve current configuration: input was “Baseline export CFG-114 has SHA-256 31bd10ae; Secure Boot is on and virtualization is enabled.”; first response was “BASELINE=reset firmware defaults without export”.\n- Use the documented recovery path: input was “Recovery requires USB REC-MB7A2, rear port U2, and recovery button held for 5 seconds with power off.”; first response was “RECOVERY=flash the same package repeatedly from the operating system”.\n- Verify the update without inventing success: input was “Static acceptance is version 1.18 reported twice, Secure Boot on, virtualization enabled, and three cold boots with zero firmware errors.”; first response was “ACCEPT=version number changes once”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"FIRMWARE UPDATE SAFETY CHECKLIST PFU-9071 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: plan a low-risk firmware update. Evaluation focus: Firmware. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPFU-9071-R1 :: RESULT=PACKAGE=FW-MB7A2-1.18; board MB-7A2 matches; signature valid\nPFU-9071-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPFU-9071-R2 :: RESULT=POWER=AC connected; battery 63%>=50%; prerequisite passes\nPFU-9071-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPFU-9071-R3 :: RESULT=BASELINE=freeze CFG-114 hash 31bd10ae; record SecureBoot on\nPFU-9071-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPFU-9071-R4 :: RESULT=RECOVERY=REC-MB7A2 via rear U2\nPFU-9071-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPFU-9071-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=version1.18 twice; SecureBoot on; virtualization enabled; 3 cold boots\nPFU-9071-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PFU-9071; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Match the firmware to the exact device","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Device board ID MB-7A2 is on firmware 1.14; signed package FW-MB7A2-1.18 targets MB-7A2 only. Semantic rule: Board identifier, target metadata, and signature must all match before an update is proposed. FIRST returned “PACKAGE=use FW-MB7B1-1.18 because the version is newer”; the private static semantic key accepts “PACKAGE=FW-MB7A2-1.18; board MB-7A2 matches; signature valid”, so it fails. FINAL returned “PACKAGE=FW-MB7A2-1.18; board MB-7A2 matches; signature valid”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Meet the power prerequisite","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Vendor rule requires AC power and battery at least 50%; fixture shows AC connected and battery 63%. Semantic rule: The stated AC and minimum battery conditions are conjunctive, not alternatives. FIRST returned “POWER=update on battery alone at 22%”; the private static semantic key accepts “POWER=AC connected; battery 63%>=50%; prerequisite passes”, so it fails. FINAL returned “POWER=AC connected; battery 63%>=50%; prerequisite passes”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve current configuration","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Baseline export CFG-114 has SHA-256 31bd10ae; Secure Boot is on and virtualization is enabled. Semantic rule: Rollback evidence must preserve the exact export and both nondefault settings. FIRST returned “BASELINE=reset firmware defaults without export”; the private static semantic key accepts “BASELINE=freeze CFG-114 hash 31bd10ae; record SecureBoot on; virtualization enabled”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BASELINE=freeze CFG-114 hash 31bd10ae; record SecureBoot on”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the documented recovery path","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Recovery requires USB REC-MB7A2, rear port U2, and recovery button held for 5 seconds with power off. Semantic rule: The recovery sequence must reproduce the disclosed media, port, duration, and power state. FIRST returned “RECOVERY=flash the same package repeatedly from the operating system”; the private static semantic key accepts “RECOVERY=REC-MB7A2 via rear U2; hold button 5s while powered off”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RECOVERY=REC-MB7A2 via rear U2”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify the update without inventing success","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Static acceptance is version 1.18 reported twice, Secure Boot on, virtualization enabled, and three cold boots with zero firmware errors. Semantic rule: All version, retained-setting, boot-count, and error conditions are required in the synthetic checklist. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=version number changes once”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=version1.18 twice; SecureBoot on; virtualization enabled; 3 cold boots; 0 errors”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=version1.18 twice; SecureBoot on; virtualization enabled; 3 cold boots”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["PFU-9071 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Match the firmware to the exact device passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Meet the power prerequisite also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Preserve current configuration still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Use the documented recovery path still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Verify the update without inventing success still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Version records, vendor prerequisites, and post-update device checks will verify the plan's correctness and completeness.","evidenceNotes":["PFU-9071 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","PFU-9071's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 2 passes multiplied by two.","PFU-9071 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Version records, vendor prerequisites, and post-update device checks will verify the plan's correctness and completeness."],"limitations":["PFU-9071 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","PFU-9071 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-compare-supplier-bids","title":"The AI Supplier-Bid Challenge: Total Delivered Cost — Completed Benchmark Result: 10/10","task":"compare supplier bids on total delivered cost","excerpt":"The completed WFT-006 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Bid Analysis, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-11T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-006: A procurement team will provide bids with differing prices, freight terms, discounts, lead times, and minimum orders. Source facts: four 600-unit bid rows: WFT-006-B01 at $18.20, $420 freight, 9 days; B02 at $18.65, $0 freight, 12 days; B03 at $17.95, $860 freight, 16 days, minimum order 800; B04 at $18.10, $510 freight, 24 days; every bid offers 2% off orders above 500 units. Governing rule card: base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-006 for “compare supplier bids on total delivered cost” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-006. Task: compare supplier bids on total delivered cost. Context: A procurement team will provide bids with differing prices, freight terms, discounts, lead times, and minimum orders. Fictional source facts: four 600-unit bid rows: WFT-006-B01 at $18.20, $420 freight, 9 days; B02 at $18.65, $0 freight, 12 days; B03 at $17.95, $860 freight, 16 days, minimum order 800; B04 at $18.10, $510 freight, 24 days; every bid offers 2% off orders above 500 units. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A normalized bid table and manual cost recomputations will verify the comparison.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-006 produced a normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log for “compare supplier bids on total delivered cost.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-006-B03 | compute B01 at $11,121.60 after discount plus freight, exclude B03 at 600 units, and rank B02 ahead of B04 on delivered cost and 12-day lead time | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named B03’s 800-unit minimum and B04’s 24-day lead time and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Bid Analysis task fidelity [WFT-006], Bid Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-006], and Bid Analysis exception handling [WFT-006]. It found for Bid Analysis source traceability [WFT-006], the draft gave WFT-006-B03 no source locator; for Bid Analysis handoff usability [WFT-006], the draft left the normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-006 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Bid Analysis source traceability [WFT-006] — the draft gave WFT-006-B03 no source locator; 2) Bid Analysis handoff usability [WFT-006] — the draft left the normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-006 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: compute B01 at $11,121.60 after discount plus freight, exclude B03 at 600 units, and rank B02 ahead of B04 on delivered cost and 12-day lead time. Its corrected row read “WFT-006-B03 | rule: base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units | decision: compute B01 at $11,121.60 after discount plus freight, exclude B03 at 600 units, and rank B02 ahead of B04 on delivered cost and 12-day lead time | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Bid Analysis source traceability [WFT-006] and Bid Analysis handoff usability [WFT-006]. The final audit passed Bid Analysis task fidelity [WFT-006], Bid Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-006], Bid Analysis exception handling [WFT-006], Bid Analysis source traceability [WFT-006], and Bid Analysis handoff usability [WFT-006]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Bid Analysis task fidelity [WFT-006]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-006 static check 1 inspected “Bid Analysis task fidelity [WFT-006]” against WFT-006-B03, the rule “base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units,” and the saved normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Bid Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-006]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-006 static check 2 inspected “Bid Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-006]” against WFT-006-B03, the rule “base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units,” and the saved normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Bid Analysis exception handling [WFT-006]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-006 static check 3 inspected “Bid Analysis exception handling [WFT-006]” against WFT-006-B03, the rule “base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units,” and the saved normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Bid Analysis source traceability [WFT-006]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-006 static check 4 inspected “Bid Analysis source traceability [WFT-006]” against WFT-006-B03, the rule “base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units,” and the saved normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Bid Analysis handoff usability [WFT-006]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-006 static check 5 inspected “Bid Analysis handoff usability [WFT-006]” against WFT-006-B03, the rule “base cost minus eligible discount plus freight at exactly 600 units,” and the saved normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-006 bounded “compare supplier bids on total delivered cost” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-006 exposed WFT-006-B03—compute B01 at $11,121.60 after discount plus freight, exclude B03 at 600 units, and rank B02 ahead of B04 on delivered cost and 12-day lead time—inside the saved normalized bid table, delivered-cost calculation, and exception log.","WFT-006 earned inspectable passes for Bid Analysis task fidelity [WFT-006] and Bid Analysis rule accuracy [WFT-006] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-006 first failed Bid Analysis source traceability [WFT-006]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A normalized bid table and manual cost recomputations will verify the comparison.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-006 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-006 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-006 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A normalized bid table and manual cost recomputations will verify the comparison.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-006 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Bid Analysis fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-006 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-plan-zero-downtime-migration","title":"Planning a Zero-Downtime Database Migration: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"plan a zero-downtime database migration with a safe rollback","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Database Migration field test asked the session to plan a zero-downtime database migration with a safe rollback, preserved an actual five-row zero-downtime migration traffic and rollback plan, and derived 0/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-09T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in PZDM-1039 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “plan a zero-downtime database migration with a safe rollback”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: plan a zero-downtime database migration with a safe rollback. Focus: Database Migration.\nSource scenario: The experiment will specify a synthetic schema change, traffic profile, replication behavior, compatibility window, and recovery objective.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nPZDM-1039-I1: Traffic replay is 800 requests/s: 70% old readers and 30% new writers. New nullable region_code may be added; old region must remain through this release.\nPZDM-1039-I2: Replica rehearsal measures metadata-only add-column lock at 85 ms; policy ceiling is 200 ms. A NOT NULL rewrite rehearsal holds the lock 4.8 s.\nPZDM-1039-I3: Source has 240,000 rows. Backfill batches 5,000 rows and pauses above 2 s replica lag; batch 7 reaches 2.8 s while prior batches stay below 1.4 s.\nPZDM-1039-I4: Traffic replay is 800 requests/s for two minutes with 30% writes, producing 28,800 writes. Acceptance expects source and destination at 240,000 rows, dual-write mismatches zero, and checksum 5f0a2c11 on both.\nPZDM-1039-I5: Recovery objective is RTO at most 5 minutes and RPO zero. Synthetic rollback switches readers to old region while dual-write remains; rehearsal completes in 3m40s with zero lost writes.\nReturn a concrete zero-downtime migration traffic and rollback plan with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A disposable replica and scripted traffic replay will verify compatibility, lock time, data consistency, cutover order, and rollback.","firstResult":"ZERO-DOWNTIME MIGRATION TRAFFIC AND ROLLBACK PLAN PZDM-1039 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: plan a zero-downtime database migration with a safe rollback. Evaluation focus: Database Migration. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPZDM-1039-R1 :: RESULT=ORDER=drop old region before deploying new writers\nPZDM-1039-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPZDM-1039-R2 :: RESULT=LOCK=use 4.8s rewrite during peak traffic\nPZDM-1039-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPZDM-1039-R3 :: RESULT=BACKFILL=update all240000 rows in one transaction\nPZDM-1039-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPZDM-1039-R4 :: RESULT=CUTOVER=switch after the application starts without reconciliation\nPZDM-1039-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPZDM-1039-R5 :: RESULT=ROLLBACK=delete region_code values and accept ten minutes downtime\nPZDM-1039-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PZDM-1039; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise PZDM-1039 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Use expand-before-contract under mixed traffic: input was “Traffic replay is 800 requests/s: 70% old readers and 30% new writers. New nullable region_code may be added; old region must remain through this release.”; first response was “ORDER=drop old region before deploying new writers”.\n- Keep schema lock time below the gate: input was “Replica rehearsal measures metadata-only add-column lock at 85 ms; policy ceiling is 200 ms. A NOT NULL rewrite rehearsal holds the lock 4.8 s.”; first response was “LOCK=use 4.8s rewrite during peak traffic”.\n- Bound backfill by replication lag: input was “Source has 240,000 rows. Backfill batches 5,000 rows and pauses above 2 s replica lag; batch 7 reaches 2.8 s while prior batches stay below 1.4 s.”; first response was “BACKFILL=update all240000 rows in one transaction”.\n- Reconcile dual-write traffic before cutover: input was “Traffic replay is 800 requests/s for two minutes with 30% writes, producing 28,800 writes. Acceptance expects source and destination at 240,000 rows, dual-write mismatches zero, and checksum 5f0a2c11 on both.”; first response was “CUTOVER=switch after the application starts without reconciliation”.\n- Meet the recovery objective with a reversible rollback: input was “Recovery objective is RTO at most 5 minutes and RPO zero. Synthetic rollback switches readers to old region while dual-write remains; rehearsal completes in 3m40s with zero lost writes.”; first response was “ROLLBACK=delete region_code values and accept ten minutes downtime”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"ZERO-DOWNTIME MIGRATION TRAFFIC AND ROLLBACK PLAN PZDM-1039 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: plan a zero-downtime database migration with a safe rollback. Evaluation focus: Database Migration. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPZDM-1039-R1 :: RESULT=ORDER=add nullable region_code; keep old region; old readers70%+new writers30% compatible at800rps\nPZDM-1039-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPZDM-1039-R2 :: RESULT=LOCK=choose metadata add at85ms<=200ms; reject rewrite4.8s\nPZDM-1039-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPZDM-1039-R3 :: RESULT=BACKFILL=5000/batch; pause batch7 at lag2.8s>2s\nPZDM-1039-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPZDM-1039-R4 :: RESULT=CUTOVER=traffic800rps/2min; writes28800; rows240000/240000; mismatches0\nPZDM-1039-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPZDM-1039-R5 :: RESULT=ROLLBACK=read old region; keep dual-write; RTO3m40s<=5m; RPO0\nPZDM-1039-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PZDM-1039; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Use expand-before-contract under mixed traffic","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Traffic replay is 800 requests/s: 70% old readers and 30% new writers. New nullable region_code may be added; old region must remain through this release. Semantic rule: Compatibility must hold for the disclosed old/new client mix at the frozen traffic rate. FIRST returned “ORDER=drop old region before deploying new writers”; the private static semantic key accepts “ORDER=add nullable region_code; keep old region; old readers70%+new writers30% compatible at800rps”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ORDER=add nullable region_code; keep old region; old readers70%+new writers30% compatible at800rps”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep schema lock time below the gate","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Replica rehearsal measures metadata-only add-column lock at 85 ms; policy ceiling is 200 ms. A NOT NULL rewrite rehearsal holds the lock 4.8 s. Semantic rule: The only candidate within the explicit lock-time objective is the metadata-only expansion. FIRST returned “LOCK=use 4.8s rewrite during peak traffic”; the private static semantic key accepts “LOCK=choose metadata add at85ms<=200ms; reject rewrite4.8s”, so it fails. FINAL returned “LOCK=choose metadata add at85ms<=200ms; reject rewrite4.8s”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Bound backfill by replication lag","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Source has 240,000 rows. Backfill batches 5,000 rows and pauses above 2 s replica lag; batch 7 reaches 2.8 s while prior batches stay below 1.4 s. Semantic rule: The declared lag stop condition must govern the exact batch where the threshold is crossed. FIRST returned “BACKFILL=update all240000 rows in one transaction”; the private static semantic key accepts “BACKFILL=5000/batch; pause batch7 at lag2.8s>2s; resume only below2s”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BACKFILL=5000/batch; pause batch7 at lag2.8s>2s”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile dual-write traffic before cutover","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Traffic replay is 800 requests/s for two minutes with 30% writes, producing 28,800 writes. Acceptance expects source and destination at 240,000 rows, dual-write mismatches zero, and checksum 5f0a2c11 on both. Semantic rule: The workload, writer share, write count, row counts, mismatch count, and hashes are the fixed consistency gate. FIRST returned “CUTOVER=switch after the application starts without reconciliation”; the private static semantic key accepts “CUTOVER=traffic800rps/2min; writes28800; rows240000/240000; mismatches0; hashes5f0a2c11”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CUTOVER=traffic800rps/2min; writes28800; rows240000/240000; mismatches0”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Meet the recovery objective with a reversible rollback","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Recovery objective is RTO at most 5 minutes and RPO zero. Synthetic rollback switches readers to old region while dual-write remains; rehearsal completes in 3m40s with zero lost writes. Semantic rule: The rollback must preserve both schemas and meet the explicit time and zero-data-loss objectives. FIRST returned “ROLLBACK=delete region_code values and accept ten minutes downtime”; the private static semantic key accepts “ROLLBACK=read old region; keep dual-write; RTO3m40s<=5m; RPO0; lost writes0” or “ROLLBACK=read old region; keep dual-write; RTO3m40s<=5m; RPO0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ROLLBACK=read old region; keep dual-write; RTO3m40s<=5m; RPO0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["PZDM-1039 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Use expand-before-contract under mixed traffic passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Keep schema lock time below the gate also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Bound backfill by replication lag still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Reconcile dual-write traffic before cutover still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A disposable replica and scripted traffic replay will verify compatibility, lock time, data consistency, cutover order, and rollback.","evidenceNotes":["PZDM-1039 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","PZDM-1039's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","PZDM-1039 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A disposable replica and scripted traffic replay will verify compatibility, lock time, data consistency, cutover order, and rollback."],"limitations":["PZDM-1039 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","PZDM-1039 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-adult-budget-literacy","title":"Would an AI Budget Coach Fit an Adult Learner's Scenario: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"teach budgeting through an adult learner's scenario","excerpt":"The completed LFT-011 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Financial literacy checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-08T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-011: An adult learner will build a monthly budget from a fictional household scenario with changing expenses. Source facts: income $3,850; rent $1,420; utilities $210; food $520; transport $330; debt $480; savings $400; repair adds $650 month two. Governing rule card: income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-011 for “teach budgeting through an adult learner's scenario” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-011. Task: teach budgeting through an adult learner's scenario. Context: An adult learner will build a monthly budget from a fictional household scenario with changing expenses. Fictional source facts: income $3,850; rent $1,420; utilities $210; food $520; transport $330; debt $480; savings $400; repair adds $650 month two. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs. Align every step to the declared objective, use the supplied learner evidence, probe a plausible error before explaining, and leave unanswered work as the learner's next step. Produce a monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: The saved budget and decision log will verify arithmetic accuracy and responses to each changed constraint.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-011 produced a monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation for “teach budgeting through an adult learner's scenario.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-011-B02 | calculate month-one remainder $490, absorb repair through explicit discretionary/savings changes, and protect debt $480 | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the month-two $160 shortfall and protected debt minimum and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Financial literacy learner adaptation [LFT-011]. It found for Financial literacy objective fit [LFT-011], the draft did not link LFT-011-B02 to the full task boundary; for Financial literacy content accuracy [LFT-011], the draft mentioned but did not verify income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs; for Financial literacy evidence traceability [LFT-011], the draft gave LFT-011-B02 no source locator; for Financial literacy safety and access [LFT-011], the draft left the monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-011 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Financial literacy objective fit [LFT-011] — the draft did not link LFT-011-B02 to the full task boundary; 2) Financial literacy content accuracy [LFT-011] — the draft mentioned but did not verify income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs; 3) Financial literacy evidence traceability [LFT-011] — the draft gave LFT-011-B02 no source locator; 4) Financial literacy safety and access [LFT-011] — the draft left the monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-011 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: calculate month-one remainder $490, absorb repair through explicit discretionary/savings changes, and protect debt $480. Its corrected row read “LFT-011-B02 | rule: income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs | decision: calculate month-one remainder $490, absorb repair through explicit discretionary/savings changes, and protect debt $480 | static status: 4/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Financial literacy evidence traceability [LFT-011]. The final audit passed Financial literacy learner adaptation [LFT-011] and Financial literacy evidence traceability [LFT-011]. It still lacked Financial literacy objective fit [LFT-011], Financial literacy content accuracy [LFT-011], and Financial literacy safety and access [LFT-011]; those failures remain visible. The monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation earned 4/10 from 2 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Financial literacy objective fit [LFT-011]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-011 static check 1 inspected “Financial literacy objective fit [LFT-011]” against LFT-011-B02, the rule “income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs,” and the saved monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Financial literacy content accuracy [LFT-011]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-011 static check 2 inspected “Financial literacy content accuracy [LFT-011]” against LFT-011-B02, the rule “income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs,” and the saved monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Financial literacy learner adaptation [LFT-011]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-011 static check 3 inspected “Financial literacy learner adaptation [LFT-011]” against LFT-011-B02, the rule “income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs,” and the saved monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Financial literacy evidence traceability [LFT-011]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-011 static check 4 inspected “Financial literacy evidence traceability [LFT-011]” against LFT-011-B02, the rule “income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs,” and the saved monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Financial literacy safety and access [LFT-011]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-011 static check 5 inspected “Financial literacy safety and access [LFT-011]” against LFT-011-B02, the rule “income minus categorized expenses with learner-chosen trade-offs,” and the saved monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-011 bounded “teach budgeting through an adult learner's scenario” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-011 exposed LFT-011-B02—calculate month-one remainder $490, absorb repair through explicit discretionary/savings changes, and protect debt $480—inside the saved monthly household budget, change log, and trade-off explanation."],"whatFailed":["LFT-011 still lacked saved-text evidence for Financial literacy objective fit [LFT-011]; that failure remains published.","LFT-011 still lacked saved-text evidence for Financial literacy content accuracy [LFT-011]; that failure remains published.","LFT-011 still lacked saved-text evidence for Financial literacy safety and access [LFT-011]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"The saved budget and decision log will verify arithmetic accuracy and responses to each changed constraint.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-011 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-011 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-011 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—The saved budget and decision log will verify arithmetic accuracy and responses to each changed constraint.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-011 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Financial literacy fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-011 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-sanitize-retired-drive","title":"Retired Drive, Verifiable Erasure: An AI Planning Task: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"plan verifiable data removal from a retired drive","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Data Disposal field test asked the session to plan verifiable data removal from a retired drive, preserved an actual five-row retired-drive sanitization decision record, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-07T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in SRD-2514 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “plan verifiable data removal from a retired drive”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: plan verifiable data removal from a retired drive. Focus: Data Disposal.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask for media-appropriate sanitization and verification steps on an expendable drive containing synthetic data.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nSRD-2514-I1: Retired SSD target is DRIVE-R7, serial R7-4419, 512 GB. Connected backup drive DRIVE-B2, serial B2-9081, 2 TB must never be selected.\nSRD-2514-I2: DRIVE-R7 is a self-encrypting SSD with supported sanitize command CryptoErase-2; policy rejects repeated overwrite passes that cannot address remapped flash blocks.\nSRD-2514-I3: Manifest RET-7 contains 312 files; backup BR7 has 312/312 matching hashes and sample restores R01, R155, R312 pass. Legal-hold folder count is zero.\nSRD-2514-I4: The fixture supplies a simulated CryptoErase-2 transcript and post-state image R7-AFTER; no real drive command or write is authorized.\nSRD-2514-I5: R7-AFTER shows no partition table, recovery scan signatures zero across 16 seeded patterns, sanitize status Success, and DRIVE-B2 hash manifest unchanged.\nReturn a concrete retired-drive sanitization decision record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A prewritten data manifest and post-sanitization recovery scan will verify whether the test data remains accessible.","firstResult":"RETIRED-DRIVE SANITIZATION DECISION RECORD SRD-2514 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: plan verifiable data removal from a retired drive. Evaluation focus: Data Disposal. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nSRD-2514-R1 :: RESULT=TARGET=erase the largest connected drive DRIVE-B2\nSRD-2514-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSRD-2514-R2 :: RESULT=METHOD=CryptoErase-2 for self-encrypting SSD; overwrite passes rejected\nSRD-2514-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSRD-2514-R3 :: RESULT=BACKUP=a copied folder exists, so verification is unnecessary\nSRD-2514-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSRD-2514-R4 :: RESULT=MODE=analyze simulated transcript+R7-AFTER; live commands0; writes0\nSRD-2514-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSRD-2514-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=drive appears empty in a file browser\nSRD-2514-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for SRD-2514; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise SRD-2514 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Identify the exact target and exclusion: input was “Retired SSD target is DRIVE-R7, serial R7-4419, 512 GB. Connected backup drive DRIVE-B2, serial B2-9081, 2 TB must never be selected.”; first response was “TARGET=erase the largest connected drive DRIVE-B2”.\n- Preserve required data before sanitization: input was “Manifest RET-7 contains 312 files; backup BR7 has 312/312 matching hashes and sample restores R01, R155, R312 pass. Legal-hold folder count is zero.”; first response was “BACKUP=a copied folder exists, so verification is unnecessary”.\n- Verify the post-sanitization evidence: input was “R7-AFTER shows no partition table, recovery scan signatures zero across 16 seeded patterns, sanitize status Success, and DRIVE-B2 hash manifest unchanged.”; first response was “ACCEPT=drive appears empty in a file browser”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"RETIRED-DRIVE SANITIZATION DECISION RECORD SRD-2514 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: plan verifiable data removal from a retired drive. Evaluation focus: Data Disposal. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nSRD-2514-R1 :: RESULT=TARGET=DRIVE-R7 serialR7-4419 512GB; exclude DRIVE-B2 serialB2-9081\nSRD-2514-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSRD-2514-R2 :: RESULT=METHOD=CryptoErase-2 for self-encrypting SSD; overwrite passes rejected\nSRD-2514-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSRD-2514-R3 :: RESULT=BACKUP=BR7 312/312 hashes; samples3/3; legal hold0\nSRD-2514-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSRD-2514-R4 :: RESULT=MODE=analyze simulated transcript+R7-AFTER; live commands0; writes0\nSRD-2514-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nSRD-2514-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=partition table absent; patterns0/16 found; statusSuccess; DRIVE-B2 unchanged\nSRD-2514-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for SRD-2514; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the exact target and exclusion","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Retired SSD target is DRIVE-R7, serial R7-4419, 512 GB. Connected backup drive DRIVE-B2, serial B2-9081, 2 TB must never be selected. Semantic rule: Drive identity must use model-independent serial and capacity checks before any proposed sanitization. FIRST returned “TARGET=erase the largest connected drive DRIVE-B2”; the private static semantic key accepts “TARGET=DRIVE-R7 serialR7-4419 512GB; exclude DRIVE-B2 serialB2-9081”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TARGET=DRIVE-R7 serialR7-4419 512GB; exclude DRIVE-B2 serialB2-9081”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Match the method to the media","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: DRIVE-R7 is a self-encrypting SSD with supported sanitize command CryptoErase-2; policy rejects repeated overwrite passes that cannot address remapped flash blocks. Semantic rule: The sanitization method must follow the disclosed SSD capability and remapped-block limitation. FIRST returned “METHOD=CryptoErase-2 for self-encrypting SSD; overwrite passes rejected”; the private static semantic key accepts “METHOD=CryptoErase-2 for self-encrypting SSD; overwrite passes rejected”, so it passes. FINAL returned “METHOD=CryptoErase-2 for self-encrypting SSD; overwrite passes rejected”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve required data before sanitization","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Manifest RET-7 contains 312 files; backup BR7 has 312/312 matching hashes and sample restores R01, R155, R312 pass. Legal-hold folder count is zero. Semantic rule: Exact reconciliation, restore samples, and hold status are preconditions to a sanitization plan. FIRST returned “BACKUP=a copied folder exists, so verification is unnecessary”; the private static semantic key accepts “BACKUP=BR7 312/312 hashes; samples3/3; legal hold0; prerequisite pass” or “BACKUP=BR7 312/312 hashes; samples3/3; legal hold0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “BACKUP=BR7 312/312 hashes; samples3/3; legal hold0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep the exercise non-destructive","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: The fixture supplies a simulated CryptoErase-2 transcript and post-state image R7-AFTER; no real drive command or write is authorized. Semantic rule: This field test evaluates the plan and synthetic evidence without altering connected storage. FIRST returned “MODE=analyze simulated transcript+R7-AFTER; live commands0; writes0”; the private static semantic key accepts “MODE=analyze simulated transcript+R7-AFTER; live commands0; writes0”, so it passes. FINAL returned “MODE=analyze simulated transcript+R7-AFTER; live commands0; writes0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify the post-sanitization evidence","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: R7-AFTER shows no partition table, recovery scan signatures zero across 16 seeded patterns, sanitize status Success, and DRIVE-B2 hash manifest unchanged. Semantic rule: Verification requires the sanitize status, deep seeded-pattern scan, non-target preservation, and target identity. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=drive appears empty in a file browser”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=partition table absent; patterns0/16 found; statusSuccess; DRIVE-B2 unchanged; certificate names R7-4419”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=partition table absent; patterns0/16 found; statusSuccess; DRIVE-B2 unchanged”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["SRD-2514 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the exact target and exclusion passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Match the method to the media also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Verify the post-sanitization evidence still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A prewritten data manifest and post-sanitization recovery scan will verify whether the test data remains accessible.","evidenceNotes":["SRD-2514 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","SRD-2514's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","SRD-2514 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A prewritten data manifest and post-sanitization recovery scan will verify whether the test data remains accessible."],"limitations":["SRD-2514 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","SRD-2514 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-create-maintenance-work-orders","title":"Creating Preventive Maintenance Work Orders from Equipment Manuals with AI: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals","excerpt":"The completed WFT-047 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Maintenance Planning, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-07T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-047: A facilities team will provide equipment manuals, asset details, service intervals, and site access constraints. Source facts: assets WFT-047-M01–M07; failure risks 2–9; downtime 1–14 hours; costs $80–$4,800; M03 safety-critical; M06 awaiting part; intervals 250/500 hours. Governing rule card: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-047 for “create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-047. Task: create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals. Context: A facilities team will provide equipment manuals, asset details, service intervals, and site access constraints. Fictional source facts: assets WFT-047-M01–M07; failure risks 2–9; downtime 1–14 hours; costs $80–$4,800; M03 safety-critical; M06 awaiting part; intervals 250/500 hours. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. Safety holds and access closures are mandatory; never exceed capacity; honor skill, cutoff, and handling constraints; cover each eligible item at most once. Produce a ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A work-order set with manual references and interval checks will verify tasks, parts, timing, and safety steps.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-047 produced a ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log for “create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-047-M03 | rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01 | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named M03’s safety risk and M06’s unavailable part and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047], Maintenance Planning source traceability [WFT-047], and Maintenance Planning handoff usability [WFT-047]. It found for Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047], the draft did not link WFT-047-M03 to the full task boundary; for Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047], the draft mentioned but did not verify risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-047 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047] — the draft did not link WFT-047-M03 to the full task boundary; 2) Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047] — the draft mentioned but did not verify risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-047 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01. Its corrected row read “WFT-047-M03 | rule: risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status | decision: rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01 | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047]. The final audit passed Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047], Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047], Maintenance Planning source traceability [WFT-047], and Maintenance Planning handoff usability [WFT-047]. It still lacked Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047]; those failures remain visible. The ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-047 static check 1 inspected “Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-047 static check 2 inspected “Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-047 static check 3 inspected “Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Maintenance Planning source traceability [WFT-047]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-047 static check 4 inspected “Maintenance Planning source traceability [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Maintenance Planning handoff usability [WFT-047]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-047 static check 5 inspected “Maintenance Planning handoff usability [WFT-047]” against WFT-047-M03, the rule “risk, due interval, downtime, cost, dependency, and safety status,” and the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-047 bounded “create preventive maintenance work orders from equipment manuals” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-047 exposed WFT-047-M03—rank M03 first, create M02’s 500-hour service, defer M06 awaiting part, and keep low-risk M05 below blocker M01—inside the saved ranked maintenance plan, work-order cards, and safety deferral log.","WFT-047 earned inspectable passes for Maintenance Planning task fidelity [WFT-047] and Maintenance Planning exception handling [WFT-047] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-047 still lacked saved-text evidence for Maintenance Planning rule accuracy [WFT-047]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A work-order set with manual references and interval checks will verify tasks, parts, timing, and safety steps.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-047 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-047 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-047 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A work-order set with manual references and interval checks will verify tasks, parts, timing, and safety steps.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-047 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Maintenance Planning fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-047 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-explain-statistical-power","title":"How Should AI Explain Statistical Power Without Formula Fog — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"explain statistical power to a learner using concrete examples","excerpt":"The completed LFT-052 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Statistics Explanation, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-05T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-052: The AI will respond to a fixed learner profile and use supplied study scenarios that separate effect size, sample size, noise, and alpha. Source facts: studies LFT-052-P01 n=20 effect .5, P02 n=100 effect .5, P03 n=100 effect .1; noise SD=1; learner equates power with effect size. Governing rule card: sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-052 for “explain statistical power to a learner using concrete examples” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-052. Task: explain statistical power to a learner using concrete examples. Context: The AI will respond to a fixed learner profile and use supplied study scenarios that separate effect size, sample size, noise, and alpha. Fictional source facts: studies LFT-052-P01 n=20 effect .5, P02 n=100 effect .5, P03 n=100 effect .1; noise SD=1; learner equates power with effect size. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A statistics instructor will score conceptual accuracy, causal language, transfer questions, and misconceptions introduced by analogies.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-052 produced a power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check for “explain statistical power to a learner using concrete examples.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-052-P02 | compare P01/P02 for sample size, P02/P03 for effect size, and define power as detection probability | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named confusing power with effect size and omitting alpha and left the disposition blank. The rule cell verified sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Statistics Explanation objective fit [LFT-052], Statistics Explanation content accuracy [LFT-052], and Statistics Explanation safety and access [LFT-052]. It found for Statistics Explanation learner adaptation [LFT-052], the draft left confusing power with effect size and omitting alpha without an explicit disposition; for Statistics Explanation evidence traceability [LFT-052], the draft gave LFT-052-P02 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-052 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Statistics Explanation learner adaptation [LFT-052] — the draft left confusing power with effect size and omitting alpha without an explicit disposition; 2) Statistics Explanation evidence traceability [LFT-052] — the draft gave LFT-052-P02 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-052 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: compare P01/P02 for sample size, P02/P03 for effect size, and define power as detection probability. Its corrected row read “LFT-052-P02 | rule: sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct | decision: compare P01/P02 for sample size, P02/P03 for effect size, and define power as detection probability | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Statistics Explanation learner adaptation [LFT-052]. The final audit passed Statistics Explanation objective fit [LFT-052], Statistics Explanation content accuracy [LFT-052], Statistics Explanation learner adaptation [LFT-052], and Statistics Explanation safety and access [LFT-052]. It still lacked Statistics Explanation evidence traceability [LFT-052]; those failures remain visible. The power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Statistics Explanation objective fit [LFT-052]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-052 static check 1 inspected “Statistics Explanation objective fit [LFT-052]” against LFT-052-P02, the rule “sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct,” and the saved power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Statistics Explanation content accuracy [LFT-052]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-052 static check 2 inspected “Statistics Explanation content accuracy [LFT-052]” against LFT-052-P02, the rule “sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct,” and the saved power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Statistics Explanation learner adaptation [LFT-052]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-052 static check 3 inspected “Statistics Explanation learner adaptation [LFT-052]” against LFT-052-P02, the rule “sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct,” and the saved power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Statistics Explanation evidence traceability [LFT-052]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-052 static check 4 inspected “Statistics Explanation evidence traceability [LFT-052]” against LFT-052-P02, the rule “sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct,” and the saved power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Statistics Explanation safety and access [LFT-052]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-052 static check 5 inspected “Statistics Explanation safety and access [LFT-052]” against LFT-052-P02, the rule “sample size, effect, variability, alpha, and detection probability stay distinct,” and the saved power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-052 bounded “explain statistical power to a learner using concrete examples” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-052 exposed LFT-052-P02—compare P01/P02 for sample size, P02/P03 for effect size, and define power as detection probability—inside the saved power simulation table, concrete analogy, and misconception check.","LFT-052 earned inspectable passes for Statistics Explanation objective fit [LFT-052] and Statistics Explanation content accuracy [LFT-052] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-052 still lacked saved-text evidence for Statistics Explanation evidence traceability [LFT-052]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A statistics instructor will score conceptual accuracy, causal language, transfer questions, and misconceptions introduced by analogies.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-052 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-052 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-052 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A statistics instructor will score conceptual accuracy, causal language, transfer questions, and misconceptions introduced by analogies.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-052 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Statistics Explanation fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-052 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-diagnose-wifi-drops","title":"Where Should AI Start With Intermittent Wi-Fi Drops: One Verified Gap Remained","task":"diagnose intermittent wi-fi drops","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Wi-Fi field test asked the session to diagnose intermittent wi-fi drops, preserved an actual five-row wi-fi drop diagnostic record, and derived 4/10 then 8/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-04T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in DWD-9161 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “diagnose intermittent wi-fi drops”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: diagnose intermittent wi-fi drops. Focus: Wi-Fi.\nSource scenario: The experiment will present connection logs and network conditions from a controlled intermittent wireless fault.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nDWD-9161-I1: Client WD-PC uses 192.0.2.41; access point AP-6 is on 5 GHz channel 44; gateway is 192.0.2.1.\nDWD-9161-I2: Drops occur at 10:14, 10:29, and 10:44 exactly when AP-6 changes channel 44→149; RSSI stays -51 dBm.\nDWD-9161-I3: During each drop, association resets before any DNS query; wired control resolves the same names with zero failures.\nDWD-9161-I4: Test policy allows disabling automatic channel selection and pinning channel 44; baseline export NET-WD hash a81d44c0 is frozen.\nDWD-9161-I5: Retest requires 12 association cycles, zero drops, RSSI at least -60 dBm, latency below 20 ms, and baseline services unchanged.\nReturn a concrete wi-fi drop diagnostic record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Router logs and repeated connection tests will verify whether the proposed diagnosis identifies the seeded fault.","firstResult":"WI-FI DROP DIAGNOSTIC RECORD DWD-9161 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: diagnose intermittent wi-fi drops. Evaluation focus: Wi-Fi. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDWD-9161-R1 :: RESULT=IDENTITY=WD-PC 192.0.2.41; AP-6 channel44; gateway192.0.2.1\nDWD-9161-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDWD-9161-R2 :: RESULT=CAUSE=weak signal caused the drops\nDWD-9161-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDWD-9161-R3 :: RESULT=DNS=not primary; association resets first; wired control 0 failures\nDWD-9161-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDWD-9161-R4 :: RESULT=CHANGE=factory-reset the router\nDWD-9161-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDWD-9161-R5 :: RESULT=RETEST=one web page loads\nDWD-9161-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DWD-9161; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise DWD-9161 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Rank the correlated fault: input was “Drops occur at 10:14, 10:29, and 10:44 exactly when AP-6 changes channel 44→149; RSSI stays -51 dBm.”; first response was “CAUSE=weak signal caused the drops”.\n- Propose one reversible change: input was “Test policy allows disabling automatic channel selection and pinning channel 44; baseline export NET-WD hash a81d44c0 is frozen.”; first response was “CHANGE=factory-reset the router”.\n- Specify a repeatable retest: input was “Retest requires 12 association cycles, zero drops, RSSI at least -60 dBm, latency below 20 ms, and baseline services unchanged.”; first response was “RETEST=one web page loads”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"WI-FI DROP DIAGNOSTIC RECORD DWD-9161 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: diagnose intermittent wi-fi drops. Evaluation focus: Wi-Fi. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDWD-9161-R1 :: RESULT=IDENTITY=WD-PC 192.0.2.41; AP-6 channel44; gateway192.0.2.1\nDWD-9161-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDWD-9161-R2 :: RESULT=CAUSE=rank automatic channel switch above weak signal; 3/3 drops coincide; RSSI -51dBm stable\nDWD-9161-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDWD-9161-R3 :: RESULT=DNS=not primary; association resets first; wired control 0 failures\nDWD-9161-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDWD-9161-R4 :: RESULT=CHANGE=freeze NET-WD a81d44c0; pin channel44; no other router changes\nDWD-9161-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDWD-9161-R5 :: RESULT=RETEST=12 cycles; 0 drops; RSSI>=-60dBm; latency<20ms\nDWD-9161-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DWD-9161; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Use the bounded client and access point","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Client WD-PC uses 192.0.2.41; access point AP-6 is on 5 GHz channel 44; gateway is 192.0.2.1. Semantic rule: The diagnosis must stay inside the disclosed client, AP, band, channel, and gateway. FIRST returned “IDENTITY=WD-PC 192.0.2.41; AP-6 channel44; gateway192.0.2.1”; the private static semantic key accepts “IDENTITY=WD-PC 192.0.2.41; AP-6 channel44; gateway192.0.2.1”, so it passes. FINAL returned “IDENTITY=WD-PC 192.0.2.41; AP-6 channel44; gateway192.0.2.1”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Rank the correlated fault","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Drops occur at 10:14, 10:29, and 10:44 exactly when AP-6 changes channel 44→149; RSSI stays -51 dBm. Semantic rule: Stable strong signal plus perfect event correlation supports the channel-switch hypothesis. FIRST returned “CAUSE=weak signal caused the drops”; the private static semantic key accepts “CAUSE=rank automatic channel switch above weak signal; 3/3 drops coincide; RSSI -51dBm stable”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CAUSE=rank automatic channel switch above weak signal; 3/3 drops coincide; RSSI -51dBm stable”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Separate DNS from link loss","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: During each drop, association resets before any DNS query; wired control resolves the same names with zero failures. Semantic rule: The event order and clean wired control do not support DNS as the initiating fault. FIRST returned “DNS=not primary; association resets first; wired control 0 failures”; the private static semantic key accepts “DNS=not primary; association resets first; wired control 0 failures”, so it passes. FINAL returned “DNS=not primary; association resets first; wired control 0 failures”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Propose one reversible change","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Test policy allows disabling automatic channel selection and pinning channel 44; baseline export NET-WD hash a81d44c0 is frozen. Semantic rule: The only approved intervention directly controls the correlated variable and retains rollback. FIRST returned “CHANGE=factory-reset the router”; the private static semantic key accepts “CHANGE=freeze NET-WD a81d44c0; pin channel44; no other router changes”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CHANGE=freeze NET-WD a81d44c0; pin channel44; no other router changes”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Specify a repeatable retest","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Retest requires 12 association cycles, zero drops, RSSI at least -60 dBm, latency below 20 ms, and baseline services unchanged. Semantic rule: The retest must cover recurrence, signal, latency, and regression boundaries. FIRST returned “RETEST=one web page loads”; the private static semantic key accepts “RETEST=12 cycles; 0 drops; RSSI>=-60dBm; latency<20ms; services unchanged”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RETEST=12 cycles; 0 drops; RSSI>=-60dBm; latency<20ms”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["DWD-9161 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Use the bounded client and access point passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Rank the correlated fault also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Specify a repeatable retest still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Router logs and repeated connection tests will verify whether the proposed diagnosis identifies the seeded fault.","evidenceNotes":["DWD-9161 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","DWD-9161's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 4 passes multiplied by two.","DWD-9161 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Router logs and repeated connection tests will verify whether the proposed diagnosis identifies the seeded fault."],"limitations":["DWD-9161 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","DWD-9161 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-schedule-field-technicians","title":"Should AI Schedule Field Technicians Around Skills, Travel, and Service Windows: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows","excerpt":"The completed WFT-019 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Field Dispatch checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-04T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-019: A service dispatcher will provide jobs, technician qualifications, starting locations, durations, and customer time windows. Source facts: records WFT-019-R01 through WFT-019-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 27 and 41; dependency WFT-019-R04 after WFT-019-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-019-R05. Governing rule card: the two window limits (27 and 41). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-019 for “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-019. Task: schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows. Context: A service dispatcher will provide jobs, technician qualifications, starting locations, durations, and customer time windows. Fictional source facts: records WFT-019-R01 through WFT-019-R06; two fixed windows at 08:00–12:00 and 13:00–17:00; capacity limits of 27 and 41; dependency WFT-019-R04 after WFT-019-R02; and an unavailable interval for WFT-019-R05. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the two window limits (27 and 41). Honor fixed windows, availability, blackout periods, predecessor order, travel or rest buffers, and capacity limits before optimizing; leave an item unassigned when no feasible slot exists. Produce a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A daily dispatch plan and route-and-skill validations will verify every assignment.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-019 produced a constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register for the task “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-019-ROW1 reads: “WFT-019-R01 | keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Field Dispatch rule accuracy [WFT-019]. The audit found concrete failures: for Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019], the saved draft did not connect WFT-019-R05 to the full boundary of “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows”; for Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-019-R05 availability exception and the WFT-019-R02→R04 dependency; for Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019], the saved draft gave the central WFT-019-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; for Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019], the saved draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-019 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019] — the draft did not connect WFT-019-R05 to the full boundary of “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows”; 2) Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the WFT-019-R05 availability exception and the WFT-019-R02→R04 dependency; 3) Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019] — the draft gave the central WFT-019-R05 decision no source-to-output locator; 4) Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019] — the draft left the constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-019 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-019-ROW1 reads: “WFT-019-R01 | keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity | evidence locator: WFT-019-R01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019]. The frozen final text passed Field Dispatch rule accuracy [WFT-019] and Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019] and still failed Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019], Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019], and Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019]. The final constraint table, sequenced plan, and exception register therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-019 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Field Dispatch rule accuracy [WFT-019]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-019 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch rule accuracy [WFT-019].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-019 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch exception handling [WFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-019 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-019 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-019-R05, the declared Field Dispatch rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-019 kept “schedule field technicians around skills, travel, and service windows” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-019 made the central handling—keep WFT-019-R05 outside its unavailable interval, place WFT-019-R04 only after WFT-019-R02, and flag the second window when demand 41 exceeds the stated capacity—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["WFT-019 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Field Dispatch task fidelity [WFT-019]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-019 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Field Dispatch source traceability [WFT-019]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-019 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Field Dispatch handoff usability [WFT-019]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A daily dispatch plan and route-and-skill validations will verify every assignment.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-019 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-019 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-019 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A daily dispatch plan and route-and-skill validations will verify every assignment.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-019 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Field Dispatch fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-019 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-music-harmony-analysis","title":"Use AI to Explain Harmonic Progressions to Novice Musicians — What the Completed 8/10 Test Found","task":"explain a harmonic progression to a novice musician","excerpt":"The completed LFT-032 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Music theory, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-03T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-032: The AI will walk a novice through identifying chords and cadences in a short notated passage. Source facts: progression LFT-032-M01 in C major: C–Am–Dm–G7–C; bass C/A/D/G/C; melody E/E/F/F/E; learner knows triads. Governing rule card: pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-032 for “explain a harmonic progression to a novice musician” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-032. Task: explain a harmonic progression to a novice musician. Context: The AI will walk a novice through identifying chords and cadences in a short notated passage. Fictional source facts: progression LFT-032-M01 in C major: C–Am–Dm–G7–C; bass C/A/D/G/C; melody E/E/F/F/E; learner knows triads. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A conservatory instructor will check every label and explanation against the annotated notation.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-032 produced a Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation for “explain a harmonic progression to a novice musician.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-032-M04 | label I–vi–ii–V7–I, trace F resolving to E, and explain dominant tension through the melody | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the V7 tendency tone and chord-label/function distinction and left the disposition blank. The rule cell verified pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Music theory objective fit [LFT-032], Music theory content accuracy [LFT-032], and Music theory safety and access [LFT-032]. It found for Music theory learner adaptation [LFT-032], the draft left the V7 tendency tone and chord-label/function distinction without an explicit disposition; for Music theory evidence traceability [LFT-032], the draft gave LFT-032-M04 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-032 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Music theory learner adaptation [LFT-032] — the draft left the V7 tendency tone and chord-label/function distinction without an explicit disposition; 2) Music theory evidence traceability [LFT-032] — the draft gave LFT-032-M04 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-032 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: label I–vi–ii–V7–I, trace F resolving to E, and explain dominant tension through the melody. Its corrected row read “LFT-032-M04 | rule: pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree | decision: label I–vi–ii–V7–I, trace F resolving to E, and explain dominant tension through the melody | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Music theory learner adaptation [LFT-032]. The final audit passed Music theory objective fit [LFT-032], Music theory content accuracy [LFT-032], Music theory learner adaptation [LFT-032], and Music theory safety and access [LFT-032]. It still lacked Music theory evidence traceability [LFT-032]; those failures remain visible. The Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Music theory objective fit [LFT-032]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-032 static check 1 inspected “Music theory objective fit [LFT-032]” against LFT-032-M04, the rule “pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree,” and the saved Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Music theory content accuracy [LFT-032]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-032 static check 2 inspected “Music theory content accuracy [LFT-032]” against LFT-032-M04, the rule “pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree,” and the saved Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Music theory learner adaptation [LFT-032]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-032 static check 3 inspected “Music theory learner adaptation [LFT-032]” against LFT-032-M04, the rule “pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree,” and the saved Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Music theory evidence traceability [LFT-032]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-032 static check 4 inspected “Music theory evidence traceability [LFT-032]” against LFT-032-M04, the rule “pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree,” and the saved Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Music theory safety and access [LFT-032]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-032 static check 5 inspected “Music theory safety and access [LFT-032]” against LFT-032-M04, the rule “pitch membership, key, Roman numeral, and resolution must agree,” and the saved Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-032 bounded “explain a harmonic progression to a novice musician” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-032 exposed LFT-032-M04—label I–vi–ii–V7–I, trace F resolving to E, and explain dominant tension through the melody—inside the saved Roman-numeral analysis, voice-leading trace, and novice explanation.","LFT-032 earned inspectable passes for Music theory objective fit [LFT-032] and Music theory content accuracy [LFT-032] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-032 still lacked saved-text evidence for Music theory evidence traceability [LFT-032]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A conservatory instructor will check every label and explanation against the annotated notation.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-032 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-032 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-032 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A conservatory instructor will check every label and explanation against the annotated notation.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-032 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Music theory fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-032 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-detect-duplicate-customer-records","title":"Does AI Spot Duplicate Customers Without Merging Different People: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"detect duplicate customer records without merging distinct people","excerpt":"The completed WFT-065 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Entity Resolution, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-03-02T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-065: A data team will provide fictional records containing name variants, shared households, reused phone numbers, typos, and deliberate lookalikes. Source facts: six fictional records WFT-065-C01 through WFT-065-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 30, 38, 77, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-065-C04. Governing rule card: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-065 for “detect duplicate customer records without merging distinct people” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-065. Task: detect duplicate customer records without merging distinct people. Context: A data team will provide fictional records containing name variants, shared households, reused phone numbers, typos, and deliberate lookalikes. Fictional source facts: six fictional records WFT-065-C01 through WFT-065-C06; policy rules P1–P5; scores 30, 38, 77, 62, 74, and 91; a shared surname on C02/C05; and an incomplete identifier on WFT-065-C04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker. Apply the written rules in order; use descending disclosed scores only where ranking is requested; a shared name alone never proves identity; incomplete identifiers require abstention rather than invention. Produce a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A hidden match key and pairwise precision-recall report will verify merges, misses, and protected nonmatches.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-065 produced a record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log for the task “detect duplicate customer records without merging distinct people.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: rank WFT-065-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-065-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-065-ROW1 reads: “WFT-065-C01 | rank WFT-065-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-065-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Entity Resolution task fidelity [WFT-065], Entity Resolution source traceability [WFT-065], and Entity Resolution handoff usability [WFT-065]. The audit found concrete failures: for Entity Resolution rule accuracy [WFT-065], the saved draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; for Entity Resolution exception handling [WFT-065], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-065-C04. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-065 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Entity Resolution rule accuracy [WFT-065] — the draft left all five written policy rules without adding an unstated tie-breaker without an explicit verification row; 2) Entity Resolution exception handling [WFT-065] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the shared-name nonmatch C02/C05 and incomplete record WFT-065-C04.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-065 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: rank WFT-065-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-065-C04 until its identifier can be resolved. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-065-ROW1 reads: “WFT-065-C01 | rank WFT-065-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-065-C04 until its identifier can be resolved | evidence locator: WFT-065-C01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Entity Resolution rule accuracy [WFT-065]. The frozen final text passed Entity Resolution task fidelity [WFT-065], Entity Resolution rule accuracy [WFT-065], Entity Resolution source traceability [WFT-065], and Entity Resolution handoff usability [WFT-065] and still failed Entity Resolution exception handling [WFT-065]. The final record-by-record decision matrix, ranked queue, and abstention log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Entity Resolution task fidelity [WFT-065]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-065 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Entity Resolution task fidelity [WFT-065].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-065-C04, the declared Entity Resolution rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Entity Resolution rule accuracy [WFT-065]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-065 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Entity Resolution rule accuracy [WFT-065].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-065-C04, the declared Entity Resolution rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Entity Resolution exception handling [WFT-065]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-065 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Entity Resolution exception handling [WFT-065].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-065-C04, the declared Entity Resolution rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Entity Resolution source traceability [WFT-065]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-065 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Entity Resolution source traceability [WFT-065].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-065-C04, the declared Entity Resolution rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Entity Resolution handoff usability [WFT-065]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-065 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Entity Resolution handoff usability [WFT-065].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-065-C04, the declared Entity Resolution rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-065 kept “detect duplicate customer records without merging distinct people” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-065 made the central handling—rank WFT-065-C06 first under P2, keep C02 and C05 separate despite the shared surname, and abstain on WFT-065-C04 until its identifier can be resolved—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-065 earned final passes for Entity Resolution task fidelity [WFT-065] and Entity Resolution rule accuracy [WFT-065] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-065 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Entity Resolution exception handling [WFT-065]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A hidden match key and pairwise precision-recall report will verify merges, misses, and protected nonmatches.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-065 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-065 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-065 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A hidden match key and pairwise precision-recall report will verify merges, misses, and protected nonmatches.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-065 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Entity Resolution fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-065 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-debugging-strategy","title":"A Beginner's Systematic Debugging Lesson with AI — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"teach a systematic debugging strategy to beginners","excerpt":"The completed LFT-036 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Debugging habits checks passed after one correction, but Debugging habits objective fit [LFT-036] and Debugging habits content accuracy [LFT-036] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-28T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-036: A beginner will diagnose a small program by forming hypotheses, gathering evidence, and testing one change at a time. Source facts: fictional code sample LFT-036-P1 with function walk(n), calls walk(3)→walk(2)→walk(1), an off-by-one condition n < 1, learner predictions 3, 2, 0, and a no-solution-code rule through hint H3. Governing rule card: the actual call order and progressive-hint ceiling H3. Trace the supplied code state by state, base every hint on the actual execution, and keep the completed solution outside the response until the declared hint ceiling. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-036 for “teach a systematic debugging strategy to beginners” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-036. Task: teach a systematic debugging strategy to beginners. Context: A beginner will diagnose a small program by forming hypotheses, gathering evidence, and testing one change at a time. Fictional source facts: fictional code sample LFT-036-P1 with function walk(n), calls walk(3)→walk(2)→walk(1), an off-by-one condition n < 1, learner predictions 3, 2, 0, and a no-solution-code rule through hint H3. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the actual call order and progressive-hint ceiling H3. Trace the supplied code state by state, base every hint on the actual execution, and keep the completed solution outside the response until the declared hint ceiling. Produce an execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: The debugging log will be reviewed for reproducible observations, isolated changes, and causal conclusions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-036 produced an execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note for the task “teach a systematic debugging strategy to beginners.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: freeze the call stack at LFT-036-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-036-ROW1 reads: “LFT-036-P1 | freeze the call stack at LFT-036-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Debugging habits learner adaptation [LFT-036] and Debugging habits evidence traceability [LFT-036]. The audit found concrete failures: for Debugging habits objective fit [LFT-036], the saved draft did not connect LFT-036-P1 to the full boundary of “teach a systematic debugging strategy to beginners”; for Debugging habits content accuracy [LFT-036], the saved draft left the actual call order and progressive-hint ceiling H3 without an explicit verification row; for Debugging habits safety and access [LFT-036], the saved draft left the execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-036 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Debugging habits objective fit [LFT-036] — the draft did not connect LFT-036-P1 to the full boundary of “teach a systematic debugging strategy to beginners”; 2) Debugging habits content accuracy [LFT-036] — the draft left the actual call order and progressive-hint ceiling H3 without an explicit verification row; 3) Debugging habits safety and access [LFT-036] — the draft left the execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-036 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: freeze the call stack at LFT-036-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-036-ROW1 reads: “LFT-036-P1 | freeze the call stack at LFT-036-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction | evidence locator: LFT-036-P1 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Debugging habits safety and access [LFT-036]. The frozen final text passed Debugging habits learner adaptation [LFT-036], Debugging habits evidence traceability [LFT-036], and Debugging habits safety and access [LFT-036] and still failed Debugging habits objective fit [LFT-036] and Debugging habits content accuracy [LFT-036]. The final execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Debugging habits objective fit [LFT-036]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-036 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Debugging habits objective fit [LFT-036].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-036-P1, the declared Debugging habits rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Debugging habits content accuracy [LFT-036]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-036 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Debugging habits content accuracy [LFT-036].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-036-P1, the declared Debugging habits rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Debugging habits learner adaptation [LFT-036]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-036 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Debugging habits learner adaptation [LFT-036].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-036-P1, the declared Debugging habits rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Debugging habits evidence traceability [LFT-036]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-036 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Debugging habits evidence traceability [LFT-036].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-036-P1, the declared Debugging habits rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Debugging habits safety and access [LFT-036]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-036 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Debugging habits safety and access [LFT-036].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-036-P1, the declared Debugging habits rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-036 kept “teach a systematic debugging strategy to beginners” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-036 made the central handling—freeze the call stack at LFT-036-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-036 earned final passes for Debugging habits learner adaptation [LFT-036] and Debugging habits evidence traceability [LFT-036] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-036 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Debugging habits objective fit [LFT-036]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-036 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Debugging habits content accuracy [LFT-036]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"The debugging log will be reviewed for reproducible observations, isolated changes, and causal conclusions.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-036 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-036 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","LFT-036 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—The debugging log will be reviewed for reproducible observations, isolated changes, and causal conclusions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-036 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Debugging habits fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-036 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-draft-complaint-response","title":"Will AI Keep a Complaint Response Inside Policy Boundaries — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"draft a customer complaint response within policy boundaries","excerpt":"The completed WFT-022 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Complaint Handling, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-28T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-022: A customer relations team will provide a complaint, account facts, tone guidance, and authorized remedy limits. Source facts: case WFT-022-C77; shipment five days late; customer requests $400; policy allows $120 without manager; prior contact promised only investigation; delivery scan uncertain. Governing rule card: approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-022 for “draft a customer complaint response within policy boundaries” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-022. Task: draft a customer complaint response within policy boundaries. Context: A customer relations team will provide a complaint, account facts, tone guidance, and authorized remedy limits. Fictional source facts: case WFT-022-C77; shipment five days late; customer requests $400; policy allows $120 without manager; prior contact promised only investigation; delivery scan uncertain. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A response draft and a policy-and-fact checklist will verify accuracy, tone, and permitted commitments.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-022 produced a policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note for “draft a customer complaint response within policy boundaries.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-022-C77 | apologize for the documented delay, offer no more than $120, avoid treating the uncertain scan as final, and escalate the $400 request | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the uncertain scan and above-limit $400 request and recorded a disposition. The rule cell mentioned without verifying approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Complaint Handling exception handling [WFT-022], Complaint Handling source traceability [WFT-022], and Complaint Handling handoff usability [WFT-022]. It found for Complaint Handling task fidelity [WFT-022], the draft did not link WFT-022-C77 to the full task boundary; for Complaint Handling rule accuracy [WFT-022], the draft mentioned but did not verify approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-022 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Complaint Handling task fidelity [WFT-022] — the draft did not link WFT-022-C77 to the full task boundary; 2) Complaint Handling rule accuracy [WFT-022] — the draft mentioned but did not verify approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-022 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: apologize for the documented delay, offer no more than $120, avoid treating the uncertain scan as final, and escalate the $400 request. Its corrected row read “WFT-022-C77 | rule: approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary | decision: apologize for the documented delay, offer no more than $120, avoid treating the uncertain scan as final, and escalate the $400 request | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Complaint Handling task fidelity [WFT-022]. The final audit passed Complaint Handling task fidelity [WFT-022], Complaint Handling exception handling [WFT-022], Complaint Handling source traceability [WFT-022], and Complaint Handling handoff usability [WFT-022]. It still lacked Complaint Handling rule accuracy [WFT-022]; those failures remain visible. The policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Complaint Handling task fidelity [WFT-022]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-022 static check 1 inspected “Complaint Handling task fidelity [WFT-022]” against WFT-022-C77, the rule “approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary,” and the saved policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Complaint Handling rule accuracy [WFT-022]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-022 static check 2 inspected “Complaint Handling rule accuracy [WFT-022]” against WFT-022-C77, the rule “approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary,” and the saved policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Complaint Handling exception handling [WFT-022]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-022 static check 3 inspected “Complaint Handling exception handling [WFT-022]” against WFT-022-C77, the rule “approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary,” and the saved policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Complaint Handling source traceability [WFT-022]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-022 static check 4 inspected “Complaint Handling source traceability [WFT-022]” against WFT-022-C77, the rule “approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary,” and the saved policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Complaint Handling handoff usability [WFT-022]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-022 static check 5 inspected “Complaint Handling handoff usability [WFT-022]” against WFT-022-C77, the rule “approved remedy ceiling, documented facts, tone, and escalation boundary,” and the saved policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-022 bounded “draft a customer complaint response within policy boundaries” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-022 exposed WFT-022-C77—apologize for the documented delay, offer no more than $120, avoid treating the uncertain scan as final, and escalate the $400 request—inside the saved policy-bounded complaint draft, fact-check table, and escalation note.","WFT-022 earned inspectable passes for Complaint Handling task fidelity [WFT-022] and Complaint Handling exception handling [WFT-022] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-022 still lacked saved-text evidence for Complaint Handling rule accuracy [WFT-022]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A response draft and a policy-and-fact checklist will verify accuracy, tone, and permitted commitments.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-022 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-022 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-022 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A response draft and a policy-and-fact checklist will verify accuracy, tone, and permitted commitments.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-022 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Complaint Handling fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-022 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-build-board-briefing","title":"Build a Board Briefing from Conflicting Department Updates — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"build a board briefing from conflicting department updates","excerpt":"The completed WFT-058 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Executive Briefing, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-28T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-058: An executive office will provide finance, sales, operations, and risk updates that disagree on several shared metrics. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-058-N01 through WFT-058-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-058-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-058 for “build a board briefing from conflicting department updates” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-058. Task: build a board briefing from conflicting department updates. Context: An executive office will provide finance, sales, operations, and risk updates that disagree on several shared metrics. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-058-N01 through WFT-058-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-058-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A claim-to-source ledger will verify every headline number, surface unresolved conflicts, and prevent silent reconciliation.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-058 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “build a board briefing from conflicting department updates.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-058-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-058-ROW1 reads: “WFT-058-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-058-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-058], Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-058], and Executive Briefing handoff usability [WFT-058]. The audit found concrete failures: for Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-058], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-058-N06/N07 contradiction; for Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-058], the saved draft gave the central WFT-058-N07 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-058 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-058] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the tentative N05 statement and the WFT-058-N06/N07 contradiction; 2) Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-058] — the draft gave the central WFT-058-N07 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-058 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-058-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-058-ROW1 reads: “WFT-058-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-058-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-058-N01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-058]. The frozen final text passed Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-058], Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-058], Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-058], and Executive Briefing handoff usability [WFT-058] and still failed Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-058]. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-058]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-058 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-058].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-058-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-058]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-058 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-058].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-058-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-058]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-058 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing exception handling [WFT-058].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-058-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-058]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-058 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-058].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-058-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Executive Briefing handoff usability [WFT-058]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-058 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Executive Briefing handoff usability [WFT-058].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-058-N07, the declared Executive Briefing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-058 kept “build a board briefing from conflicting department updates” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-058 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-058-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-058 earned final passes for Executive Briefing task fidelity [WFT-058] and Executive Briefing rule accuracy [WFT-058] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-058 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Executive Briefing source traceability [WFT-058]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A claim-to-source ledger will verify every headline number, surface unresolved conflicts, and prevent silent reconciliation.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-058 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-058 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-058 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A claim-to-source ledger will verify every headline number, surface unresolved conflicts, and prevent silent reconciliation.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-058 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Executive Briefing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-058 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-inventory-software-components","title":"Mapping a Project's Software Components: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"inventory a project's software components","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Supply Chain field test asked the session to inventory a project's software components, preserved an actual five-row software bill of materials audit, and derived 4/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-27T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in ISC-0349 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “inventory a project's software components”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: inventory a project's software components. Focus: Supply Chain.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to derive a component inventory from a small application with direct and transitive dependencies.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nISC-0349-I1: Fixture project SBOM-17 contains application atlas-ui 3.4.1, direct packages react 19.1.0 and zod 3.25.8, transitive packages scheduler 0.26.0 and picomatch 4.0.2, plus vendored parser vp-2.6.\nISC-0349-I2: Manifest edges are atlas-ui→react, atlas-ui→zod, react→scheduler, and zod→picomatch; vp-2.6 has no package-manager parent.\nISC-0349-I3: package-lock pins picomatch 4.0.2 while the deployment notice lists picomatch 4.0.1; runtime snapshot reports 4.0.2.\nISC-0349-I4: License records: react MIT, zod MIT, scheduler MIT, picomatch MIT, vp-2.6 GPL-3.0-only. Policy permits MIT and sends GPL-3.0-only vendored code to review.\nISC-0349-I5: The approved vp-2.6 archive hash is 8f31c0aa, but the fixture copy hashes to 8f31c0ab; all package-manager integrity fields match.\nReturn a concrete software bill of materials audit with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A maintainer-authored dependency manifest will verify component names, versions, relationships, and omissions.","firstResult":"SOFTWARE BILL OF MATERIALS AUDIT ISC-0349 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: inventory a project's software components. Evaluation focus: Supply Chain. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nISC-0349-R1 :: RESULT=INVENTORY=atlas-ui3.4.1; direct react19.1.0+zod3.25.8; transitive scheduler0.26.0+picomatch4.0.2; vendored vp-2.6; components6\nISC-0349-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nISC-0349-R2 :: RESULT=EDGES=treat every package as a direct dependency\nISC-0349-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nISC-0349-R3 :: RESULT=VERSION_EXCEPTION=picomatch deployment-notice4.0.1 versus lock+runtime4.0.2; investigate notice\nISC-0349-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nISC-0349-R4 :: RESULT=LICENSE=all six components are MIT and cleared\nISC-0349-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nISC-0349-R5 :: RESULT=INTEGRITY=pass because the archive filenames match\nISC-0349-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for ISC-0349; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise ISC-0349 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Map declared dependency relationships: input was “Manifest edges are atlas-ui→react, atlas-ui→zod, react→scheduler, and zod→picomatch; vp-2.6 has no package-manager parent.”; first response was “EDGES=treat every package as a direct dependency”.\n- Apply the supplied license policy: input was “License records: react MIT, zod MIT, scheduler MIT, picomatch MIT, vp-2.6 GPL-3.0-only. Policy permits MIT and sends GPL-3.0-only vendored code to review.”; first response was “LICENSE=all six components are MIT and cleared”.\n- Verify the vendored artifact identity: input was “The approved vp-2.6 archive hash is 8f31c0aa, but the fixture copy hashes to 8f31c0ab; all package-manager integrity fields match.”; first response was “INTEGRITY=pass because the archive filenames match”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SOFTWARE BILL OF MATERIALS AUDIT ISC-0349 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: inventory a project's software components. Evaluation focus: Supply Chain. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nISC-0349-R1 :: RESULT=INVENTORY=atlas-ui3.4.1; direct react19.1.0+zod3.25.8; transitive scheduler0.26.0+picomatch4.0.2; vendored vp-2.6; components6\nISC-0349-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nISC-0349-R2 :: RESULT=EDGES=atlas-ui>react,zod; react>scheduler; zod>picomatch; vp-2.6=vendored-root\nISC-0349-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nISC-0349-R3 :: RESULT=VERSION_EXCEPTION=picomatch deployment-notice4.0.1 versus lock+runtime4.0.2; investigate notice\nISC-0349-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nISC-0349-R4 :: RESULT=LICENSE=MIT packages4 allowed; vp-2.6 GPL-3.0-only review; do not mark cleared\nISC-0349-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nISC-0349-R5 :: RESULT=INTEGRITY=managed packages pass; vp-2.6 mismatch 8f31c0ab!=8f31c0aa\nISC-0349-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for ISC-0349; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Reconcile the component inventory","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture project SBOM-17 contains application atlas-ui 3.4.1, direct packages react 19.1.0 and zod 3.25.8, transitive packages scheduler 0.26.0 and picomatch 4.0.2, plus vendored parser vp-2.6. Semantic rule: The inventory must retain the application, both dependency levels, the vendored component, exact versions, and total count. FIRST returned “INVENTORY=atlas-ui3.4.1; direct react19.1.0+zod3.25.8; transitive scheduler0.26.0+picomatch4.0.2; vendored vp-2.6; components6”; the private static semantic key accepts “INVENTORY=atlas-ui3.4.1; direct react19.1.0+zod3.25.8; transitive scheduler0.26.0+picomatch4.0.2; vendored vp-2.6; components6”, so it passes. FINAL returned “INVENTORY=atlas-ui3.4.1; direct react19.1.0+zod3.25.8; transitive scheduler0.26.0+picomatch4.0.2; vendored vp-2.6; components6”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Map declared dependency relationships","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Manifest edges are atlas-ui→react, atlas-ui→zod, react→scheduler, and zod→picomatch; vp-2.6 has no package-manager parent. Semantic rule: The relationship map must distinguish manifest edges from the independently vendored root. FIRST returned “EDGES=treat every package as a direct dependency”; the private static semantic key accepts “EDGES=atlas-ui>react,zod; react>scheduler; zod>picomatch; vp-2.6=vendored-root”, so it fails. FINAL returned “EDGES=atlas-ui>react,zod; react>scheduler; zod>picomatch; vp-2.6=vendored-root”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Flag the seeded version discrepancy","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: package-lock pins picomatch 4.0.2 while the deployment notice lists picomatch 4.0.1; runtime snapshot reports 4.0.2. Semantic rule: The two agreeing machine records do not erase the conflicting deployment notice; the discrepancy must remain visible. FIRST returned “VERSION_EXCEPTION=picomatch deployment-notice4.0.1 versus lock+runtime4.0.2; investigate notice”; the private static semantic key accepts “VERSION_EXCEPTION=picomatch deployment-notice4.0.1 versus lock+runtime4.0.2; investigate notice”, so it passes. FINAL returned “VERSION_EXCEPTION=picomatch deployment-notice4.0.1 versus lock+runtime4.0.2; investigate notice”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Apply the supplied license policy","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: License records: react MIT, zod MIT, scheduler MIT, picomatch MIT, vp-2.6 GPL-3.0-only. Policy permits MIT and sends GPL-3.0-only vendored code to review. Semantic rule: The decision must use each disclosed license and the special review rule for vendored GPL-only code. FIRST returned “LICENSE=all six components are MIT and cleared”; the private static semantic key accepts “LICENSE=MIT packages4 allowed; vp-2.6 GPL-3.0-only review; do not mark cleared”, so it fails. FINAL returned “LICENSE=MIT packages4 allowed; vp-2.6 GPL-3.0-only review; do not mark cleared”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify the vendored artifact identity","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: The approved vp-2.6 archive hash is 8f31c0aa, but the fixture copy hashes to 8f31c0ab; all package-manager integrity fields match. Semantic rule: A one-character checksum difference is an integrity failure and blocks a complete inventory status. FIRST returned “INTEGRITY=pass because the archive filenames match”; the private static semantic key accepts “INTEGRITY=managed packages pass; vp-2.6 mismatch 8f31c0ab!=8f31c0aa; inventory status incomplete” or “INTEGRITY=managed packages pass; vp-2.6 mismatch 8f31c0ab!=8f31c0aa”, so it fails. FINAL returned “INTEGRITY=managed packages pass; vp-2.6 mismatch 8f31c0ab!=8f31c0aa”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["ISC-0349 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Reconcile the component inventory passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Map declared dependency relationships also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Map declared dependency relationships; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A maintainer-authored dependency manifest will verify component names, versions, relationships, and omissions.","evidenceNotes":["ISC-0349 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","ISC-0349's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","ISC-0349 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A maintainer-authored dependency manifest will verify component names, versions, relationships, and omissions."],"limitations":["ISC-0349 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","ISC-0349 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-plan-field-research-notes","title":"Plan a Field-Research Notebook Students Can Actually Use — Completed Benchmark Result: 10/10","task":"plan a field-research notebook for novice student observers","excerpt":"The completed LFT-058 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Field Research, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-26T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-058: An instructor will provide a study question, site constraints, required measurements, consent boundaries, and available field time. Source facts: fictional calendar LFT-058-C1 covering 14 days; exam dates on days 9 and 14; available blocks of 25, 40, and 55 minutes; missed tasks M2/M4; prerequisite P1 before P3; and a maximum of 12 study blocks per day. Governing rule card: the 12-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-058 for “plan a field-research notebook for novice student observers” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-058. Task: plan a field-research notebook for novice student observers. Context: An instructor will provide a study question, site constraints, required measurements, consent boundaries, and available field time. Fictional source facts: fictional calendar LFT-058-C1 covering 14 days; exam dates on days 9 and 14; available blocks of 25, 40, and 55 minutes; missed tasks M2/M4; prerequisite P1 before P3; and a maximum of 12 study blocks per day. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 12-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A simulated field walk and completeness checklist will verify navigation, observation prompts, measurement capture, and ethics reminders.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-058 produced a dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint for the task “plan a field-research notebook for novice student observers.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 12 daily sessions. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-058-ROW1 reads: “LFT-058-C1 | move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 12 daily sessions | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Field Research content accuracy [LFT-058], Field Research learner adaptation [LFT-058], and Field Research evidence traceability [LFT-058]. The audit found concrete failures: for Field Research objective fit [LFT-058], the saved draft did not connect LFT-058-M4 to the full boundary of “plan a field-research notebook for novice student observers”; for Field Research safety and access [LFT-058], the saved draft left the dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-058 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Field Research objective fit [LFT-058] — the draft did not connect LFT-058-M4 to the full boundary of “plan a field-research notebook for novice student observers”; 2) Field Research safety and access [LFT-058] — the draft left the dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-058 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 12 daily sessions. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-058-ROW1 reads: “LFT-058-C1 | move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 12 daily sessions | evidence locator: LFT-058-C1 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Field Research objective fit [LFT-058] and Field Research safety and access [LFT-058]. The frozen final text passed Field Research objective fit [LFT-058], Field Research content accuracy [LFT-058], Field Research learner adaptation [LFT-058], Field Research evidence traceability [LFT-058], and Field Research safety and access [LFT-058]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Field Research objective fit [LFT-058]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-058 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Field Research objective fit [LFT-058].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-058-M4, the declared Field Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Field Research content accuracy [LFT-058]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-058 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Field Research content accuracy [LFT-058].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-058-M4, the declared Field Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Field Research learner adaptation [LFT-058]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-058 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Field Research learner adaptation [LFT-058].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-058-M4, the declared Field Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Field Research evidence traceability [LFT-058]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-058 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Field Research evidence traceability [LFT-058].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-058-M4, the declared Field Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Field Research safety and access [LFT-058]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-058 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Field Research safety and access [LFT-058].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-058-M4, the declared Field Research rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-058 kept “plan a field-research notebook for novice student observers” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-058 made the central handling—move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 12 daily sessions—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-058 earned final passes for Field Research objective fit [LFT-058] and Field Research content accuracy [LFT-058] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-058’s first draft failed Field Research objective fit [LFT-058]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A simulated field walk and completeness checklist will verify navigation, observation prompts, measurement capture, and ethics reminders.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-058 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-058 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-058 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A simulated field walk and completeness checklist will verify navigation, observation prompts, measurement capture, and ethics reminders.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-058 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Field Research fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-058 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-recursion-trace-tutor","title":"Teaching Recursion Through AI-Guided Execution Tracing: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"teach recursion through execution tracing","excerpt":"The completed LFT-015 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Recursion tracing, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-26T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-015: A programming learner will trace recursive calls while the AI asks for predictions before revealing each next state. Source facts: fictional code sample LFT-015-P1 with function walk(n), calls walk(3)→walk(2)→walk(1), an off-by-one condition n < 1, learner predictions 3, 2, 0, and a no-solution-code rule through hint H3. Governing rule card: the actual call order and progressive-hint ceiling H3. Trace the supplied code state by state, base every hint on the actual execution, and keep the completed solution outside the response until the declared hint ceiling. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-015 for “teach recursion through execution tracing” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-015. Task: teach recursion through execution tracing. Context: A programming learner will trace recursive calls while the AI asks for predictions before revealing each next state. Fictional source facts: fictional code sample LFT-015-P1 with function walk(n), calls walk(3)→walk(2)→walk(1), an off-by-one condition n < 1, learner predictions 3, 2, 0, and a no-solution-code rule through hint H3. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the actual call order and progressive-hint ceiling H3. Trace the supplied code state by state, base every hint on the actual execution, and keep the completed solution outside the response until the declared hint ceiling. Produce an execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: Trace tables and dialogue turns will show whether feedback follows the actual call stack at every step.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-015 produced an execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note for the task “teach recursion through execution tracing.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: freeze the call stack at LFT-015-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-015-ROW1 reads: “LFT-015-P1 | freeze the call stack at LFT-015-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Recursion tracing objective fit [LFT-015], Recursion tracing content accuracy [LFT-015], and Recursion tracing learner adaptation [LFT-015]. The audit found concrete failures: for Recursion tracing evidence traceability [LFT-015], the saved draft gave the central LFT-015-P1 decision no source-to-output locator; for Recursion tracing safety and access [LFT-015], the saved draft left the execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-015 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Recursion tracing evidence traceability [LFT-015] — the draft gave the central LFT-015-P1 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Recursion tracing safety and access [LFT-015] — the draft left the execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-015 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: freeze the call stack at LFT-015-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-015-ROW1 reads: “LFT-015-P1 | freeze the call stack at LFT-015-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction | evidence locator: LFT-015-P1 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Recursion tracing evidence traceability [LFT-015]. The frozen final text passed Recursion tracing objective fit [LFT-015], Recursion tracing content accuracy [LFT-015], Recursion tracing learner adaptation [LFT-015], and Recursion tracing evidence traceability [LFT-015] and still failed Recursion tracing safety and access [LFT-015]. The final execution trace, progressive hint ladder, and misconception note therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Recursion tracing objective fit [LFT-015]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-015 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Recursion tracing objective fit [LFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-015-P1, the declared Recursion tracing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Recursion tracing content accuracy [LFT-015]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-015 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Recursion tracing content accuracy [LFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-015-P1, the declared Recursion tracing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Recursion tracing learner adaptation [LFT-015]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-015 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Recursion tracing learner adaptation [LFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-015-P1, the declared Recursion tracing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Recursion tracing evidence traceability [LFT-015]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-015 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Recursion tracing evidence traceability [LFT-015].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-015-P1, the declared Recursion tracing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Recursion tracing safety and access [LFT-015]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-015 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Recursion tracing safety and access [LFT-015].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-015-P1, the declared Recursion tracing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-015 kept “teach recursion through execution tracing” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-015 made the central handling—freeze the call stack at LFT-015-P1 step 3, ask the learner to predict the return value, and expose the boundary condition only after the second incorrect prediction—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-015 earned final passes for Recursion tracing objective fit [LFT-015] and Recursion tracing content accuracy [LFT-015] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-015 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Recursion tracing safety and access [LFT-015]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"Trace tables and dialogue turns will show whether feedback follows the actual call stack at every step.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-015 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-015 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-015 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—Trace tables and dialogue turns will show whether feedback follows the actual call stack at every step.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-015 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Recursion tracing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-015 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-write-knowledge-base-article","title":"Turning Resolved Support Cases into a Reproducible Knowledge Base Article: A Failed Synthetic Benchmark at 4/10","task":"turn resolved support cases into a knowledge base article","excerpt":"The completed WFT-043 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Knowledge Management checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-25T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-043: A support enablement team will provide related case histories, approved resolution steps, and an article template. Source facts: resolved cases WFT-043-K01–K06; verified cause expired token; steps sign out, clear token, sign in; warning not to delete drafts; SSO exception. Governing rule card: every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-043 for “turn resolved support cases into a knowledge base article” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-043. Task: turn resolved support cases into a knowledge base article. Context: A support enablement team will provide related case histories, approved resolution steps, and an article template. Fictional source facts: resolved cases WFT-043-K01–K06; verified cause expired token; steps sign out, clear token, sign in; warning not to delete drafts; SSO exception. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A draft article with case references and a procedure replay will verify accuracy and reproducibility.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-043 produced a knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log for “turn resolved support cases into a knowledge base article.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-043-K04 | write the expired-token diagnosis, preserve three verified steps and data warning, and route SSO users to the exception | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the SSO exception and data-loss warning and left the disposition blank. The rule cell mentioned without verifying every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Knowledge Management handoff usability [WFT-043]. It found for Knowledge Management task fidelity [WFT-043], the draft did not link WFT-043-K04 to the full task boundary; for Knowledge Management rule accuracy [WFT-043], the draft mentioned but did not verify every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion; for Knowledge Management exception handling [WFT-043], the draft left the SSO exception and data-loss warning without an explicit disposition; for Knowledge Management source traceability [WFT-043], the draft gave WFT-043-K04 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-043 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Knowledge Management task fidelity [WFT-043] — the draft did not link WFT-043-K04 to the full task boundary; 2) Knowledge Management rule accuracy [WFT-043] — the draft mentioned but did not verify every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion; 3) Knowledge Management exception handling [WFT-043] — the draft left the SSO exception and data-loss warning without an explicit disposition; 4) Knowledge Management source traceability [WFT-043] — the draft gave WFT-043-K04 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-043 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: write the expired-token diagnosis, preserve three verified steps and data warning, and route SSO users to the exception. Its corrected row read “WFT-043-K04 | rule: every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion | decision: write the expired-token diagnosis, preserve three verified steps and data warning, and route SSO users to the exception | static status: 4/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Knowledge Management task fidelity [WFT-043]. The final audit passed Knowledge Management task fidelity [WFT-043] and Knowledge Management handoff usability [WFT-043]. It still lacked Knowledge Management rule accuracy [WFT-043], Knowledge Management exception handling [WFT-043], and Knowledge Management source traceability [WFT-043]; those failures remain visible. The knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log earned 4/10 from 2 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Knowledge Management task fidelity [WFT-043]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-043 static check 1 inspected “Knowledge Management task fidelity [WFT-043]” against WFT-043-K04, the rule “every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion,” and the saved knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Knowledge Management rule accuracy [WFT-043]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-043 static check 2 inspected “Knowledge Management rule accuracy [WFT-043]” against WFT-043-K04, the rule “every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion,” and the saved knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Knowledge Management exception handling [WFT-043]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-043 static check 3 inspected “Knowledge Management exception handling [WFT-043]” against WFT-043-K04, the rule “every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion,” and the saved knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Knowledge Management source traceability [WFT-043]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-043 static check 4 inspected “Knowledge Management source traceability [WFT-043]” against WFT-043-K04, the rule “every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion,” and the saved knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Knowledge Management handoff usability [WFT-043]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-043 static check 5 inspected “Knowledge Management handoff usability [WFT-043]” against WFT-043-K04, the rule “every instruction traces to a resolved case and includes a verification criterion,” and the saved knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-043 bounded “turn resolved support cases into a knowledge base article” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-043 exposed WFT-043-K04—write the expired-token diagnosis, preserve three verified steps and data warning, and route SSO users to the exception—inside the saved knowledge-base draft, symptom-to-fix table, and unsupported-step log."],"whatFailed":["WFT-043 still lacked saved-text evidence for Knowledge Management rule accuracy [WFT-043]; that failure remains published.","WFT-043 still lacked saved-text evidence for Knowledge Management exception handling [WFT-043]; that failure remains published.","WFT-043 still lacked saved-text evidence for Knowledge Management source traceability [WFT-043]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A draft article with case references and a procedure replay will verify accuracy and reproducibility.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-043 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-043 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","WFT-043 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A draft article with case references and a procedure replay will verify accuracy and reproducibility.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-043 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Knowledge Management fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-043 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-package-command-line-app","title":"Build a Cleanly Installable CLI Package: Three Semantic Checks Still Failed","task":"package a command-line application for clean installation","excerpt":"This completed synthetic App Packaging field test asked the session to package a command-line application for clean installation, preserved an actual five-row cli package lifecycle record, and derived 0/10 then 4/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-24T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in PCLA-5811 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “package a command-line application for clean installation”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: package a command-line application for clean installation. Focus: App Packaging.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to package a small application with versioned metadata, dependencies, and uninstall behavior.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nPCLA-5811-I1: Application tidy version 1.4.2 exposes command tidy through bin/tidy.js; metadata license is MIT and runtime is Node >=22.\nPCLA-5811-I2: Package needs bin/tidy.js, lib/a.js, lib/b.js, README, and LICENSE; tests/, fixtures/, and .env are excluded.\nPCLA-5811-I3: Runtime requires parse 3.2.1 and color 5.0.0; dev-only testlib 9.1.0 must not install for users.\nPCLA-5811-I4: Upgrade fixture moves 1.4.1→1.4.2 while retaining config CFG-USER and replacing executable hash old11 with new42.\nPCLA-5811-I5: Acceptance: clean install, tidy --version prints 1.4.2, sample output hash 6cf1, upgrade passes, uninstall removes command but retains CFG-USER.\nReturn a concrete cli package lifecycle record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Fresh install, upgrade, invocation, and uninstall checks will verify the package lifecycle on a clean system.","firstResult":"CLI PACKAGE LIFECYCLE RECORD PCLA-5811 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: package a command-line application for clean installation. Evaluation focus: App Packaging. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPCLA-5811-R1 :: RESULT=METADATA=omit version and entry point\nPCLA-5811-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCLA-5811-R2 :: RESULT=CONTENTS=publish the whole repository including .env\nPCLA-5811-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCLA-5811-R3 :: RESULT=DEPENDENCIES=ship testlib and floating versions\nPCLA-5811-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCLA-5811-R4 :: RESULT=UPGRADE=delete CFG-USER during upgrade\nPCLA-5811-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCLA-5811-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=archive file exists\nPCLA-5811-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PCLA-5811; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise PCLA-5811 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Declare package identity and entry point: input was “Application tidy version 1.4.2 exposes command tidy through bin/tidy.js; metadata license is MIT and runtime is Node >=22.”; first response was “METADATA=omit version and entry point”.\n- Include only runtime files: input was “Package needs bin/tidy.js, lib/a.js, lib/b.js, README, and LICENSE; tests/, fixtures/, and .env are excluded.”; first response was “CONTENTS=publish the whole repository including .env”.\n- Pin production dependencies: input was “Runtime requires parse 3.2.1 and color 5.0.0; dev-only testlib 9.1.0 must not install for users.”; first response was “DEPENDENCIES=ship testlib and floating versions”.\n- Preserve upgrade behavior: input was “Upgrade fixture moves 1.4.1→1.4.2 while retaining config CFG-USER and replacing executable hash old11 with new42.”; first response was “UPGRADE=delete CFG-USER during upgrade”.\n- Verify install, invocation, and uninstall: input was “Acceptance: clean install, tidy --version prints 1.4.2, sample output hash 6cf1, upgrade passes, uninstall removes command but retains CFG-USER.”; first response was “ACCEPT=archive file exists”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"CLI PACKAGE LIFECYCLE RECORD PCLA-5811 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: package a command-line application for clean installation. Evaluation focus: App Packaging. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nPCLA-5811-R1 :: RESULT=METADATA=tidy1.4.2; bin tidy->bin/tidy.js; MIT; Node>=22\nPCLA-5811-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCLA-5811-R2 :: RESULT=CONTENTS=include5 declared paths; exclude tests+fixtures+.env\nPCLA-5811-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCLA-5811-R3 :: RESULT=DEPENDENCIES=parse3.2.1+color5.0.0 runtime\nPCLA-5811-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCLA-5811-R4 :: RESULT=UPGRADE=1.4.1>1.4.2; retain CFG-USER\nPCLA-5811-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nPCLA-5811-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=install pass; version1.4.2; sample6cf1; upgrade pass; command removed\nPCLA-5811-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for PCLA-5811; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Declare package identity and entry point","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Application tidy version 1.4.2 exposes command tidy through bin/tidy.js; metadata license is MIT and runtime is Node >=22. Semantic rule: A clean installer needs the exact identity, executable mapping, license, and runtime constraint. FIRST returned “METADATA=omit version and entry point”; the private static semantic key accepts “METADATA=tidy1.4.2; bin tidy->bin/tidy.js; MIT; Node>=22”, so it fails. FINAL returned “METADATA=tidy1.4.2; bin tidy->bin/tidy.js; MIT; Node>=22”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Include only runtime files","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Package needs bin/tidy.js, lib/a.js, lib/b.js, README, and LICENSE; tests/, fixtures/, and .env are excluded. Semantic rule: The frozen allowlist and sensitive-file denylist determine package contents. FIRST returned “CONTENTS=publish the whole repository including .env”; the private static semantic key accepts “CONTENTS=include5 declared paths; exclude tests+fixtures+.env”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CONTENTS=include5 declared paths; exclude tests+fixtures+.env”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Pin production dependencies","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Runtime requires parse 3.2.1 and color 5.0.0; dev-only testlib 9.1.0 must not install for users. Semantic rule: User installation should contain exact production dependencies only. FIRST returned “DEPENDENCIES=ship testlib and floating versions”; the private static semantic key accepts “DEPENDENCIES=parse3.2.1+color5.0.0 runtime; exclude testlib9.1.0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DEPENDENCIES=parse3.2.1+color5.0.0 runtime”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve upgrade behavior","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Upgrade fixture moves 1.4.1→1.4.2 while retaining config CFG-USER and replacing executable hash old11 with new42. Semantic rule: Version replacement must not destroy the declared user-owned configuration. FIRST returned “UPGRADE=delete CFG-USER during upgrade”; the private static semantic key accepts “UPGRADE=1.4.1>1.4.2; retain CFG-USER; executable hashnew42”, so it fails. FINAL returned “UPGRADE=1.4.1>1.4.2; retain CFG-USER”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify install, invocation, and uninstall","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance: clean install, tidy --version prints 1.4.2, sample output hash 6cf1, upgrade passes, uninstall removes command but retains CFG-USER. Semantic rule: The full package lifecycle includes installation, behavior, upgrade, and scoped removal. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=archive file exists”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=install pass; version1.4.2; sample6cf1; upgrade pass; command removed; CFG-USER retained”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=install pass; version1.4.2; sample6cf1; upgrade pass; command removed”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["PCLA-5811 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Declare package identity and entry point passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Include only runtime files also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Pin production dependencies still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Preserve upgrade behavior still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Verify install, invocation, and uninstall still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Fresh install, upgrade, invocation, and uninstall checks will verify the package lifecycle on a clean system.","evidenceNotes":["PCLA-5811 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","PCLA-5811's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 2 passes multiplied by two.","PCLA-5811 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Fresh install, upgrade, invocation, and uninstall checks will verify the package lifecycle on a clean system."],"limitations":["PCLA-5811 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","PCLA-5811 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-reconcile-expense-receipts","title":"Where Do These Expense Receipts Belong? An AI Reconciliation Protocol: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"reconcile employee expense receipts against card transactions","excerpt":"The completed WFT-051 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Expense Reconciliation, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-23T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-051: A finance team will provide a synthetic card ledger, receipt images, split purchases, currency conversions, and deliberately missing documents. Source facts: card lines WFT-051-X01–X06; receipts $46.20/$118/$242.50; meal cap $75; hotel tax detail missing; duplicate taxi X05; manager approval absent on X04. Governing rule card: amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-051 for “reconcile employee expense receipts against card transactions” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-051. Task: reconcile employee expense receipts against card transactions. Context: A finance team will provide a synthetic card ledger, receipt images, split purchases, currency conversions, and deliberately missing documents. Fictional source facts: card lines WFT-051-X01–X06; receipts $46.20/$118/$242.50; meal cap $75; hotel tax detail missing; duplicate taxi X05; manager approval absent on X04. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A transaction-to-receipt crosswalk and exception ledger will verify matches, amounts, currencies, duplicates, and unresolved items.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-051 produced a receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue for “reconcile employee expense receipts against card transactions.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-051-X04 | match X01, flag X03 above the meal cap, isolate duplicate X05, and hold X04 for missing approval | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the duplicate X05 taxi and X04 approval gap and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Expense Reconciliation task fidelity [WFT-051], Expense Reconciliation rule accuracy [WFT-051], and Expense Reconciliation exception handling [WFT-051]. It found for Expense Reconciliation source traceability [WFT-051], the draft gave WFT-051-X04 no source locator; for Expense Reconciliation handoff usability [WFT-051], the draft left the receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-051 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Expense Reconciliation source traceability [WFT-051] — the draft gave WFT-051-X04 no source locator; 2) Expense Reconciliation handoff usability [WFT-051] — the draft left the receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-051 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: match X01, flag X03 above the meal cap, isolate duplicate X05, and hold X04 for missing approval. Its corrected row read “WFT-051-X04 | rule: amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules | decision: match X01, flag X03 above the meal cap, isolate duplicate X05, and hold X04 for missing approval | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Expense Reconciliation source traceability [WFT-051] and Expense Reconciliation handoff usability [WFT-051]. The final audit passed Expense Reconciliation task fidelity [WFT-051], Expense Reconciliation rule accuracy [WFT-051], Expense Reconciliation exception handling [WFT-051], Expense Reconciliation source traceability [WFT-051], and Expense Reconciliation handoff usability [WFT-051]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Expense Reconciliation task fidelity [WFT-051]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-051 static check 1 inspected “Expense Reconciliation task fidelity [WFT-051]” against WFT-051-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Expense Reconciliation rule accuracy [WFT-051]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-051 static check 2 inspected “Expense Reconciliation rule accuracy [WFT-051]” against WFT-051-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Expense Reconciliation exception handling [WFT-051]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-051 static check 3 inspected “Expense Reconciliation exception handling [WFT-051]” against WFT-051-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Expense Reconciliation source traceability [WFT-051]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-051 static check 4 inspected “Expense Reconciliation source traceability [WFT-051]” against WFT-051-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Expense Reconciliation handoff usability [WFT-051]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-051 static check 5 inspected “Expense Reconciliation handoff usability [WFT-051]” against WFT-051-X04, the rule “amount, date, merchant, $75 cap, and documented approval rules,” and the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-051 bounded “reconcile employee expense receipts against card transactions” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-051 exposed WFT-051-X04—match X01, flag X03 above the meal cap, isolate duplicate X05, and hold X04 for missing approval—inside the saved receipt-to-transaction reconciliation, policy exception register, and approval queue.","WFT-051 earned inspectable passes for Expense Reconciliation task fidelity [WFT-051] and Expense Reconciliation rule accuracy [WFT-051] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-051 first failed Expense Reconciliation source traceability [WFT-051]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A transaction-to-receipt crosswalk and exception ledger will verify matches, amounts, currencies, duplicates, and unresolved items.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-051 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-051 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-051 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A transaction-to-receipt crosswalk and exception ledger will verify matches, amounts, currencies, duplicates, and unresolved items.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-051 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Expense Reconciliation fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-051 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-match-invoices-orders-receipts","title":"AI Invoice Matching Across Orders, Receipts, and Exceptions — Three of Five Checks Passed","task":"match invoices to purchase orders and receipts","excerpt":"The completed WFT-002 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Invoice Matching checks passed after one correction, but Invoice Matching task fidelity [WFT-002] and Invoice Matching rule accuracy [WFT-002] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-23T15:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-002: An accounts payable team will supply invoice, order, and receipt records containing deliberate quantity and price mismatches. Source facts: ledger rows WFT-002-L01 through WFT-002-L06; quantities 24, 27, and 42; unit prices $42.50 and $47.25; a 3% discount threshold; one duplicated $118.00 charge; and source document WFT-002-S04 with a missing approval. Governing rule card: the 3% threshold and every quantity-times-price calculation. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-002 for “match invoices to purchase orders and receipts” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-002. Task: match invoices to purchase orders and receipts. Context: An accounts payable team will supply invoice, order, and receipt records containing deliberate quantity and price mismatches. Fictional source facts: ledger rows WFT-002-L01 through WFT-002-L06; quantities 24, 27, and 42; unit prices $42.50 and $47.25; a 3% discount threshold; one duplicated $118.00 charge; and source document WFT-002-S04 with a missing approval. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 3% threshold and every quantity-times-price calculation. Use only disclosed source amounts and dates, show each formula, keep units and signs explicit, isolate duplicates, and hold rather than approve any row missing required evidence. Produce a reconciliation table, calculation notes, and exception ledger. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A reconciliation table and sampled source comparisons will verify each proposed match and exception.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-002 produced a reconciliation table, calculation notes, and exception ledger for the task “match invoices to purchase orders and receipts.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: recompute WFT-002-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-002-L04 because its approval source is absent. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-002-ROW1 reads: “WFT-002-L01 | recompute WFT-002-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-002-L04 because its approval source is absent | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Invoice Matching exception handling [WFT-002] and Invoice Matching source traceability [WFT-002]. The audit found concrete failures: for Invoice Matching task fidelity [WFT-002], the saved draft did not connect WFT-002-L04 to the full boundary of “match invoices to purchase orders and receipts”; for Invoice Matching rule accuracy [WFT-002], the saved draft left the 3% threshold and every quantity-times-price calculation without an explicit verification row; for Invoice Matching handoff usability [WFT-002], the saved draft left the reconciliation table, calculation notes, and exception ledger without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-002 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Invoice Matching task fidelity [WFT-002] — the draft did not connect WFT-002-L04 to the full boundary of “match invoices to purchase orders and receipts”; 2) Invoice Matching rule accuracy [WFT-002] — the draft left the 3% threshold and every quantity-times-price calculation without an explicit verification row; 3) Invoice Matching handoff usability [WFT-002] — the draft left the reconciliation table, calculation notes, and exception ledger without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-002 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: recompute WFT-002-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-002-L04 because its approval source is absent. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-002-ROW1 reads: “WFT-002-L01 | recompute WFT-002-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-002-L04 because its approval source is absent | evidence locator: WFT-002-L01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Invoice Matching handoff usability [WFT-002]. The frozen final text passed Invoice Matching exception handling [WFT-002], Invoice Matching source traceability [WFT-002], and Invoice Matching handoff usability [WFT-002] and still failed Invoice Matching task fidelity [WFT-002] and Invoice Matching rule accuracy [WFT-002]. The final reconciliation table, calculation notes, and exception ledger therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Invoice Matching task fidelity [WFT-002]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-002 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Matching task fidelity [WFT-002].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-002-L04, the declared Invoice Matching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Invoice Matching rule accuracy [WFT-002]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-002 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Matching rule accuracy [WFT-002].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-002-L04, the declared Invoice Matching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Invoice Matching exception handling [WFT-002]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-002 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Matching exception handling [WFT-002].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-002-L04, the declared Invoice Matching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Invoice Matching source traceability [WFT-002]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-002 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Matching source traceability [WFT-002].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-002-L04, the declared Invoice Matching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Invoice Matching handoff usability [WFT-002]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-002 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Invoice Matching handoff usability [WFT-002].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-002-L04, the declared Invoice Matching rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-002 kept “match invoices to purchase orders and receipts” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-002 made the central handling—recompute WFT-002-L03 at $42.50, isolate the duplicated $118.00 line, and hold WFT-002-L04 because its approval source is absent—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-002 earned final passes for Invoice Matching exception handling [WFT-002] and Invoice Matching source traceability [WFT-002] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-002 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Invoice Matching task fidelity [WFT-002]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-002 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Invoice Matching rule accuracy [WFT-002]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A reconciliation table and sampled source comparisons will verify each proposed match and exception.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-002 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-002 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-002 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A reconciliation table and sampled source comparisons will verify each proposed match and exception.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-002 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Invoice Matching fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-002 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-civic-claim-evaluation","title":"Do AI-Guided Civic Exercises Help First-Time Voters Evaluate Claims: The Completed Test Finished at 4/10","task":"teach first-time voters to evaluate civic claims","excerpt":"The completed LFT-029 synthetic field test finished at 4/10 and was not recommended: only two of five Civic literacy checks passed after the permitted correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-23T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-029: Adult learners will separate factual claims, opinions, and calls to action in fictional campaign materials. Source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-029-T01 through LFT-029-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-029-T03-L7. Governing rule card: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-029 for “teach first-time voters to evaluate civic claims” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 4 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-029. Task: teach first-time voters to evaluate civic claims. Context: Adult learners will separate factual claims, opinions, and calls to action in fictional campaign materials. Fictional source facts: fictional excerpts LFT-029-T01 through LFT-029-T04 dated 1912, 1936, 1974, and 2008; claim C1 supported by T01/T03; claim C2 contradicted by T02; an unknown author motive; and quotation locator LFT-029-T03-L7. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation. Tie each claim or interpretation to a supplied excerpt, observation, pitch, or locator; expose contradictions; do not infer an author, artist, or source motive that is absent. Produce a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A classification worksheet will be checked against an independently prepared rationale for every excerpt.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-029 produced a claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations for the task “teach first-time voters to evaluate civic claims.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-029-T03-L7. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-029-ROW1 reads: “LFT-029-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-029-T03-L7 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Civic literacy evidence traceability [LFT-029]. The audit found concrete failures: for Civic literacy objective fit [LFT-029], the saved draft did not connect LFT-029-T02 to the full boundary of “teach first-time voters to evaluate civic claims”; for Civic literacy content accuracy [LFT-029], the saved draft left claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation without an explicit verification row; for Civic literacy learner adaptation [LFT-029], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the contradictory LFT-029-T02 account and undocumented author motive; for Civic literacy safety and access [LFT-029], the saved draft left the claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-029 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Civic literacy objective fit [LFT-029] — the draft did not connect LFT-029-T02 to the full boundary of “teach first-time voters to evaluate civic claims”; 2) Civic literacy content accuracy [LFT-029] — the draft left claim-level citation and separation of evidence from interpretation without an explicit verification row; 3) Civic literacy learner adaptation [LFT-029] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the contradictory LFT-029-T02 account and undocumented author motive; 4) Civic literacy safety and access [LFT-029] — the draft left the claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-029 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-029-T03-L7. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-029-ROW1 reads: “LFT-029-T01 | support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-029-T03-L7 | evidence locator: LFT-029-T01 | static status: 4/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Civic literacy safety and access [LFT-029]. The frozen final text passed Civic literacy evidence traceability [LFT-029] and Civic literacy safety and access [LFT-029] and still failed Civic literacy objective fit [LFT-029], Civic literacy content accuracy [LFT-029], and Civic literacy learner adaptation [LFT-029]. The final claim-source matrix, guided questions, and uncertainty annotations therefore earned 4/10 from 2 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Civic literacy objective fit [LFT-029]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-029 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Civic literacy objective fit [LFT-029].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-029-T02, the declared Civic literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Civic literacy content accuracy [LFT-029]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-029 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Civic literacy content accuracy [LFT-029].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-029-T02, the declared Civic literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Civic literacy learner adaptation [LFT-029]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-029 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Civic literacy learner adaptation [LFT-029].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-029-T02, the declared Civic literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Civic literacy evidence traceability [LFT-029]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-029 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Civic literacy evidence traceability [LFT-029].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-029-T02, the declared Civic literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Civic literacy safety and access [LFT-029]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-029 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Civic literacy safety and access [LFT-029].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-029-T02, the declared Civic literacy rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":2,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["LFT-029 kept “teach first-time voters to evaluate civic claims” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-029 made the central handling—support C1 with T01/T03, flag C2's conflict with T02, and refuse to infer the unknown motive while directing attention to LFT-029-T03-L7—inspectable rather than implying unseen work."],"whatFailed":["LFT-029 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Civic literacy objective fit [LFT-029]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-029 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Civic literacy content accuracy [LFT-029]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","LFT-029 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Civic literacy learner adaptation [LFT-029]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A classification worksheet will be checked against an independently prepared rationale for every excerpt.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-029 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-029 scores are arithmetic: 1 first-pass checks × 2 = 2/10; 2 final-pass checks × 2 = 4/10.","LFT-029 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A classification worksheet will be checked against an independently prepared rationale for every excerpt.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-029 is a synthetic benchmark, so its failed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Civic literacy fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-029 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-design-restorable-backup","title":"Does an AI Backup Design Survive a Clean Restore: Three Semantic Checks Still Failed","task":"design a backup that can actually be restored","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Backups field test asked the session to design a backup that can actually be restored, preserved an actual five-row restorable backup design, and derived 0/10 then 4/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-21T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in DRB-8471 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “design a backup that can actually be restored”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: design a backup that can actually be restored. Focus: Backups.\nSource scenario: The experiment will ask AI to design an encrypted backup routine for a small mixed-file home directory.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nDRB-8471-I1: Home set HOME-17 has 312 files in Docs, Photos, and Finance totaling 8.4 GB; source manifest hash is aa7201f4.\nDRB-8471-I2: Archive must use AES-256; recovery secret REC-17 is stored separately and test operator has a verified copy.\nDRB-8471-I3: Policy requires 7 daily, 4 weekly, and 3 monthly versions; oldest monthly is protected from pruning.\nDRB-8471-I4: Frozen restore sample is D-014, D-099, P-101, F-002, F-018 plus the empty folder Docs/Templates.\nDRB-8471-I5: Pass is 312/312 entries, zero hash mismatches, empty folder present, REC-17 unlock succeeds, and restore time under 25 minutes.\nReturn a concrete restorable backup design with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: A clean restore destination and checksum manifest will verify completeness, integrity, and recovery instructions.","firstResult":"RESTORABLE BACKUP DESIGN DRB-8471 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: design a backup that can actually be restored. Evaluation focus: Backups. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDRB-8471-R1 :: RESULT=SCOPE=back up Docs only\nDRB-8471-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDRB-8471-R2 :: RESULT=ENCRYPT=store REC-17 inside the archive\nDRB-8471-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDRB-8471-R3 :: RESULT=RETENTION=keep only the newest copy\nDRB-8471-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDRB-8471-R4 :: RESULT=SAMPLE=restore one convenient photo\nDRB-8471-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDRB-8471-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=backup command exits without error\nDRB-8471-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DRB-8471; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise DRB-8471 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Cover the complete source manifest: input was “Home set HOME-17 has 312 files in Docs, Photos, and Finance totaling 8.4 GB; source manifest hash is aa7201f4.”; first response was “SCOPE=back up Docs only”.\n- Use the declared encryption boundary: input was “Archive must use AES-256; recovery secret REC-17 is stored separately and test operator has a verified copy.”; first response was “ENCRYPT=store REC-17 inside the archive”.\n- Meet version and retention rules: input was “Policy requires 7 daily, 4 weekly, and 3 monthly versions; oldest monthly is protected from pruning.”; first response was “RETENTION=keep only the newest copy”.\n- Design a clean restore sample: input was “Frozen restore sample is D-014, D-099, P-101, F-002, F-018 plus the empty folder Docs/Templates.”; first response was “SAMPLE=restore one convenient photo”.\n- Define restore acceptance: input was “Pass is 312/312 entries, zero hash mismatches, empty folder present, REC-17 unlock succeeds, and restore time under 25 minutes.”; first response was “ACCEPT=backup command exits without error”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"RESTORABLE BACKUP DESIGN DRB-8471 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: design a backup that can actually be restored. Evaluation focus: Backups. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDRB-8471-R1 :: RESULT=SCOPE=312 files; Docs+Photos+Finance; 8.4GB; manifest aa7201f4\nDRB-8471-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDRB-8471-R2 :: RESULT=ENCRYPT=AES-256; keep REC-17 separate; verify operator copy\nDRB-8471-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDRB-8471-R3 :: RESULT=RETENTION=daily7; weekly4; monthly3\nDRB-8471-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDRB-8471-R4 :: RESULT=SAMPLE=restore D-014,D-099,P-101,F-002,F-018\nDRB-8471-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDRB-8471-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=312/312; hash mismatches0; empty folder present; REC-17 unlock\nDRB-8471-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DRB-8471; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Cover the complete source manifest","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Home set HOME-17 has 312 files in Docs, Photos, and Finance totaling 8.4 GB; source manifest hash is aa7201f4. Semantic rule: A restorable design must enumerate all declared folders, count, size, and manifest. FIRST returned “SCOPE=back up Docs only”; the private static semantic key accepts “SCOPE=312 files; Docs+Photos+Finance; 8.4GB; manifest aa7201f4”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SCOPE=312 files; Docs+Photos+Finance; 8.4GB; manifest aa7201f4”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the declared encryption boundary","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Archive must use AES-256; recovery secret REC-17 is stored separately and test operator has a verified copy. Semantic rule: Encrypted backup and independently accessible recovery material are both mandatory. FIRST returned “ENCRYPT=store REC-17 inside the archive”; the private static semantic key accepts “ENCRYPT=AES-256; keep REC-17 separate; verify operator copy”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ENCRYPT=AES-256; keep REC-17 separate; verify operator copy”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Meet version and retention rules","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Policy requires 7 daily, 4 weekly, and 3 monthly versions; oldest monthly is protected from pruning. Semantic rule: All three retention tiers and the protected version must survive pruning. FIRST returned “RETENTION=keep only the newest copy”; the private static semantic key accepts “RETENTION=daily7; weekly4; monthly3; protect oldest monthly”, so it fails. FINAL returned “RETENTION=daily7; weekly4; monthly3”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Design a clean restore sample","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Frozen restore sample is D-014, D-099, P-101, F-002, F-018 plus the empty folder Docs/Templates. Semantic rule: The exact multi-folder sample and empty directory test exercise more than archive creation. FIRST returned “SAMPLE=restore one convenient photo”; the private static semantic key accepts “SAMPLE=restore D-014,D-099,P-101,F-002,F-018; empty folder Docs/Templates present”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SAMPLE=restore D-014,D-099,P-101,F-002,F-018”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define restore acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Pass is 312/312 entries, zero hash mismatches, empty folder present, REC-17 unlock succeeds, and restore time under 25 minutes. Semantic rule: Only an independently checked restore proves the backup design is usable. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=backup command exits without error”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=312/312; hash mismatches0; empty folder present; REC-17 unlock; restore<25min”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=312/312; hash mismatches0; empty folder present; REC-17 unlock”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":4,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["DRB-8471 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Cover the complete source manifest passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Use the declared encryption boundary also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Meet version and retention rules still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Design a clean restore sample still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Define restore acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"A clean restore destination and checksum manifest will verify completeness, integrity, and recovery instructions.","evidenceNotes":["DRB-8471 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","DRB-8471's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 2 passes multiplied by two.","DRB-8471 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: A clean restore destination and checksum manifest will verify completeness, integrity, and recovery instructions."],"limitations":["DRB-8471 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","DRB-8471 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-debug-certificate-chain","title":"Why Does This Certificate Chain Break on One Client: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"debug a certificate-chain failure that affects one client","excerpt":"This completed synthetic TLS Diagnosis field test asked the session to debug a certificate-chain failure that affects one client, preserved an actual five-row tls chain diagnostic record, and derived 2/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-21T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in DCC-5329 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “debug a certificate-chain failure that affects one client”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: debug a certificate-chain failure that affects one client. Focus: TLS Diagnosis.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide sanitized certificates, client trust stores, handshake logs, and a known intermediate-chain defect.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nDCC-5329-I1: Server sends leaf L1 and root R1 but omits intermediate I1; Client A caches I1 and Client B does not.\nDCC-5329-I2: L1 issuer is I1, I1 issuer is R1, and R1 is trusted on both clients; all three signatures validate.\nDCC-5329-I3: Leaf SAN contains api.lab.example and not www.lab.example; failing request uses api.lab.example.\nDCC-5329-I4: Static evaluation time is 2026-08-10; L1 is valid 2026-07-01 through 2026-10-01; I1 through 2028-01-01.\nDCC-5329-I5: Approved fix is to serve L1+I1, never R1; acceptance is clean validation on A and B with hostname api.lab.example.\nReturn a concrete tls chain diagnostic record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Independent chain verification on two clean clients will check the diagnosed cause, trust path, hostname, dates, and proposed repair.","firstResult":"TLS CHAIN DIAGNOSTIC RECORD DCC-5329 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: debug a certificate-chain failure that affects one client. Evaluation focus: TLS Diagnosis. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDCC-5329-R1 :: RESULT=CAUSE=Client B has no network connection\nDCC-5329-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDCC-5329-R2 :: RESULT=CHAIN=L1>R1 and ignore I1\nDCC-5329-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDCC-5329-R3 :: RESULT=HOSTNAME=any name is valid because the root is trusted\nDCC-5329-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDCC-5329-R4 :: RESULT=DATES=L1 valid on 2026-08-10; I1 valid; expiry not causal\nDCC-5329-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDCC-5329-R5 :: RESULT=FIX=install I1 manually on Client B only\nDCC-5329-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DCC-5329; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise DCC-5329 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Identify the missing intermediate: input was “Server sends leaf L1 and root R1 but omits intermediate I1; Client A caches I1 and Client B does not.”; first response was “CAUSE=Client B has no network connection”.\n- Verify the ordered trust path: input was “L1 issuer is I1, I1 issuer is R1, and R1 is trusted on both clients; all three signatures validate.”; first response was “CHAIN=L1>R1 and ignore I1”.\n- Preserve hostname validation: input was “Leaf SAN contains api.lab.example and not www.lab.example; failing request uses api.lab.example.”; first response was “HOSTNAME=any name is valid because the root is trusted”.\n- Choose the server-side repair and retest: input was “Approved fix is to serve L1+I1, never R1; acceptance is clean validation on A and B with hostname api.lab.example.”; first response was “FIX=install I1 manually on Client B only”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"TLS CHAIN DIAGNOSTIC RECORD DCC-5329 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: debug a certificate-chain failure that affects one client. Evaluation focus: TLS Diagnosis. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nDCC-5329-R1 :: RESULT=CAUSE=server omits I1; ClientA succeeds from cache; ClientB fails\nDCC-5329-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDCC-5329-R2 :: RESULT=CHAIN=L1>I1>R1; 3 signatures valid; R1 trusted on A and B\nDCC-5329-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDCC-5329-R3 :: RESULT=HOSTNAME=api.lab.example matches SAN\nDCC-5329-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDCC-5329-R4 :: RESULT=DATES=L1 valid on 2026-08-10; I1 valid; expiry not causal\nDCC-5329-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nDCC-5329-R5 :: RESULT=FIX=serve L1+I1; omit R1; ClientA pass; ClientB pass\nDCC-5329-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for DCC-5329; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Identify the missing intermediate","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Server sends leaf L1 and root R1 but omits intermediate I1; Client A caches I1 and Client B does not. Semantic rule: The contrasting client caches and sent-chain inventory isolate the missing intermediate. FIRST returned “CAUSE=Client B has no network connection”; the private static semantic key accepts “CAUSE=server omits I1; ClientA succeeds from cache; ClientB fails”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CAUSE=server omits I1; ClientA succeeds from cache; ClientB fails”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify the ordered trust path","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: L1 issuer is I1, I1 issuer is R1, and R1 is trusted on both clients; all three signatures validate. Semantic rule: Issuer relationships require the intermediate in the verified order. FIRST returned “CHAIN=L1>R1 and ignore I1”; the private static semantic key accepts “CHAIN=L1>I1>R1; 3 signatures valid; R1 trusted on A and B”, so it fails. FINAL returned “CHAIN=L1>I1>R1; 3 signatures valid; R1 trusted on A and B”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve hostname validation","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Leaf SAN contains api.lab.example and not www.lab.example; failing request uses api.lab.example. Semantic rule: Chain repair cannot bypass the independent SAN hostname rule. FIRST returned “HOSTNAME=any name is valid because the root is trusted”; the private static semantic key accepts “HOSTNAME=api.lab.example matches SAN; www.lab.example does not” or “HOSTNAME=api.lab.example matches SAN”, so it fails. FINAL returned “HOSTNAME=api.lab.example matches SAN”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Check the validity window","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Static evaluation time is 2026-08-10; L1 is valid 2026-07-01 through 2026-10-01; I1 through 2028-01-01. Semantic rule: The supplied evaluation date falls inside both certificate windows. FIRST returned “DATES=L1 valid on 2026-08-10; I1 valid; expiry not causal”; the private static semantic key accepts “DATES=L1 valid on 2026-08-10; I1 valid; expiry not causal”, so it passes. FINAL returned “DATES=L1 valid on 2026-08-10; I1 valid; expiry not causal”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Choose the server-side repair and retest","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Approved fix is to serve L1+I1, never R1; acceptance is clean validation on A and B with hostname api.lab.example. Semantic rule: A complete server chain must work on both clean clients without client-specific trust edits. FIRST returned “FIX=install I1 manually on Client B only”; the private static semantic key accepts “FIX=serve L1+I1; omit R1; ClientA pass; ClientB pass; api.lab.example match” or “FIX=serve L1+I1; omit R1; ClientA pass; ClientB pass”, so it fails. FINAL returned “FIX=serve L1+I1; omit R1; ClientA pass; ClientB pass”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["DCC-5329 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Identify the missing intermediate passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Verify the ordered trust path also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Identify the missing intermediate; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"Independent chain verification on two clean clients will check the diagnosed cause, trust path, hostname, dates, and proposed repair.","evidenceNotes":["DCC-5329 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","DCC-5329's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","DCC-5329 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Independent chain verification on two clean clients will check the diagnosed cause, trust path, hostname, dates, and proposed repair."],"limitations":["DCC-5329 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","DCC-5329 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-anonymize-interview-notes","title":"Can Interview Notes Be Anonymized Without Losing Useful Context — What the Completed 10/10 Test Found","task":"anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context","excerpt":"The completed WFT-036 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Privacy Editing, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-20T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-036: A people team will provide synthetic interview notes and a policy covering direct and indirect identifiers. Source facts: fictional notes WFT-036-N01 through WFT-036-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-036-N06/N07. Governing rule card: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-036 for “anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-036. Task: anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context. Context: A people team will provide synthetic interview notes and a policy covering direct and indirect identifiers. Fictional source facts: fictional notes WFT-036-N01 through WFT-036-N08 timestamped from 09:05 to 11:40; named roles Lead, Analyst, and Coordinator; a confirmed decision at N03; a tentative suggestion at N05; and conflicting status statements at WFT-036-N06/N07. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the distinction among confirmed decisions, proposals, and unresolved statements. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An anonymized set and a hidden-identifier review will verify leakage, over-redaction, and retained meaning.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-036 produced a source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log for the task “anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-036-ROW1 reads: “WFT-036-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036], Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036], and Privacy Editing exception handling [WFT-036]. The audit found concrete failures: for Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036], the saved draft gave the central WFT-036-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; for Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036], the saved draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-036 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036] — the draft gave the central WFT-036-N07 decision no source-to-output locator; 2) Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036] — the draft left the source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-036 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-036-ROW1 reads: “WFT-036-N01 | record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account | evidence locator: WFT-036-N01 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036] and Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036]. The frozen final text passed Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036], Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036], Privacy Editing exception handling [WFT-036], Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036], and Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final source-linked findings table, concise narrative, and open-question log therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-036 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-036 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Privacy Editing exception handling [WFT-036]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-036 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing exception handling [WFT-036].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-036 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-036 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Privacy Editing handoff usability [WFT-036].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-036-N07, the declared Privacy Editing rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-036 kept “anonymize employee interview notes while preserving useful context” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-036 made the central handling—record N03 as confirmed, keep N05 explicitly tentative, and expose the WFT-036-N06/N07 conflict instead of choosing a preferred account—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-036 earned final passes for Privacy Editing task fidelity [WFT-036] and Privacy Editing rule accuracy [WFT-036] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-036’s first draft failed Privacy Editing source traceability [WFT-036]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"An anonymized set and a hidden-identifier review will verify leakage, over-redaction, and retained meaning.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-036 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-036 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","WFT-036 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An anonymized set and a hidden-identifier review will verify leakage, over-redaction, and retained meaning.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-036 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Privacy Editing fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-036 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-correct-clock-drift","title":"Computer Clock Drift: An AI Diagnosis-and-Correction Brief: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"diagnose and correct computer clock drift","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Time Sync field test asked the session to diagnose and correct computer clock drift, preserved an actual five-row performance hypothesis and measurement record, and derived 4/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-19T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in CCD-2387 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “diagnose and correct computer clock drift”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: diagnose and correct computer clock drift. Focus: Time Sync.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide time-service status and measurements from a test system with a controlled synchronization fault.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nCCD-2387-I1: At 09:00 reference time is 09:00:00.000; fixture clock is 09:00:04.800.\nCCD-2387-I2: At 10:00 reference is 10:00:00.000; fixture is 10:00:06.600.\nCCD-2387-I3: Approved source is ntp.test at 192.0.2.123; unknown public pools are excluded.\nCCD-2387-I4: Baseline record CCD-2387-TIME has checksum b30c119e and must precede a proposed correction.\nCCD-2387-I5: Acceptance is six hourly samples, absolute offset below 100 ms, no backward jump, source unchanged.\nReturn a concrete performance hypothesis and measurement record with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Reference-clock comparisons and synchronization logs will verify the diagnosis and sustained correction.","firstResult":"PERFORMANCE HYPOTHESIS AND MEASUREMENT RECORD CCD-2387 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: diagnose and correct computer clock drift. Evaluation focus: Time Sync. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCCD-2387-R1 :: RESULT=OFFSET=-4800 ms slow\nCCD-2387-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCD-2387-R2 :: RESULT=DRIFT=+1800 ms over 60 min; +30 ms/min\nCCD-2387-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCD-2387-R3 :: RESULT=SOURCE=use any public NTP pool\nCCD-2387-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCD-2387-R4 :: RESULT=BASELINE=freeze CCD-2387-TIME hash b30c119e before correction\nCCD-2387-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCD-2387-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one sample below 100 ms\nCCD-2387-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CCD-2387; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise CCD-2387 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Quantify the initial offset: input was “At 09:00 reference time is 09:00:00.000; fixture clock is 09:00:04.800.”; first response was “OFFSET=-4800 ms slow”.\n- Use the approved time source: input was “Approved source is ntp.test at 192.0.2.123; unknown public pools are excluded.”; first response was “SOURCE=use any public NTP pool”.\n- Define sustained time acceptance: input was “Acceptance is six hourly samples, absolute offset below 100 ms, no backward jump, source unchanged.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one sample below 100 ms”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"PERFORMANCE HYPOTHESIS AND MEASUREMENT RECORD CCD-2387 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: diagnose and correct computer clock drift. Evaluation focus: Time Sync. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nCCD-2387-R1 :: RESULT=OFFSET=+4800 ms fast at 09:00\nCCD-2387-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCD-2387-R2 :: RESULT=DRIFT=+1800 ms over 60 min; +30 ms/min\nCCD-2387-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCD-2387-R3 :: RESULT=SOURCE=192.0.2.1 gateway\nCCD-2387-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCD-2387-R4 :: RESULT=BASELINE=freeze CCD-2387-TIME hash b30c119e before correction\nCCD-2387-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nCCD-2387-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=6 samples below 100 ms but allow a backward jump\nCCD-2387-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for CCD-2387; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Quantify the initial offset","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: At 09:00 reference time is 09:00:00.000; fixture clock is 09:00:04.800. Semantic rule: Fixture minus reference is +4.800 seconds, so the sign and exact milliseconds matter. FIRST returned “OFFSET=-4800 ms slow”; the private static semantic key accepts “OFFSET=+4800 ms fast at 09:00”, so it fails. FINAL returned “OFFSET=+4800 ms fast at 09:00”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Calculate drift rate","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: At 10:00 reference is 10:00:00.000; fixture is 10:00:06.600. Semantic rule: Offset grew from 4800 to 6600 ms, a 1800 ms change over 60 minutes. FIRST returned “DRIFT=+1800 ms over 60 min; +30 ms/min”; the private static semantic key accepts “DRIFT=+1800 ms over 60 min; +30 ms/min”, so it passes. FINAL returned “DRIFT=+1800 ms over 60 min; +30 ms/min”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Use the approved time source","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Approved source is ntp.test at 192.0.2.123; unknown public pools are excluded. Semantic rule: The fixture explicitly limits synchronization to the named test source. FIRST returned “SOURCE=use any public NTP pool”; the private static semantic key accepts “SOURCE=ntp.test 192.0.2.123 only”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SOURCE=192.0.2.1 gateway”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve the pre-change measurement","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Baseline record CCD-2387-TIME has checksum b30c119e and must precede a proposed correction. Semantic rule: An auditable correction needs the exact pre-change record and checksum. FIRST returned “BASELINE=freeze CCD-2387-TIME hash b30c119e before correction”; the private static semantic key accepts “BASELINE=freeze CCD-2387-TIME hash b30c119e before correction”, so it passes. FINAL returned “BASELINE=freeze CCD-2387-TIME hash b30c119e before correction”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Define sustained time acceptance","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is six hourly samples, absolute offset below 100 ms, no backward jump, source unchanged. Semantic rule: All duration, offset, monotonicity, and source conditions are required. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one sample below 100 ms”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=6 hourly samples; |offset|<100 ms; no backward jump; source ntp.test”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=6 samples below 100 ms but allow a backward jump”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["CCD-2387 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Quantify the initial offset passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Calculate drift rate also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Use the approved time source still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Define sustained time acceptance still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Reference-clock comparisons and synchronization logs will verify the diagnosis and sustained correction.","evidenceNotes":["CCD-2387 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","CCD-2387's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 2 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","CCD-2387 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Reference-clock comparisons and synchronization logs will verify the diagnosis and sustained correction."],"limitations":["CCD-2387 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","CCD-2387 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-algebra-diagnostic-interview","title":"An AI-Led Algebra Diagnostic Interview — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"diagnose why a learner struggles with algebra","excerpt":"The completed LFT-002 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Algebra diagnosis, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-19T10:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-002: The AI will conduct a short diagnostic dialogue about variables, equations, and inverse operations. Source facts: learner responses LFT-002-A01 through LFT-002-A05: 8/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 25, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-002-K1. Governing rule card: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-002 for “diagnose why a learner struggles with algebra” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-002. Task: diagnose why a learner struggles with algebra. Context: The AI will conduct a short diagnostic dialogue about variables, equations, and inverse operations. Fictional source facts: learner responses LFT-002-A01 through LFT-002-A05: 8/12 compared with 3/4, equation 2x+5=17 answered x=11, a graph value read as 25, and confidence ratings 2, 4, 2, 3, 1; reference key LFT-002-K1. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: mathematical correctness plus preservation of a meaningful learner step. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An expert-coded transcript will compare the inferred misconceptions with errors in a separate problem set.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-002 produced a diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace for the task “diagnose why a learner struggles with algebra.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-002-K1. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-002-ROW1 reads: “LFT-002-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-002-K1 | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Algebra diagnosis objective fit [LFT-002], Algebra diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-002], and Algebra diagnosis safety and access [LFT-002]. The audit found concrete failures: for Algebra diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-002], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confident-but-wrong A02 response and the low-confidence LFT-002-A05 response; for Algebra diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-002], the saved draft gave the central LFT-002-A02 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-002 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Algebra diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-002] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the confident-but-wrong A02 response and the low-confidence LFT-002-A05 response; 2) Algebra diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-002] — the draft gave the central LFT-002-A02 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-002 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-002-K1. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-002-ROW1 reads: “LFT-002-A01 | diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-002-K1 | evidence locator: LFT-002-A01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Algebra diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-002]. The frozen final text passed Algebra diagnosis objective fit [LFT-002], Algebra diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-002], Algebra diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-002], and Algebra diagnosis safety and access [LFT-002] and still failed Algebra diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-002]. The final diagnostic sequence, worked-example ladder, and answer-key trace therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Algebra diagnosis objective fit [LFT-002]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-002 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Algebra diagnosis objective fit [LFT-002].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-002-A02, the declared Algebra diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Algebra diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-002]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-002 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Algebra diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-002].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-002-A02, the declared Algebra diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Algebra diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-002]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-002 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Algebra diagnosis learner adaptation [LFT-002].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-002-A02, the declared Algebra diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Algebra diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-002]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-002 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Algebra diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-002].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-002-A02, the declared Algebra diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Algebra diagnosis safety and access [LFT-002]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-002 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Algebra diagnosis safety and access [LFT-002].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-002-A02, the declared Algebra diagnosis rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-002 kept “diagnose why a learner struggles with algebra” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-002 made the central handling—diagnose the inverse-operation error in A02, model one comparable step without revealing A05, and ask the learner to justify the graph reading against LFT-002-K1—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-002 earned final passes for Algebra diagnosis objective fit [LFT-002] and Algebra diagnosis content accuracy [LFT-002] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-002 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Algebra diagnosis evidence traceability [LFT-002]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"An expert-coded transcript will compare the inferred misconceptions with errors in a separate problem set.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-002 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-002 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-002 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An expert-coded transcript will compare the inferred misconceptions with errors in a separate problem set.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-002 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Algebra diagnosis fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-002 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-align-job-description","title":"Mapping a Job Description to a Competency Framework with AI: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"align a job description with a competency framework","excerpt":"The completed WFT-015 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Role Design, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-17T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-015: An HR team will provide a legacy job description, a competency framework, and approved role-level language. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-015-D01 through WFT-015-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-015-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-015 for “align a job description with a competency framework” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-015. Task: align a job description with a competency framework. Context: An HR team will provide a legacy job description, a competency framework, and approved role-level language. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-015-D01 through WFT-015-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-015-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A revised description and a competency mapping table will verify coverage without adding unsupported requirements.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-015 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “align a job description with a competency framework.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-015-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-015-ROW1 reads: “WFT-015-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-015-D04 for review | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015], Role Design source traceability [WFT-015], and Role Design handoff usability [WFT-015]. The audit found concrete failures: for Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015], the saved draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; for Role Design exception handling [WFT-015], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-015-D04. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-015 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015] — the draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; 2) Role Design exception handling [WFT-015] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-015-D04.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-015 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-015-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-015-ROW1 reads: “WFT-015-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-015-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-015-D01 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015]. The frozen final text passed Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015], Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015], Role Design source traceability [WFT-015], and Role Design handoff usability [WFT-015] and still failed Role Design exception handling [WFT-015]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-015 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-015 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Role Design exception handling [WFT-015]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-015 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design exception handling [WFT-015].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Role Design source traceability [WFT-015]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-015 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design source traceability [WFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Role Design handoff usability [WFT-015]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-015 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Role Design handoff usability [WFT-015].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-015-D04, the declared Role Design rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-015 kept “align a job description with a competency framework” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-015 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-015-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-015 earned final passes for Role Design task fidelity [WFT-015] and Role Design rule accuracy [WFT-015] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-015 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Role Design exception handling [WFT-015]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A revised description and a competency mapping table will verify coverage without adding unsupported requirements.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-015 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-015 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-015 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A revised description and a competency mapping table will verify coverage without adding unsupported requirements.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-015 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Role Design fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-015 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-sign-language-concept-sequencing","title":"Sequencing Written Support for a Sign-Language Science Class with AI — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"sequence written support for a sign-language science class","excerpt":"The completed LFT-050 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Signed instruction, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-17T16:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-050: The AI will organize key concepts, visuals, and advance vocabulary for a science lesson taught through sign language. Source facts: science concepts LFT-050-S01 solid/liquid/gas; prerequisite particle model; approved gloss G1–G6; diagrams D1–D3; no invented sign notation. Governing rule card: concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-050 for “sequence written support for a sign-language science class” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-050. Task: sequence written support for a sign-language science class. Context: The AI will organize key concepts, visuals, and advance vocabulary for a science lesson taught through sign language. Fictional source facts: science concepts LFT-050-S01 solid/liquid/gas; prerequisite particle model; approved gloss G1–G6; diagrams D1–D3; no invented sign notation. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing. Use only the declared target forms, level, glossary, or contour data; correct the smallest relevant feature; preserve learner voice; never invent audio, signs, or institutional terminology. Produce a concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A Deaf educator will review the sequence for conceptual clarity, visual dependence, and language-access assumptions.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-050 produced a concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan for “sequence written support for a sign-language science class.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-050-S02 | sequence particle model before state change, align G1–G6 with D1–D3, and defer sign choices to teacher review | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named unknown sign choices and dependency on diagrams and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Signed instruction objective fit [LFT-050], Signed instruction content accuracy [LFT-050], and Signed instruction learner adaptation [LFT-050]. It found for Signed instruction evidence traceability [LFT-050], the draft gave LFT-050-S02 no source locator; for Signed instruction safety and access [LFT-050], the draft left the concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-050 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Signed instruction evidence traceability [LFT-050] — the draft gave LFT-050-S02 no source locator; 2) Signed instruction safety and access [LFT-050] — the draft left the concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-050 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: sequence particle model before state change, align G1–G6 with D1–D3, and defer sign choices to teacher review. Its corrected row read “LFT-050-S02 | rule: concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing | decision: sequence particle model before state change, align G1–G6 with D1–D3, and defer sign choices to teacher review | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Signed instruction evidence traceability [LFT-050]. The final audit passed Signed instruction objective fit [LFT-050], Signed instruction content accuracy [LFT-050], Signed instruction learner adaptation [LFT-050], and Signed instruction evidence traceability [LFT-050]. It still lacked Signed instruction safety and access [LFT-050]; those failures remain visible. The concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Signed instruction objective fit [LFT-050]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-050 static check 1 inspected “Signed instruction objective fit [LFT-050]” against LFT-050-S02, the rule “concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing,” and the saved concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Signed instruction content accuracy [LFT-050]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-050 static check 2 inspected “Signed instruction content accuracy [LFT-050]” against LFT-050-S02, the rule “concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing,” and the saved concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Signed instruction learner adaptation [LFT-050]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-050 static check 3 inspected “Signed instruction learner adaptation [LFT-050]” against LFT-050-S02, the rule “concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing,” and the saved concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Signed instruction evidence traceability [LFT-050]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-050 static check 4 inspected “Signed instruction evidence traceability [LFT-050]” against LFT-050-S02, the rule “concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing,” and the saved concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Signed instruction safety and access [LFT-050]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-050 static check 5 inspected “Signed instruction safety and access [LFT-050]” against LFT-050-S02, the rule “concept order and terminology fidelity while deferring actual signing,” and the saved concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-050 bounded “sequence written support for a sign-language science class” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-050 exposed LFT-050-S02—sequence particle model before state change, align G1–G6 with D1–D3, and defer sign choices to teacher review—inside the saved concept sequence, approved written-gloss support, and visual-reference plan.","LFT-050 earned inspectable passes for Signed instruction objective fit [LFT-050] and Signed instruction content accuracy [LFT-050] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-050 still lacked saved-text evidence for Signed instruction safety and access [LFT-050]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A Deaf educator will review the sequence for conceptual clarity, visual dependence, and language-access assumptions.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-050 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-050 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-050 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A Deaf educator will review the sequence for conceptual clarity, visual dependence, and language-access assumptions.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-050 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Signed instruction fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-050 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-build-reproducible-dev-environment","title":"Would AI Produce a Reproducible Development Environment: The Correction Reached 6/10","task":"build a reproducible development environment","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Dev Environments field test asked the session to build a reproducible development environment, preserved an actual five-row reproducible development environment manifest, and derived 2/10 then 6/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-16T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in BRDE-9389 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “build a reproducible development environment”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: build a reproducible development environment. Focus: Dev Environments.\nSource scenario: The experiment will specify a small project's runtime, services, and editor-independent requirements for a clean environment definition.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nBRDE-9389-I1: Project requires Node 22.13.1, package manager 10.9.2, Python 3.12.4, and database 16.3.\nBRDE-9389-I2: Local services are app TCP3000, database TCP5432, and mail fixture TCP1025; all bind to loopback only.\nBRDE-9389-I3: Fixture seed SEED-41 creates 20 users and 60 orders; expected database checksum after seed is 5a12c0ef.\nBRDE-9389-I4: Build and tests use shell commands only; editor settings E1 are convenience defaults and cannot be required.\nBRDE-9389-I5: Acceptance is setup A and B with identical tool versions, lock hash 44d18f00, data hash 5a12c0ef, build hash 92af7710, and tests 18/18.\nReturn a concrete reproducible development environment manifest with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: Two clean setups and identical build and test outputs will verify reproducibility from the written configuration.","firstResult":"REPRODUCIBLE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT MANIFEST BRDE-9389 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: build a reproducible development environment. Evaluation focus: Dev Environments. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nBRDE-9389-R1 :: RESULT=TOOLCHAIN=use latest versions\nBRDE-9389-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBRDE-9389-R2 :: RESULT=SERVICES=bind all ports to 0.0.0.0\nBRDE-9389-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBRDE-9389-R3 :: RESULT=DATA=generate random users on each setup\nBRDE-9389-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBRDE-9389-R4 :: RESULT=EDITOR=E1 optional; build/test independent of editor\nBRDE-9389-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBRDE-9389-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=one developer machine works\nBRDE-9389-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for BRDE-9389; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise BRDE-9389 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Pin the complete toolchain: input was “Project requires Node 22.13.1, package manager 10.9.2, Python 3.12.4, and database 16.3.”; first response was “TOOLCHAIN=use latest versions”.\n- Declare services and ports: input was “Local services are app TCP3000, database TCP5432, and mail fixture TCP1025; all bind to loopback only.”; first response was “SERVICES=bind all ports to 0.0.0.0”.\n- Seed deterministic data: input was “Fixture seed SEED-41 creates 20 users and 60 orders; expected database checksum after seed is 5a12c0ef.”; first response was “DATA=generate random users on each setup”.\n- Compare two clean setups: input was “Acceptance is setup A and B with identical tool versions, lock hash 44d18f00, data hash 5a12c0ef, build hash 92af7710, and tests 18/18.”; first response was “ACCEPT=one developer machine works”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"REPRODUCIBLE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT MANIFEST BRDE-9389 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: build a reproducible development environment. Evaluation focus: Dev Environments. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nBRDE-9389-R1 :: RESULT=TOOLCHAIN=Node22.13.1; pm10.9.2; Python3.12.4; DB16.3\nBRDE-9389-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBRDE-9389-R2 :: RESULT=SERVICES=3000+5432+1025 on 127.0.0.1 only\nBRDE-9389-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBRDE-9389-R3 :: RESULT=DATA=SEED-41; users20; orders60\nBRDE-9389-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBRDE-9389-R4 :: RESULT=EDITOR=E1 optional; build/test independent of editor\nBRDE-9389-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nBRDE-9389-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=A+B versions equal; lock44d18f00; data5a12c0ef; build92af7710\nBRDE-9389-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for BRDE-9389; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Pin the complete toolchain","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Project requires Node 22.13.1, package manager 10.9.2, Python 3.12.4, and database 16.3. Semantic rule: Every disclosed component needs an exact version to make clean setups comparable. FIRST returned “TOOLCHAIN=use latest versions”; the private static semantic key accepts “TOOLCHAIN=Node22.13.1; pm10.9.2; Python3.12.4; DB16.3”, so it fails. FINAL returned “TOOLCHAIN=Node22.13.1; pm10.9.2; Python3.12.4; DB16.3”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Declare services and ports","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Local services are app TCP3000, database TCP5432, and mail fixture TCP1025; all bind to loopback only. Semantic rule: The environment must expose the three required local services without widening their network scope. FIRST returned “SERVICES=bind all ports to 0.0.0.0”; the private static semantic key accepts “SERVICES=3000+5432+1025 on 127.0.0.1 only”, so it fails. FINAL returned “SERVICES=3000+5432+1025 on 127.0.0.1 only”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Seed deterministic data","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Fixture seed SEED-41 creates 20 users and 60 orders; expected database checksum after seed is 5a12c0ef. Semantic rule: A fixed seed, counts, and checksum make the two environments comparable. FIRST returned “DATA=generate random users on each setup”; the private static semantic key accepts “DATA=SEED-41; users20; orders60; hash5a12c0ef”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DATA=SEED-41; users20; orders60”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep editor configuration optional","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Build and tests use shell commands only; editor settings E1 are convenience defaults and cannot be required. Semantic rule: The source requirement explicitly separates reproducibility from editor choice. FIRST returned “EDITOR=E1 optional; build/test independent of editor”; the private static semantic key accepts “EDITOR=E1 optional; build/test independent of editor”, so it passes. FINAL returned “EDITOR=E1 optional; build/test independent of editor”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Compare two clean setups","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is setup A and B with identical tool versions, lock hash 44d18f00, data hash 5a12c0ef, build hash 92af7710, and tests 18/18. Semantic rule: Two independent clean manifests must match across tools, dependencies, data, build, and tests. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=one developer machine works”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=A+B versions equal; lock44d18f00; data5a12c0ef; build92af7710; tests18/18”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=A+B versions equal; lock44d18f00; data5a12c0ef; build92af7710”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":2,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["BRDE-9389 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Pin the complete toolchain passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Declare services and ports also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["Seed deterministic data still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Compare two clean setups still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"Two clean setups and identical build and test outputs will verify reproducibility from the written configuration.","evidenceNotes":["BRDE-9389 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","BRDE-9389's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 1 and 3 passes multiplied by two.","BRDE-9389 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: Two clean setups and identical build and test outputs will verify reproducibility from the written configuration."],"limitations":["BRDE-9389 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","BRDE-9389 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-note-synthesis","title":"Combining Conflicting Class Notes into an AI-Assisted Study Guide — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10","task":"help combine conflicting class notes into a study guide","excerpt":"The completed LFT-022 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Note synthesis, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-14T18:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-022: The AI will organize two students' partially conflicting lecture notes while marking unresolved discrepancies. Source facts: notes LFT-022-N01–N03 on photosynthesis; N01 says light reactions in stroma, N02/N03 say thylakoid; dates missing; approved slide S4. Governing rule card: every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-022 for “help combine conflicting class notes into a study guide” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-022. Task: help combine conflicting class notes into a study guide. Context: The AI will organize two students' partially conflicting lecture notes while marking unresolved discrepancies. Fictional source facts: notes LFT-022-N01–N03 on photosynthesis; N01 says light reactions in stroma, N02/N03 say thylakoid; dates missing; approved slide S4. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A provenance table will trace every guide statement to the notes and preserve each unresolved conflict.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-022 produced a study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements for “help combine conflicting class notes into a study guide.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-022-N01 | follow N02/N03 and S4 for thylakoid, expose N01’s conflict, and mark missing dates | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the N01 location conflict and missing lecture date and left the disposition blank. The rule cell verified every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Note synthesis objective fit [LFT-022], Note synthesis content accuracy [LFT-022], and Note synthesis safety and access [LFT-022]. It found for Note synthesis learner adaptation [LFT-022], the draft left the N01 location conflict and missing lecture date without an explicit disposition; for Note synthesis evidence traceability [LFT-022], the draft gave LFT-022-N01 no source locator. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-022 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Note synthesis learner adaptation [LFT-022] — the draft left the N01 location conflict and missing lecture date without an explicit disposition; 2) Note synthesis evidence traceability [LFT-022] — the draft gave LFT-022-N01 no source locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-022 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: follow N02/N03 and S4 for thylakoid, expose N01’s conflict, and mark missing dates. Its corrected row read “LFT-022-N01 | rule: every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict | decision: follow N02/N03 and S4 for thylakoid, expose N01’s conflict, and mark missing dates | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Note synthesis learner adaptation [LFT-022]. The final audit passed Note synthesis objective fit [LFT-022], Note synthesis content accuracy [LFT-022], Note synthesis learner adaptation [LFT-022], and Note synthesis safety and access [LFT-022]. It still lacked Note synthesis evidence traceability [LFT-022]; those failures remain visible. The study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Note synthesis objective fit [LFT-022]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-022 static check 1 inspected “Note synthesis objective fit [LFT-022]” against LFT-022-N01, the rule “every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict,” and the saved study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Note synthesis content accuracy [LFT-022]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-022 static check 2 inspected “Note synthesis content accuracy [LFT-022]” against LFT-022-N01, the rule “every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict,” and the saved study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Note synthesis learner adaptation [LFT-022]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-022 static check 3 inspected “Note synthesis learner adaptation [LFT-022]” against LFT-022-N01, the rule “every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict,” and the saved study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Note synthesis evidence traceability [LFT-022]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-022 static check 4 inspected “Note synthesis evidence traceability [LFT-022]” against LFT-022-N01, the rule “every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict,” and the saved study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Note synthesis safety and access [LFT-022]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-022 static check 5 inspected “Note synthesis safety and access [LFT-022]” against LFT-022-N01, the rule “every synthesized statement retains a supporting note or declared conflict,” and the saved study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-022 bounded “help combine conflicting class notes into a study guide” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-022 exposed LFT-022-N01—follow N02/N03 and S4 for thylakoid, expose N01’s conflict, and mark missing dates—inside the saved study-guide outline, conflict table, and source-linked statements.","LFT-022 earned inspectable passes for Note synthesis objective fit [LFT-022] and Note synthesis content accuracy [LFT-022] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-022 still lacked saved-text evidence for Note synthesis evidence traceability [LFT-022]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A provenance table will trace every guide statement to the notes and preserve each unresolved conflict.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-022 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-022 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-022 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A provenance table will trace every guide statement to the notes and preserve each unresolved conflict.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-022 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Note synthesis fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-022 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-build-retrieval-practice-plan","title":"Building a Spaced Retrieval Plan Around Exam Dates: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"build a spaced retrieval practice plan around fixed exam dates","excerpt":"The completed LFT-051 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Retrieval Scheduling, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-14T12:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-051: A learner will provide a topic map, exam calendar, available study blocks, confidence ratings, and maximum daily workload. Source facts: fictional calendar LFT-051-C1 covering 14 days; exam dates on days 9 and 14; available blocks of 25, 40, and 55 minutes; missed tasks M2/M4; prerequisite P1 before P3; and a maximum of 13 study blocks per day. Governing rule card: the 13-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-051 for “build a spaced retrieval practice plan around fixed exam dates” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-051. Task: build a spaced retrieval practice plan around fixed exam dates. Context: A learner will provide a topic map, exam calendar, available study blocks, confidence ratings, and maximum daily workload. Fictional source facts: fictional calendar LFT-051-C1 covering 14 days; exam dates on days 9 and 14; available blocks of 25, 40, and 55 minutes; missed tasks M2/M4; prerequisite P1 before P3; and a maximum of 13 study blocks per day. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the 13-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates. Honor fixed dates, available block lengths, prerequisite order, spacing intervals, workload ceilings, recovery space, and any learner-controlled stop condition. Produce a dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A calendar audit will verify spacing, topic coverage, workload limits, prerequisite order, and recovery time before each exam.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-051 produced a dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint for the task “build a spaced retrieval practice plan around fixed exam dates.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 13 daily sessions. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-051-ROW1 reads: “LFT-051-C1 | move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 13 daily sessions | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Retrieval Scheduling learner adaptation [LFT-051], Retrieval Scheduling evidence traceability [LFT-051], and Retrieval Scheduling safety and access [LFT-051]. The audit found concrete failures: for Retrieval Scheduling objective fit [LFT-051], the saved draft did not connect LFT-051-M4 to the full boundary of “build a spaced retrieval practice plan around fixed exam dates”; for Retrieval Scheduling content accuracy [LFT-051], the saved draft left the 13-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates without an explicit verification row. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-051 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Retrieval Scheduling objective fit [LFT-051] — the draft did not connect LFT-051-M4 to the full boundary of “build a spaced retrieval practice plan around fixed exam dates”; 2) Retrieval Scheduling content accuracy [LFT-051] — the draft left the 13-block daily ceiling and both fixed exam dates without an explicit verification row.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-051 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 13 daily sessions. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-051-ROW1 reads: “LFT-051-C1 | move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 13 daily sessions | evidence locator: LFT-051-C1 | static status: 8/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Retrieval Scheduling objective fit [LFT-051]. The frozen final text passed Retrieval Scheduling objective fit [LFT-051], Retrieval Scheduling learner adaptation [LFT-051], Retrieval Scheduling evidence traceability [LFT-051], and Retrieval Scheduling safety and access [LFT-051] and still failed Retrieval Scheduling content accuracy [LFT-051]. The final dated learning plan, constraint map, and recovery checkpoint therefore earned 8/10 from 4 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Retrieval Scheduling objective fit [LFT-051]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-051 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Retrieval Scheduling objective fit [LFT-051].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-051-M4, the declared Retrieval Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Retrieval Scheduling content accuracy [LFT-051]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"LFT-051 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Retrieval Scheduling content accuracy [LFT-051].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-051-M4, the declared Retrieval Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Retrieval Scheduling learner adaptation [LFT-051]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-051 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Retrieval Scheduling learner adaptation [LFT-051].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-051-M4, the declared Retrieval Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Retrieval Scheduling evidence traceability [LFT-051]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-051 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Retrieval Scheduling evidence traceability [LFT-051].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-051-M4, the declared Retrieval Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Retrieval Scheduling safety and access [LFT-051]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-051 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Retrieval Scheduling safety and access [LFT-051].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-051-M4, the declared Retrieval Scheduling rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-051 kept “build a spaced retrieval practice plan around fixed exam dates” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-051 made the central handling—move M2 to day 3, keep P1 before P3, protect the day-9 review, and leave one recovery block open rather than exceeding 13 daily sessions—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-051 earned final passes for Retrieval Scheduling objective fit [LFT-051] and Retrieval Scheduling learner adaptation [LFT-051] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-051 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Retrieval Scheduling content accuracy [LFT-051]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A calendar audit will verify spacing, topic coverage, workload limits, prerequisite order, and recovery time before each exam.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-051 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-051 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","LFT-051 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A calendar audit will verify spacing, topic coverage, workload limits, prerequisite order, and recovery time before each exam.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-051 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Retrieval Scheduling fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-051 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-structure-project-brief","title":"Turning Scattered Stakeholder Notes into a Usable Project Brief: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10","task":"turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief","excerpt":"The completed WFT-029 synthetic field test reached 8/10 after one failure-only correction: 4 of five static checks passed for Project Scoping, while 1 check remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-12T17:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-029: A project sponsor will provide emails, meeting notes, constraints, and unresolved questions for a proposed initiative. Source facts: notes WFT-029-P01–P09; goal reduce response time 20%; budget $75k; Q4 launch; mobile app marked out of scope; data-migration owner missing. Governing rule card: goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-029 for “turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-029. Task: turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief. Context: A project sponsor will provide emails, meeting notes, constraints, and unresolved questions for a proposed initiative. Fictional source facts: notes WFT-029-P01–P09; goal reduce response time 20%; budget $75k; Q4 launch; mobile app marked out of scope; data-migration owner missing. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct. Treat only explicit statements as confirmed; keep proposals tentative; preserve contradictory sources side by side; assign an owner or deadline only when the source supplies one. Produce a project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A structured brief with source links and a stakeholder checklist will verify requirements, assumptions, and open issues.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-029 produced a project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table for “turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief.” Its first artifact row read “WFT-029-P07 | state the 20% goal, $75k cap, and Q4 target; exclude the mobile app; and flag data-migration ownership | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named the mobile-app scope conflict and ownerless data migration and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029], Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029], and Project Scoping source traceability [WFT-029]. It found for Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029], the draft did not link WFT-029-P07 to the full task boundary; for Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029], the draft left the project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-029 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029] — the draft did not link WFT-029-P07 to the full task boundary; 2) Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029] — the draft left the project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-029 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: state the 20% goal, $75k cap, and Q4 target; exclude the mobile app; and flag data-migration ownership. Its corrected row read “WFT-029-P07 | rule: goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct | decision: state the 20% goal, $75k cap, and Q4 target; exclude the mobile app; and flag data-migration ownership | static status: 8/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029]. The final audit passed Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029], Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029], Project Scoping source traceability [WFT-029], and Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029]. It still lacked Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029]; those failures remain visible. The project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table earned 8/10 from 4 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-029 static check 1 inspected “Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript failed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-029 static check 2 inspected “Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-029 static check 3 inspected “Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Project Scoping source traceability [WFT-029]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-029 static check 4 inspected “Project Scoping source traceability [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-029 static check 5 inspected “Project Scoping handoff usability [WFT-029]” against WFT-029-P07, the rule “goals, measures, scope, constraints, owner, and source note stay distinct,” and the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":8,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["WFT-029 bounded “turn scattered stakeholder notes into a usable project brief” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","WFT-029 exposed WFT-029-P07—state the 20% goal, $75k cap, and Q4 target; exclude the mobile app; and flag data-migration ownership—inside the saved project brief, assumption ledger, and scope-decision table.","WFT-029 earned inspectable passes for Project Scoping rule accuracy [WFT-029] and Project Scoping exception handling [WFT-029] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["WFT-029 still lacked saved-text evidence for Project Scoping task fidelity [WFT-029]; that failure remains published."],"evidencePlan":"A structured brief with source links and a stakeholder checklist will verify requirements, assumptions, and open issues.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-029 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-029 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 4 final-pass checks × 2 = 8/10.","WFT-029 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A structured brief with source links and a stakeholder checklist will verify requirements, assumptions, and open issues.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-029 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Project Scoping fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-029 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-migrate-browser-profile","title":"Using AI to Move a Browser Profile Between Computers: All Five Semantic Checks Passed","task":"migrate a browser profile between computers","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Profile Migration field test asked the session to migrate a browser profile between computers, preserved an actual five-row browser profile migration manifest, and derived 6/10 then 10/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-12T09:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in MBP-4516 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “migrate a browser profile between computers”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: migrate a browser profile between computers. Focus: Profile Migration.\nSource scenario: The experiment will test a privacy-conscious plan for moving bookmarks, preferences, and selected local data to a clean device.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nMBP-4516-I1: Source has 84 bookmarks, 12 preferences, 6 search shortcuts, 19 history entries, 4 cookies, and 3 saved passwords; policy approves the first three only.\nMBP-4516-I2: Canonical bookmark tree has 9 folders, maximum depth 3, and duplicate URL U17 in two intentional folders.\nMBP-4516-I3: Preferences P1-P10 are portable; P11 is machine-specific download path and P12 is a device token.\nMBP-4516-I4: Destination profile DST-NEW initially has 2 default bookmarks and no user history, cookies, or credentials.\nMBP-4516-I5: Acceptance is bookmarks 84/84, folder paths 9/9, portable preferences 10/10, shortcuts 6/6, and excluded-class counts all zero.\nReturn a concrete browser profile migration manifest with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: An itemized source manifest and destination audit will verify completeness and the exclusion of sensitive data.","firstResult":"BROWSER PROFILE MIGRATION MANIFEST MBP-4516 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: migrate a browser profile between computers. Evaluation focus: Profile Migration. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nMBP-4516-R1 :: RESULT=SCOPE=bookmarks84; preferences12; shortcuts6; exclude history19,cookies4,passwords3\nMBP-4516-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMBP-4516-R2 :: RESULT=BOOKMARKS=84 entries; folders9; depth3; retain both contextual U17 placements\nMBP-4516-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMBP-4516-R3 :: RESULT=PREFERENCES=migrate P1-P10; exclude P11 download path and P12 device token\nMBP-4516-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMBP-4516-R4 :: RESULT=DESTINATION=overwrite defaults and import source cookies\nMBP-4516-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMBP-4516-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=browser launches on destination\nMBP-4516-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for MBP-4516; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise MBP-4516 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Keep the destination clean: input was “Destination profile DST-NEW initially has 2 default bookmarks and no user history, cookies, or credentials.”; first response was “DESTINATION=overwrite defaults and import source cookies”.\n- Reconcile the migration: input was “Acceptance is bookmarks 84/84, folder paths 9/9, portable preferences 10/10, shortcuts 6/6, and excluded-class counts all zero.”; first response was “ACCEPT=browser launches on destination”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"BROWSER PROFILE MIGRATION MANIFEST MBP-4516 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: migrate a browser profile between computers. Evaluation focus: Profile Migration. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nMBP-4516-R1 :: RESULT=SCOPE=bookmarks84; preferences12; shortcuts6; exclude history19,cookies4,passwords3\nMBP-4516-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMBP-4516-R2 :: RESULT=BOOKMARKS=84 entries; folders9; depth3; retain both contextual U17 placements\nMBP-4516-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMBP-4516-R3 :: RESULT=PREFERENCES=migrate P1-P10; exclude P11 download path and P12 device token\nMBP-4516-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMBP-4516-R4 :: RESULT=DESTINATION=retain 2 defaults plus 84 migrated bookmarks; sensitive stores remain empty\nMBP-4516-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nMBP-4516-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=bookmarks84/84; folders9/9; preferences10/10; shortcuts6/6; excluded stores0\nMBP-4516-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for MBP-4516; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Include only approved data classes","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Source has 84 bookmarks, 12 preferences, 6 search shortcuts, 19 history entries, 4 cookies, and 3 saved passwords; policy approves the first three only. Semantic rule: The privacy policy explicitly includes three classes and excludes three sensitive classes. FIRST returned “SCOPE=bookmarks84; preferences12; shortcuts6; exclude history19,cookies4,passwords3”; the private static semantic key accepts “SCOPE=bookmarks84; preferences12; shortcuts6; exclude history19,cookies4,passwords3”, so it passes. FINAL returned “SCOPE=bookmarks84; preferences12; shortcuts6; exclude history19,cookies4,passwords3”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Preserve bookmark hierarchy","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Canonical bookmark tree has 9 folders, maximum depth 3, and duplicate URL U17 in two intentional folders. Semantic rule: Hierarchy and intentional contextual duplicates are part of the approved data. FIRST returned “BOOKMARKS=84 entries; folders9; depth3; retain both contextual U17 placements”; the private static semantic key accepts “BOOKMARKS=84 entries; folders9; depth3; retain both contextual U17 placements”, so it passes. FINAL returned “BOOKMARKS=84 entries; folders9; depth3; retain both contextual U17 placements”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Map portable preferences only","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Preferences P1-P10 are portable; P11 is machine-specific download path and P12 is a device token. Semantic rule: Machine-bound path and token must not cross to the clean device. FIRST returned “PREFERENCES=migrate P1-P10; exclude P11 download path and P12 device token”; the private static semantic key accepts “PREFERENCES=migrate P1-P10; exclude P11 download path and P12 device token”, so it passes. FINAL returned “PREFERENCES=migrate P1-P10; exclude P11 download path and P12 device token”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Keep the destination clean","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Destination profile DST-NEW initially has 2 default bookmarks and no user history, cookies, or credentials. Semantic rule: The migration must preserve declared defaults while keeping excluded stores empty. FIRST returned “DESTINATION=overwrite defaults and import source cookies”; the private static semantic key accepts “DESTINATION=retain 2 defaults plus 84 migrated bookmarks; sensitive stores remain empty”, so it fails. FINAL returned “DESTINATION=retain 2 defaults plus 84 migrated bookmarks; sensitive stores remain empty”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Reconcile the migration","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance is bookmarks 84/84, folder paths 9/9, portable preferences 10/10, shortcuts 6/6, and excluded-class counts all zero. Semantic rule: Completeness and privacy exclusions must be verified together. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=browser launches on destination”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=bookmarks84/84; folders9/9; preferences10/10; shortcuts6/6; excluded stores0”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=bookmarks84/84; folders9/9; preferences10/10; shortcuts6/6; excluded stores0”, so it passes. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["MBP-4516 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Include only approved data classes passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier.","Preserve bookmark hierarchy also passed its task-specific rule with the final answer left visible."],"whatFailed":["The first artifact failed Keep the destination clean; the one permitted correction resolved it, but the initial defect remains published."],"evidencePlan":"An itemized source manifest and destination audit will verify completeness and the exclusion of sensitive data.","evidenceNotes":["MBP-4516 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","MBP-4516's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 3 and 5 passes multiplied by two.","MBP-4516 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: An itemized source manifest and destination audit will verify completeness and the exclusion of sensitive data."],"limitations":["MBP-4516 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","MBP-4516 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-medication-math-practice","title":"Draft Safe Medication-Math Practice with AI for Nursing Students: Four or More Checks Passed After One Correction","task":"generate safe medication-math practice for nursing students","excerpt":"The completed LFT-043 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Dosage practice, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-11T11:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-043: The AI will create fictional dosage-calculation exercises with units, irrelevant details, and explicit assumptions. Source facts: fictional orders LFT-043-D01 250 mg with 125 mg/5 mL, D02 0.4 g with 200 mg tablets, D03 12 mcg/kg for 25 kg; practice only. Governing rule card: units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-043 for “generate safe medication-math practice for nursing students” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-043. Task: generate safe medication-math practice for nursing students. Context: The AI will create fictional dosage-calculation exercises with units, irrelevant details, and explicit assumptions. Fictional source facts: fictional orders LFT-043-D01 250 mg with 125 mg/5 mL, D02 0.4 g with 200 mg tablets, D03 12 mcg/kg for 25 kg; practice only. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary. Work from the supplied values and standard definitions, show the transformation or unit cancellation, diagnose the learner's step before explaining, and preserve a meaningful next step instead of revealing it early. Produce a dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A nursing educator will independently solve each item and inspect its wording, units, and answer rationale.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-043 produced a dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds for “generate safe medication-math practice for nursing students.” Its first artifact row read “LFT-043-D02 | derive 10 mL, two tablets, and 300 mcg with units cancelling and independent-check prompts | status: proposed | source: fictional fixture.” A second row named mg/g conversion and risk of treating practice as clinical guidance and recorded a disposition. The rule cell verified units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary. No message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome occurred. The audit passed Dosage practice content accuracy [LFT-043], Dosage practice learner adaptation [LFT-043], and Dosage practice evidence traceability [LFT-043]. It found for Dosage practice objective fit [LFT-043], the draft did not link LFT-043-D02 to the full task boundary; for Dosage practice safety and access [LFT-043], the draft left the dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker. Those evidence defects—and no style preference or new goal—became the complete single-correction prompt.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-043 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Dosage practice objective fit [LFT-043] — the draft did not link LFT-043-D02 to the full task boundary; 2) Dosage practice safety and access [LFT-043] — the draft left the dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds without a reviewer-ready acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-043 preserved all supplied identifiers and the central decision: derive 10 mL, two tablets, and 300 mcg with units cancelling and independent-check prompts. Its corrected row read “LFT-043-D02 | rule: units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary | decision: derive 10 mL, two tablets, and 300 mcg with units cancelling and independent-check prompts | static status: 10/10.” It changed only failed dimensions, adding support for Dosage practice objective fit [LFT-043] and Dosage practice safety and access [LFT-043]. The final audit passed Dosage practice objective fit [LFT-043], Dosage practice content accuracy [LFT-043], Dosage practice learner adaptation [LFT-043], Dosage practice evidence traceability [LFT-043], and Dosage practice safety and access [LFT-043]. All five dimensions had inspectable support after one correction. The dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds earned 10/10 from 5 checks; no second repair was attempted. This transcript-and-fixture result does not claim any person, workplace, learner, account, device, service, or external system was contacted, changed, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Dosage practice objective fit [LFT-043]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-043 static check 1 inspected “Dosage practice objective fit [LFT-043]” against LFT-043-D02, the rule “units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary,” and the saved dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Dosage practice content accuracy [LFT-043]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-043 static check 2 inspected “Dosage practice content accuracy [LFT-043]” against LFT-043-D02, the rule “units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary,” and the saved dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Dosage practice learner adaptation [LFT-043]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-043 static check 3 inspected “Dosage practice learner adaptation [LFT-043]” against LFT-043-D02, the rule “units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary,” and the saved dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Dosage practice evidence traceability [LFT-043]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-043 static check 4 inspected “Dosage practice evidence traceability [LFT-043]” against LFT-043-D02, the rule “units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary,” and the saved dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds. The first transcript passed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."},{"name":"Dosage practice safety and access [LFT-043]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-043 static check 5 inspected “Dosage practice safety and access [LFT-043]” against LFT-043-D02, the rule “units, conversions, arithmetic, and explicit educational-only boundary,” and the saved dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds. The first transcript failed; the corrected transcript passed. Only fictional text counted, never a live outcome."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-043 bounded “generate safe medication-math practice for nursing students” to disclosed fictional inputs and froze the first response.","LFT-043 exposed LFT-043-D02—derive 10 mL, two tablets, and 300 mcg with units cancelling and independent-check prompts—inside the saved dosage-practice set, dimensional-analysis key, and safety bounds.","LFT-043 earned inspectable passes for Dosage practice objective fit [LFT-043] and Dosage practice content accuracy [LFT-043] under the unchanged rubric."],"whatFailed":["LFT-043 first failed Dosage practice objective fit [LFT-043]; one correction repaired it while preserving the defect in the audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"A nursing educator will independently solve each item and inspect its wording, units, and answer rationale.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-043 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-043 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-043 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A nursing educator will independently solve each item and inspect its wording, units, and answer rationale.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-043 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Dosage practice fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-043 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"computers","slug":"computers-fix-screen-reader-labels","title":"Missing Screen-Reader Labels: An AI Repair Brief: Only One Semantic Check Held","task":"fix missing screen-reader labels in a desktop app","excerpt":"This completed synthetic Screen Readers field test asked the session to fix missing screen-reader labels in a desktop app, preserved an actual five-row screen-reader label repair matrix, and derived 0/10 then 2/10 from task-specific semantic checks after one failure-only correction.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-09T14:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"All inputs in FSRL-1102 are fictional and appear verbatim in the exact prompt. Hidden scoring answers were not shown to the response generator. No personal, production, customer, learner, or device data was used. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented, so durationMinutes is recorded as 0 rather than an estimate.","runDisclosure":"A Codex multi-agent session generated one text-only first artifact for “fix missing screen-reader labels in a desktop app”. We froze it, evaluated its five parsed result rows against private task-specific rules, returned only the failed check names once, and parsed the revision against the same rules. This synthetic corpus intentionally contains varied response quality and is not a claim about a live tool run. No command was executed, no external or live system was accessed or changed, and nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, called, emailed, or messaged. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Complete a bounded synthetic field test for: fix missing screen-reader labels in a desktop app. Focus: Screen Readers.\nSource scenario: The experiment will provide a small interface with intentionally unlabeled controls and documented interaction behavior.\nUse only these five public fictional inputs; the scoring answers are intentionally withheld:\nFSRL-1102-I1: Visual button B1 says Save; accessibility tree exposes role button with empty name.\nFSRL-1102-I2: Email label L2 is visually adjacent to field F2, but F2 currently exposes name blank and required true.\nFSRL-1102-I3: Notifications switch T3 has visible text Notifications and is on; tree reports role button with no checked state.\nFSRL-1102-I4: Icon I4 is decorative beside status text Complete; it currently exposes name green checkmark and creates duplicate speech.\nFSRL-1102-I5: Acceptance transcript is Email, required, edit; Notifications, on, switch; Save, button; Complete once; focus order F2→T3→B1.\nReturn a concrete screen-reader label repair matrix with exactly five result rows, assumptions visible, and no claim that a command, message, booking, transaction, teaching session, or live-system change occurred. Evidence target: An accessibility-tree inspection and recorded screen-reader task will verify names, roles, states, and navigation.","firstResult":"SCREEN-READER LABEL REPAIR MATRIX FSRL-1102 — FIRST FROZEN ARTIFACT\nTask: fix missing screen-reader labels in a desktop app. Evaluation focus: Screen Readers. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nFSRL-1102-R1 :: RESULT=B1=name floppy-disk icon\nFSRL-1102-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFSRL-1102-R2 :: RESULT=F2=role textbox; name blank\nFSRL-1102-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFSRL-1102-R3 :: RESULT=T3=role button; name Toggle\nFSRL-1102-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFSRL-1102-R4 :: RESULT=I4=announce green checkmark plus Complete\nFSRL-1102-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFSRL-1102-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=controls are visually correct\nFSRL-1102-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for FSRL-1102; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","correctionPrompt":"Revise FSRL-1102 once. Preserve every row that passed. Reconsider only the failed semantic checks below using the original fictional inputs; the private expected answer is not supplied:\n- Name the unlabeled Save control: input was “Visual button B1 says Save; accessibility tree exposes role button with empty name.”; first response was “B1=name floppy-disk icon”.\n- Connect the text field label: input was “Email label L2 is visually adjacent to field F2, but F2 currently exposes name blank and required true.”; first response was “F2=role textbox; name blank”.\n- Expose toggle state: input was “Notifications switch T3 has visible text Notifications and is on; tree reports role button with no checked state.”; first response was “T3=role button; name Toggle”.\n- Hide decorative content: input was “Icon I4 is decorative beside status text Complete; it currently exposes name green checkmark and creates duplicate speech.”; first response was “I4=announce green checkmark plus Complete”.\n- Verify the spoken task: input was “Acceptance transcript is Email, required, edit; Notifications, on, switch; Save, button; Complete once; focus order F2→T3→B1.”; first response was “ACCEPT=controls are visually correct”.\nDo not add a task, fixture, optimization goal, live-action claim, or second correction round.","finalResult":"SCREEN-READER LABEL REPAIR MATRIX FSRL-1102 — AFTER ONE FAILURE-ONLY CORRECTION\nTask: fix missing screen-reader labels in a desktop app. Evaluation focus: Screen Readers. This is a fictional, text-only artifact; it does not report a live action.\nFSRL-1102-R1 :: RESULT=B1=role button; name Save\nFSRL-1102-R1-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFSRL-1102-R2 :: RESULT=F2=role textbox; name Email\nFSRL-1102-R2-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFSRL-1102-R3 :: RESULT=T3=role switch; name Notifications\nFSRL-1102-R3-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFSRL-1102-R4 :: RESULT=I4=hidden decorative\nFSRL-1102-R4-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nFSRL-1102-R5 :: RESULT=ACCEPT=F2+T3+B1 speech exact; Complete once\nFSRL-1102-R5-NOTE :: The proposed technical step is static and bounded; no command output or successful device change is invented.\nArtifact boundary: exactly five scored rows were frozen for FSRL-1102; any failed row remains visible because only one correction pass is allowed.","checks":[{"name":"Name the unlabeled Save control","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"Public fixture: Visual button B1 says Save; accessibility tree exposes role button with empty name. Semantic rule: The accessible name must communicate the visible function, not icon appearance. FIRST returned “B1=name floppy-disk icon”; the private static semantic key accepts “B1=role button; name Save”, so it fails. FINAL returned “B1=role button; name Save”, so it passes. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Connect the text field label","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Email label L2 is visually adjacent to field F2, but F2 currently exposes name blank and required true. Semantic rule: Programmatic association must expose both the visible label and existing required state. FIRST returned “F2=role textbox; name blank”; the private static semantic key accepts “F2=role textbox; name Email; required true”, so it fails. FINAL returned “F2=role textbox; name Email”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Expose toggle state","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Notifications switch T3 has visible text Notifications and is on; tree reports role button with no checked state. Semantic rule: The semantic role, functional name, and current state are all required. FIRST returned “T3=role button; name Toggle”; the private static semantic key accepts “T3=role switch; name Notifications; checked true”, so it fails. FINAL returned “T3=role switch; name Notifications”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Hide decorative content","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Icon I4 is decorative beside status text Complete; it currently exposes name green checkmark and creates duplicate speech. Semantic rule: Decorative duplication should be removed while the textual status remains available. FIRST returned “I4=announce green checkmark plus Complete”; the private static semantic key accepts “I4=hidden decorative; status text Complete announced once”, so it fails. FINAL returned “I4=hidden decorative”, so it fails. No live result was counted."},{"name":"Verify the spoken task","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"Public fixture: Acceptance transcript is Email, required, edit; Notifications, on, switch; Save, button; Complete once; focus order F2→T3→B1. Semantic rule: Names, roles, states, duplication, and navigation must match the frozen transcript. FIRST returned “ACCEPT=controls are visually correct”; the private static semantic key accepts “ACCEPT=F2+T3+B1 speech exact; Complete once; focus F2>T3>B1”, so it fails. FINAL returned “ACCEPT=F2+T3+B1 speech exact; Complete once”, so it fails. No live result was counted."}],"initialScore":0,"score":2,"verdict":"failed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["FSRL-1102 preserved the exact public prompt, first artifact, failure-only correction, final artifact, and independently derived semantic check results.","Name the unlabeled Save control passed because the parsed final answer matched the private fixture rule rather than merely repeating an input identifier."],"whatFailed":["Connect the text field label still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Expose toggle state still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Hide decorative content still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence.","Verify the spoken task still failed after the only permitted correction; its final value and expected semantic rule remain quoted in the evidence."],"evidencePlan":"An accessibility-tree inspection and recorded screen-reader task will verify names, roles, states, and navigation.","evidenceNotes":["FSRL-1102 stores the public five-input fixture separately from the private semantic answer strings quoted only after evaluation.","FSRL-1102's first and final scores were recomputed from parsed RESULT rows: 0 and 1 passes multiplied by two.","FSRL-1102 preserves every unresolved final mismatch; the source evidence plan remains unexecuted because this is a static synthetic benchmark: An accessibility-tree inspection and recorded screen-reader task will verify names, roles, states, and navigation."],"limitations":["FSRL-1102 is a static synthetic response benchmark, not evidence that the task succeeded with a real person, organization, device, account, service, or environment.","FSRL-1102 uses one Codex multi-agent transcript and a private deterministic fixture key; another prompt, model, evaluator, or real-world input could produce a different result."]},{"category":"work","slug":"work-build-onboarding-checklist","title":"Turning a Policy Manual into a Role-Specific Onboarding Checklist — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10","task":"turn a policy manual into a role-specific onboarding checklist","excerpt":"The completed WFT-008 synthetic field test stopped at 6/10: three of five Employee Onboarding checks passed after one correction, but Employee Onboarding exception handling [WFT-008] and Employee Onboarding source traceability [WFT-008] remained unsupported.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-09T13:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack WFT-008: An operations manager will provide a policy manual and responsibilities for a newly hired coordinator. Source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-008-D01 through WFT-008-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-008-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing rule card: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark WFT-008 for “turn a policy manual into a role-specific onboarding checklist” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 3 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test WFT-008. Task: turn a policy manual into a role-specific onboarding checklist. Context: An operations manager will provide a policy manual and responsibilities for a newly hired coordinator. Fictional source facts: controlled excerpts WFT-008-D01 through WFT-008-D05; clauses 2.1, 3.4, 6.2, and 8.7; effective dates 2026-09-01 and 2026-10-15; one defined-term conflict in WFT-008-D04; and a mandatory exception in clause 6.2. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language. Mandatory clauses override optional language; retain explicit exceptions; cite the controlling section for every output row; unresolved definitions or missing evidence stay flagged. Produce a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: A sequenced checklist and a policy-section trace will verify completeness and source fidelity.","firstResult":"Frozen first response WFT-008 produced a clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register for the task “turn a policy manual into a role-specific onboarding checklist.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-008-D04 for review. Concrete saved artifact row WFT-008-ROW1 reads: “WFT-008-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-008-D04 for review | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable work product also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Employee Onboarding task fidelity [WFT-008] and Employee Onboarding handoff usability [WFT-008]. The audit found concrete failures: for Employee Onboarding rule accuracy [WFT-008], the saved draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; for Employee Onboarding exception handling [WFT-008], the saved draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-008-D04; for Employee Onboarding source traceability [WFT-008], the saved draft gave the central WFT-008-D04 decision no source-to-output locator. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected WFT-008 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Employee Onboarding rule accuracy [WFT-008] — the draft left the effective dates and the distinction between mandatory and optional language without an explicit verification row; 2) Employee Onboarding exception handling [WFT-008] — the draft did not resolve or clearly preserve the clause-6.2 exception and conflicting definition in WFT-008-D04; 3) Employee Onboarding source traceability [WFT-008] — the draft gave the central WFT-008-D04 decision no source-to-output locator.","finalResult":"Corrected response WFT-008 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-008-D04 for review. Concrete corrected artifact row WFT-008-ROW1 reads: “WFT-008-D01 | trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-008-D04 for review | evidence locator: WFT-008-D01 | static status: 6/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Employee Onboarding rule accuracy [WFT-008]. The frozen final text passed Employee Onboarding task fidelity [WFT-008], Employee Onboarding rule accuracy [WFT-008], and Employee Onboarding handoff usability [WFT-008] and still failed Employee Onboarding exception handling [WFT-008] and Employee Onboarding source traceability [WFT-008]. The final clause matrix, proposed output, and unresolved-source register therefore earned 6/10 from 3 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Employee Onboarding task fidelity [WFT-008]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-008 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Employee Onboarding task fidelity [WFT-008].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-008-D04, the declared Employee Onboarding rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Employee Onboarding rule accuracy [WFT-008]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-008 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Employee Onboarding rule accuracy [WFT-008].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-008-D04, the declared Employee Onboarding rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Employee Onboarding exception handling [WFT-008]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-008 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Employee Onboarding exception handling [WFT-008].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-008-D04, the declared Employee Onboarding rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Employee Onboarding source traceability [WFT-008]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":false,"evidence":"WFT-008 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Employee Onboarding source traceability [WFT-008].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript did not contain enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-008-D04, the declared Employee Onboarding rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Employee Onboarding handoff usability [WFT-008]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"WFT-008 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Employee Onboarding handoff usability [WFT-008].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture WFT-008-D04, the declared Employee Onboarding rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":4,"score":6,"verdict":"mixed","recommended":false,"whatWorked":["WFT-008 kept “turn a policy manual into a role-specific onboarding checklist” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","WFT-008 made the central handling—trace the proposed treatment to clauses 2.1 and 6.2, preserve the mandatory exception, and mark the definition conflict in WFT-008-D04 for review—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","WFT-008 earned final passes for Employee Onboarding task fidelity [WFT-008] and Employee Onboarding rule accuracy [WFT-008] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["WFT-008 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Employee Onboarding exception handling [WFT-008]; the record leaves that final failure visible.","WFT-008 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Employee Onboarding source traceability [WFT-008]; the record leaves that final failure visible."],"evidencePlan":"A sequenced checklist and a policy-section trace will verify completeness and source fidelity.","evidenceNotes":["WFT-008 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","WFT-008 scores are arithmetic: 2 first-pass checks × 2 = 4/10; 3 final-pass checks × 2 = 6/10.","WFT-008 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—A sequenced checklist and a policy-section trace will verify completeness and source fidelity.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["WFT-008 is a synthetic benchmark, so its mixed verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Employee Onboarding fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","WFT-008 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]},{"category":"learning","slug":"learning-dyslexia-reading-adaptation","title":"Which AI Reading Adaptations Could Support a Learner with Dyslexia — What the Completed 10/10 Test Found","task":"adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia","excerpt":"The completed LFT-008 synthetic field test reached 10/10 after one failure-only correction: 5 of five static checks passed for Reading access, while 0 checks remained unresolved.","tool":"Codex multi-agent session","model":"Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session","publishedAt":"2026-02-09T08:00:00+08:00","durationMinutes":0,"testMode":"Synthetic benchmark","inputDisclosure":"Synthetic blind-test input pack LFT-008: The AI will restructure a dense reading activity using shorter segments, explicit vocabulary, and comprehension pauses. Source facts: fictional passage LFT-008-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 30 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-008-Q3. Governing rule card: idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints. Preserve every required idea, value, date, term, and assessment demand while applying the declared access constraint; never treat shorter wording as permission to delete meaning. The pack deliberately contains no answer key, target ranking, expected classification, expected calculation result, or row-level decision. Every person, organization, record, statement, file, and identifier is fictional; no private, production, or live data was supplied.","runDisclosure":"We ran one text-only synthetic benchmark LFT-008 for “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia” in a Codex multi-agent session. We froze the first response, returned only its 2 detected check failures, accepted one corrected response, and scored both against the same five static checks. No external or live action occurred: nothing was sent, published, deployed, uploaded, submitted, purchased, booked, contacted, emailed, called, messaged, executed, or changed outside the fictional text fixtures. No external, live, or production action occurred. Per-case elapsed time was not instrumented during the batch session.","prompt":"Run bounded synthetic field test LFT-008. Task: adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia. Context: The AI will restructure a dense reading activity using shorter segments, explicit vocabulary, and comprehension pauses. Fictional source facts: fictional passage LFT-008-R1 of 420 words; required ideas I1–I5; target phonics or vocabulary set V1–V6; segment limit 30 words; learner preference for numbered steps; and protected quotation LFT-008-Q3. Governing policy, formula, or rubric: idea fidelity plus the declared accessibility constraints. Preserve every required idea, value, date, term, and assessment demand while applying the declared access constraint; never treat shorter wording as permission to delete meaning. Produce an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints. Derive every row from the source facts and rule card; show calculations or criterion paths, cite supplied identifiers, state assumptions, surface any violated constraint, ambiguity, missing datum, or source conflict without presuming which row should pass, and abstain where evidence is incomplete. Do not infer an expected answer from the evidence plan and do not claim any live or external action. Planned verification after the frozen response: An accessibility specialist will review the adapted lesson against a predefined support checklist.","firstResult":"Frozen first response LFT-008 produced an accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints for the task “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia.” It treated the supplied pack as fictional and proposed this central handling: split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment. Concrete saved artifact row LFT-008-ROW1 reads: “LFT-008-R1 | split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment | source: supplied fictional pack | review state: first-draft.” The draft preserved the named records and separated supplied facts from assumptions; its inspectable learning intervention also stated that no message, transaction, system change, or learner outcome had occurred. On the five predeclared static checks, it passed Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008], Reading access learner adaptation [LFT-008], and Reading access evidence traceability [LFT-008]. The audit found concrete failures: for Reading access objective fit [LFT-008], the saved draft did not connect LFT-008-Q3 to the full boundary of “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia”; for Reading access safety and access [LFT-008], the saved draft left the accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker. Those were evidence defects in the saved response, not inferred real-world failures, and they became the complete boundary of the single correction pass.","correctionPrompt":"Correct only these detected LFT-008 first-draft failures, using no new input or goal: 1) Reading access objective fit [LFT-008] — the draft did not connect LFT-008-Q3 to the full boundary of “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia”; 2) Reading access safety and access [LFT-008] — the draft left the accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints without a complete reviewer handoff and acceptance marker.","finalResult":"Corrected response LFT-008 retained the original fictional inputs, task boundary, and central decision: split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment. Concrete corrected artifact row LFT-008-ROW1 reads: “LFT-008-R1 | split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment | evidence locator: LFT-008-R1 | static status: 10/10 after one correction.” It changed only the detected failure areas, adding inspectable rows for Reading access objective fit [LFT-008] and Reading access safety and access [LFT-008]. The frozen final text passed Reading access objective fit [LFT-008], Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008], Reading access learner adaptation [LFT-008], Reading access evidence traceability [LFT-008], and Reading access safety and access [LFT-008]. All five declared dimensions had inspectable support after the one correction. The final accessible lesson sequence, fidelity table, and learner-choice checkpoints therefore earned 10/10 from 5 passing checks; no second repair was attempted. This result reports only a bounded transcript-and-fixture evaluation. It does not claim that any workplace process, learner performance, account, device, service, or external system was actually changed, contacted, tested live, or improved.","checks":[{"name":"Reading access objective fit [LFT-008]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-008 static check 1 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access objective fit [LFT-008].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-008 static check 2 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Reading access learner adaptation [LFT-008]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-008 static check 3 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access learner adaptation [LFT-008].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Reading access evidence traceability [LFT-008]","firstPass":true,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-008 static check 4 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access evidence traceability [LFT-008].” The first transcript contained enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."},{"name":"Reading access safety and access [LFT-008]","firstPass":false,"finalPass":true,"evidence":"LFT-008 static check 5 inspected the saved wording for “Reading access safety and access [LFT-008].” The first transcript did not contain enough support; the corrected transcript contained enough support. The comparison used only fictional fixture LFT-008-Q3, the declared Reading access rules, and the record’s frozen text; no live outcome or external action counted as evidence."}],"initialScore":6,"score":10,"verdict":"worked","recommended":true,"whatWorked":["LFT-008 kept “adapt a reading lesson for a learner with dyslexia” bounded to disclosed fictional inputs and preserved an auditable first-response snapshot.","LFT-008 made the central handling—split LFT-008-R1 at idea boundaries, preserve I1–I5 and Q3, introduce V1–V6 before practice, and offer a pause after each 30-word segment—inspectable rather than implying unseen work.","LFT-008 earned final passes for Reading access objective fit [LFT-008] and Reading access content accuracy [LFT-008] under the same frozen scoring rules."],"whatFailed":["LFT-008’s first draft failed Reading access objective fit [LFT-008]; one correction repaired it, but the initial defect remains part of the published audit trail."],"evidencePlan":"An accessibility specialist will review the adapted lesson against a predefined support checklist.","evidenceNotes":["LFT-008 preserves the exact synthetic prompt, frozen first-response account, failure-only correction, corrected-response account, and five boolean decisions together.","LFT-008 scores are arithmetic: 3 first-pass checks × 2 = 6/10; 5 final-pass checks × 2 = 10/10.","LFT-008 evaluated only the text/static portion of the declared evidence plan—An accessibility specialist will review the adapted lesson against a predefined support checklist.—and did not fabricate a live artifact, external validator, or observed outcome."],"limitations":["LFT-008 is a synthetic benchmark, so its worked verdict measures fit to the disclosed fictional Reading access fixtures rather than effectiveness in a real workplace or learning setting.","LFT-008 used one text-only Codex multi-agent session whose underlying model identifier was not disclosed; different prompts, models, fixtures, or human reviewers could produce different results."]}]}