{
  "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."
  ]
}