Learning · Evidence record
Compare Two Historical Accounts Without Inventing Motives: The One-Pass Revision Reached 8/10
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.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
compare two historical accounts without inventing author motives
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
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.
Run disclosure
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.
- Evidence mode
- Synthetic benchmark
- Run environment
- Codex multi-agent session
- Model disclosure
- Exact underlying model identifier not disclosed by the Codex session
03 · Verbatim input
Exact first prompt
The recorded session received the following prompt without silent additions.
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.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
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.Initial score: 6/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
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.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
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.Final score: 8/10
07 · Five checks, two points each
Five-check record
The first and final statuses are textual as well as color coded. Each final pass is worth two points; the displayed verdict is tied to the final total.
| Check | First | Final | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Historical Comparison objective fit [LFT-061] | Fail | Pass | 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. |
| Historical Comparison content accuracy [LFT-061] | Fail | Fail | 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. |
| Historical Comparison learner adaptation [LFT-061] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Historical Comparison evidence traceability [LFT-061] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Historical Comparison safety and access [LFT-061] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- 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.
What failed or remained weak
- LFT-061 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Historical Comparison content accuracy [LFT-061]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A quotation-level comparison will verify agreements, contradictions, provenance use, uncertainty, and unsupported psychological claims.
- 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.
10 · Boundary of the claim
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.