Learning · Evidence record
A Beginner's Systematic Debugging Lesson with AI — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10
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.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
teach a systematic debugging strategy to beginners
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
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.
Run disclosure
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.
- 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-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.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
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.Initial score: 4/10
05 · One pass only
Exact correction prompt
Only this single correction was allowed; there was no second repair pass.
Correct only these detected LFT-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.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
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.Final score: 6/10
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debugging habits objective fit [LFT-036] | Fail | Fail | 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. |
| Debugging habits content accuracy [LFT-036] | Fail | Fail | 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. |
| Debugging habits learner adaptation [LFT-036] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Debugging habits evidence traceability [LFT-036] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Debugging habits safety and access [LFT-036] | Fail | Pass | 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. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- 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.
What failed or remained weak
- 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.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
The debugging log will be reviewed for reproducible observations, isolated changes, and causal conclusions.
- 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.
10 · Boundary of the claim
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.