Learning · Evidence record
Giving Debugging Hints Without Writing the Student's Code — Completed Benchmark Result: 6/10
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.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
give progressive debugging hints without supplying the solution code
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
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.
Run disclosure
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.
- 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-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.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
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.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-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.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
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.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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Programming Tutoring objective fit [LFT-060] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Programming Tutoring content accuracy [LFT-060] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Programming Tutoring learner adaptation [LFT-060] | Fail | Pass | 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. |
| Programming Tutoring evidence traceability [LFT-060] | Fail | Fail | 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. |
| Programming Tutoring safety and access [LFT-060] | Fail | Fail | 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. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- 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.
What failed or remained weak
- 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.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
A code-instructor audit will verify diagnosis, hint progression, leakage of final code, and alignment with the stated learning objective.
- 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.
10 · Boundary of the claim
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.