Learning · Evidence record
Where AI Guidance Fits When Comparing Conflicting Historical Sources — Completed Benchmark Result: 8/10
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.
- Exact prompts and outputs
- One correction only
- Synthetic inputs disclosed
01 · The assignment
The task
guide a comparison of conflicting historical sources
02 · Scope before score
Test disclosures
Input disclosure
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.
Run disclosure
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.
- 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-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.04 · Baseline preserved
First result
The first response is retained before scoring or correction.
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.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-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.06 · Corrected output
Corrected final result
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.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 inquiry objective fit [LFT-010] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Historical inquiry content accuracy [LFT-010] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Historical inquiry learner adaptation [LFT-010] | Pass | Pass | 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. |
| Historical inquiry evidence traceability [LFT-010] | Fail | Pass | 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. |
| Historical inquiry safety and access [LFT-010] | Fail | Fail | 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. |
08 · No cleanup by omission
What worked—and what failed
What worked
- 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.
What failed or remained weak
- LFT-010 still lacked enough saved-text evidence for Historical inquiry safety and access [LFT-010]; the record leaves that final failure visible.
09 · Inspectable record
Evidence notes
Completed comparison charts will be reviewed for source-specific evidence rather than unsupported generalizations.
- 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.
10 · Boundary of the claim
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.