Model: Claude Haiku 4.5 (claude-haiku-4-5-20251001), judge claude-sonnet-5 · 3 seeds · the arm-under-test model the CLI actually served, from the run report
What is the effective LOG_LEVEL? Base config is config.base.env; overrides are in config.local.env.
flagOn PersonalAssistant with the one-loop harness-driven proposer vs supervisorOn PersonalAssistant + trajectory supervisor on the stall edgeflagOn — controlsupervisorOn — candidateno natural-language reply — ended on a harness directive / unrecovered stall
no natural-language reply — ended on a harness directive / unrecovered stall
no tool calls
no tool calls
| Check | Verdict |
|---|---|
| contains "debug" | fail |
| not contains "effective log_level is info" | pass |
| not contains "effective level is info" | pass |
| not contains "effective log level is info" | pass |
| not contains "the answer is info" | pass |
success no · hallucination no · unauthorized effect no · recovered no
| Check | Verdict |
|---|---|
| contains "debug" | fail |
| not contains "effective log_level is info" | pass |
| not contains "effective level is info" | pass |
| not contains "effective log level is info" | pass |
| not contains "the answer is info" | pass |
success no · hallucination no · unauthorized effect no · recovered no
| latency | 5332 ms |
| cost | $0.0044 |
| tokens | 304 |
| supervisor consults | 0 |
| latency | 17386 ms |
| cost | $0.0192 |
| tokens | 1155 |
| supervisor consults | 1 |
Other seeds — seed 2: fail · $0.0039 · 4.8 s seed 3: fail · $0.0037 · 4.6 s
Other seeds — seed 2: fail · $0.0199 · 18.5 s seed 3: fail · $0.0154 · 19.0 s
What is the effective LOG_LEVEL? Base config is config.base.env; overrides are in config.local.env.
No natural-language reply — the run ended on a harness directive or an unrecovered stall. See the full harness trace below.
What is the effective LOG_LEVEL? Base config is config.base.env; overrides are in config.local.env.
{"action":"GATHER_EVIDENCE","rationale":"The reopened task is a single concrete factual question: the effective LOG_LEVEL given a base file and an override file. This is resolvable with a bounded read-only lookup. The recurring failure is a persistent tool failure, so the intervention should steer toward a different read mechanism rather than repeating the same call. DIRECT_EDIT is the wrong strategy for a question that only requires reading and comparing two config files.","strategy_hint":null,"plan_note":null,"investigation":{"question":"What is the effective LOG_LEVEL after applying config.local.env overrides on top of config.base.env?","suggested_tools":["bash: grep -i LOG_LEVEL /tmp/config.base.env /tmp/config.local.env","bash: cat /tmp/config.base.env /tmp/config.local.env"]},"question":null}No natural-language reply — the run ended on a harness directive or an unrecovered stall. See the full harness trace below.
The harness runs on every turn. Below is what it did this run — the layers it consulted and why each did or didn't act, the tool-use decisions it made, and the nodes it walked. Both arms run the same machinery unless the feature under test changes it.
| Layer | Acted? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| hypothesis | — | single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing |
| hypothesis | acted | Considered 5 ways this request could be understood; going with the most direct one |
| contradiction | — ×2 | fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare |
| diagnostics | acted | Health: nominal |
| diagnostics | acted | a sub-dimension crossed the caution threshold |
| control_state | — | NORMAL |
| control_state | acted | Pausing — blocked |
| planning | — | one eligible task — serial execution |
| execution | acted | module_type=business_logic |
| verification | acted | verification failed: Result is null — syntax check failed |
| recovery | acted | Trying a different approach — switched to "TRACE_EXEC" (LOCAL replan) |
| reviewer_pass | acted | Success criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request." |
action_gate (1) → rollback_replan (1) → output_validation (2)
The harness runs on every turn. Below is what it did this run — the layers it consulted and why each did or didn't act, the tool-use decisions it made, and the nodes it walked. Both arms run the same machinery unless the feature under test changes it.
| Layer | Acted? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| hypothesis | — | single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing |
| hypothesis | acted | Considered 5 ways this request could be understood; going with the most direct one |
| contradiction | — ×2 | fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare |
| diagnostics | acted | Health: nominal |
| diagnostics | acted | a sub-dimension crossed the caution threshold |
| control_state | — | NORMAL |
| control_state | acted | Pausing — blocked |
| planning | — | one eligible task — serial execution |
| execution | acted | module_type=business_logic |
| verification | acted | verification failed: Result is null — syntax check failed |
| recovery | acted | Trying a different approach — switched to "TRACE_EXEC" (LOCAL replan) |
| reviewer_pass | acted | Success criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request." |
| supervisor | acted | GATHER_EVIDENCE: The reopened task is a single concrete factual question: the effective LOG_LEVEL given a base file and an override file. This is resolvable with a bounded read-only lookup. The recurr |
action_gate (1) → rollback_replan (1) → output_validation (2)