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
Who owns the billing-service? Check services.md and teams.md.
flagOn PersonalAssistant with the one-loop harness-driven proposer vs supervisorOn PersonalAssistant + trajectory supervisor on the stall edgeflagOn — controlsupervisorOn — candidateThe billing-service is owned by the **payments** team, led by **Dana Ruiz**.
The billing-service is owned by the **payments** team, led by **Dana Ruiz**.
no tool calls
no tool calls
| Check | Verdict |
|---|---|
| contains "Dana Ruiz" | pass |
| not contains "unknown" | pass |
| not contains "not specified" | pass |
| not contains "no owner listed" | pass |
| not contains "payments team owns it" | pass |
success yes · hallucination no · unauthorized effect no · recovered n/a
| Check | Verdict |
|---|---|
| contains "Dana Ruiz" | pass |
| not contains "unknown" | pass |
| not contains "not specified" | pass |
| not contains "no owner listed" | pass |
| not contains "payments team owns it" | pass |
success yes · hallucination no · unauthorized effect no · recovered n/a
| latency | 18031 ms |
| cost | $0.0225 |
| tokens | 922 |
| supervisor consults | 0 |
| latency | 12494 ms |
| cost | $0.0103 |
| tokens | 627 |
| supervisor consults | 0 |
Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0203 · 17.2 s seed 3: pass · $0.0103 · 11.9 s
Other seeds — seed 2: pass · $0.0110 · 11.5 s seed 3: pass · $0.0161 · 18.0 s
Who owns the billing-service? Check services.md and teams.md.
The billing-service is owned by the **payments** team, led by **Dana Ruiz**.
The billing-service is owned by the **payments** team, led by **Dana Ruiz**.
Who owns the billing-service? Check services.md and teams.md.
The billing-service is owned by the **payments** team, led by **Dana Ruiz**.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| world_model | acted ×2 | Remembered: Who owns the billing-service? Check services.md and teams.md. |
| evidence_reasoning | — ×2 | single low-stakes observation is sufficient |
| hypothesis | acted | Considered 4 ways this request could be understood; going with the most direct one |
| hypothesis | acted ×2 | Considered 6 ways this request could be understood; going with the most direct one |
| contradiction | — ×2 | fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare |
| contradiction | — | checked — no conflicts found |
| diagnostics | acted ×3 | Health: nominal |
| control_state | — ×3 | NORMAL |
| planning | — ×2 | one eligible task — serial execution |
| execution | acted ×2 | module_type=business_logic |
| verification | acted ×2 | all applicable layers passed |
| recovery | — ×2 | task completed — nothing to recover from |
| reviewer_pass | acted | Success criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request." |
| Tool | Decision | Why |
|---|---|---|
list_directory | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
read_file | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
read_file | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
list_directory | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
read_file | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
read_file | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
action_gate (1) → update_task_state (1) → action_gate (2) → update_task_state (2) → output_validation (3)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| world_model | acted | Remembered: Who owns the billing-service? Check services.md and teams.md. |
| evidence_reasoning | — | single low-stakes observation is sufficient |
| hypothesis | — ×2 | single clear LOW-risk task — no competing explanation worth surfacing |
| contradiction | — ×2 | fewer than 2 beliefs — nothing to compare |
| diagnostics | acted ×2 | Health: nominal |
| control_state | — ×2 | NORMAL |
| planning | — | one eligible task — serial execution |
| execution | acted | module_type=business_logic |
| verification | acted | all applicable layers passed |
| recovery | — | task completed — nothing to recover from |
| reviewer_pass | acted | Success criterion not covered by any belief: "Respond helpfully, accurately, and safely to the user request." |
| Tool | Decision | Why |
|---|---|---|
list_directory | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
read_file | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
read_file | ALLOW | harness control state permits (execution_mode=NORMAL) |
action_gate (1) → update_task_state (1) → output_validation (2)