MODEL-NOTES: 2026-09-07 attribution correction — gemini-flash-latest,… - #124
Open
chriscfellows wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
chriscfellows wants to merge 1 commit into
chriscfellows wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
… BLP-252
Four FAIL rows stand against gemini-flash-latest for task `appointments-sort`
in ~/.ringer/runs.jsonl (task_type code-feature). They are real failures, but
two harness defects shaped both attempts, so they are not capability signal:
* The worker was denied read access to every repo path it was told to edit.
Its log records, for all five files including the frozen test file that was
the contract: "Error executing tool read_file: Path not in workspace: ...
resolves outside the allowed workspace directories". It wrote through the
shell anyway and reasoned through the assertions by hand.
* The attempt-2 retry prompt opened with the engine's --output-format json
accounting ("durationMs": 894) instead of the check output, and never
stated the tree already carried attempt 1's edits.
Attempt 1 failed 6 of 23 on one typo (isisNaNB); attempt 2 rewrote the module
and failed 15.
No new capability claim is made — this withdraws signal rather than adding it.
Flagged in the entry as a different class from the existing check-bug
annotations: there the check produced a false FAIL, here the verdicts were
correct and only the attribution is wrong. References upstream issue NateBJones-Projects#65,
which is the machine-readable version (amendment rows excluded from
aggregation); until that lands this line is the only correction channel and
the scoreboard still counts all four rows.
Docs-only. Suite unchanged at 254 tests.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AVTYzUcjMokzMsyjABjUBF
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Four
FAILrows stand againstgemini-flash-latestin my local eval log for onecode-featuretask. They are real failures — the code genuinely did not pass — but they are not clean capability signal, andfirst_try_pass_rateis the routing signal. This is the annotation channel CONTRIBUTING points at for exactly that.What the evidence shows
Two harness defects shaped both attempts.
The worker was denied read access to every repo path it was told to edit. Its own log records, for all five files — including the frozen test file that was the contract:
It wrote through the shell anyway, and its notes say it reasoned through the assertions by hand instead.
The retry prompt was unusable. Attempt 2's context opened with the engine's
--output-format jsonaccounting ("durationMs": 894) rather than the check output, and never stated that the tree already carried attempt 1's edits.Attempt 1 failed 6 of 23 on one typo (
isisNaNB); attempt 2 rewrote the module and failed 15.What the entry does
One dated line under
## Small / flash-class models. It withdraws signal — no new capability claim is made.It also flags that this is a different class from the check-bug annotations already in the file: there, a wrong check produced a false FAIL. Here the verdicts were correct and only the attribution is wrong. Worth keeping distinct, because the two want different remedies.
Related
Docs-only. Suite unchanged at 254 tests (one unrelated
test_contributors.pyfailure, which keys on commit author rather than content — on this identical tree the suite isRan 254 tests ... OKbefore the commit and 1 failure after).🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01AVTYzUcjMokzMsyjABjUBF