All four arms captured: the number moves from 0/8 to 4/8
32 recorded rollouts, 8 seeds x 4 agents, every one replaying through the Python engine to a delta of exactly 0. arm solved economy consistency total base-off 0/8 0.000 0.122 0.0244 base-on 4/8 0.469 0.479 0.4865 cautious 8/8 0.944 1.000 0.9831 solver 8/8 1.000 0.719 0.9437 Thinking-off solves none of eight. The same model on the same seeds, sampled with thinking on, solves four. That is the headline, it is ours, and it needed no training — which is also why the run is labelled an intervention and names what was done to it, so a sampling change can never read as a training result. `cautious` is new and it exists to make the reward editor honest. Until now the page invited you to move a slider and watch the ranking change, and no slider changed anything, because the solver dominated a model that solved nothing. A candidate-only player — most informative guess among words that could still win — takes consistency outright and pays for it in turns. Now: only speed matters solver 0.9859 cautious 0.9606 -> solver shipped weights solver 0.9437 cautious 0.9831 -> cautious punish contradictions solver 0.8312 cautious 0.9972 -> cautious The ranking really does flip, on recorded data, with one slider. The first version of this arm picked the alphabetically-first candidate and opened on 'abaci', which made the policy the counterweight exists to reward look like a straw man. 190 contract checks pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019mt6sHQHEnEYrJZvoMCJSB
This commit is contained in:
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
Reference in New Issue
Block a user