The site does no live inference. Rollouts are captured once against spark-1 and
replayed at their recorded wall-clock — a public demo with no auth cannot hold
an API key, and a recorded run can be scrubbed, permalinked, blind-compared and
verified in ways a live one cannot. What stops it being a video is that the
browser re-derives every number from the recorded moves.
verify_fixtures.py is the Python half of that: it replays every committed
fixture through the engine and reproduces its own rewards. All 16 land at
delta 0.0. A fixture that cannot be regenerated is a claim with no receipt.
First real measurement, thinking off, 8 seeds: solved 0/8. The model repeats
guesses it has already played, invents words (trape, slith, postt, boomy),
and contradicts its own feedback — consistency 0.09 to 0.17. That is the
published failure taxonomy showing up in our own data on the first run, and it
is why `consistency` is a reward component rather than a footnote.
A capture failure is recorded as a turn with a null reply, never dropped. A
capture that silently discarded failed turns would be reporting a better model
than the one that ran.
CI gates both halves and four things that fail silently in production: the word
lists must rebuild byte-identically, the prerendered routes must carry their own
baked og tags (crawlers do not run JS, so without them every shared link
previews as the homepage), no blob: URL may reach the bundle (the site's CSP has
no worker-src, so it falls back to default-src 'self' and a blob worker is
blocked with no error), and the conformance digest must match across languages.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019mt6sHQHEnEYrJZvoMCJSB
engine.ts used mulberry32 and engine.py used random.Random(seed). Same seed,
different word — so every ?seed= permalink on the site would have shown a
different puzzle than the recorded run it claimed to be replaying, and nobody
would have noticed until someone checked one by hand.
Both now derive the index from FNV-1a 32-bit over the decimal seed. A hash
rather than a PRNG because there is no honest one-line JavaScript equivalent of
Mersenne Twister, and this way there is nothing to keep in step: both sides
compute the same integer from the same string. Math.imul on the JS side is
load-bearing — a plain multiply overflows into a double and diverges after the
first few bytes.
Twelve seeds are pinned as a vector in both test suites.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019mt6sHQHEnEYrJZvoMCJSB
The Python is the source of truth; src/demos/wordle/engine.ts will be a port of
it, and CI gates the two against a SHA-256 over all 21.2M (guess, answer)
pattern pairs rather than a hand-picked vector file — a vector file only ever
catches the cases somebody thought of.
The reward is three weighted components, and the third one is the reason this
demo is worth building. `solved` and `economy` pull toward winning. `consistency`
pulls against them, because a player maximising information deliberately guesses
words that cannot win — a word that splits the remaining candidates evenly
teaches more than a word that might happen to be right. That is good play, and
it costs consistency.
The probe ladder proves the tension is real rather than asserted:
inaction 0.0000 crude 0.0111 plausible 0.1224
candidate_only 0.8925 exhaustive 0.9031 oracle 0.9458
The two good policies are 0.05 apart and neither dominates — the entropy oracle
takes 1.00 economy and 0.73 consistency, the candidate-only player takes 0.75
and 1.00. Which one wins is a decision about what you want, which is the whole
argument the site exists to make. probe.py fails CI if either starts dominating.
Two traps found by building it. `consistency` is scored over turns SPENT, not
guesses accepted: counting only legal guesses hands a free 1.0 to a policy that
plays one word and then jams the parser five times — one guess, no
contradictions, perfect score. And `economy`'s denominator is the depth the
SHIPPED solver reaches, not a depth-optimal search: entropy-greedy is not
depth-optimal, so grading it against an exact optimum would make the oracle
rung fail its own assertion on some seeds.
The word lists are built from Wordnik (MIT) intersected with SCOWL, never from
the original game's 2,315 answers. 4,603 answers makes this materially harder
than the original, so the published SALET/3.4212 results are cited as belonging
to that list and our own reference player's TARES/3.72 is measured here.
verifiers is an optional extra. The engine, reward, solver and probe all run —
and gate — without an RL stack resolvable.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019mt6sHQHEnEYrJZvoMCJSB
karti-ai