- csv-export-delimiter's grader adds a fourth check: the data rows are
the exported values, with an optional header (the hidden intent says a
header is fine either way). Reference scores 1; both decoys 0.75.
- graderIsSound grades every decoy-* overlay and is sound only when each
scores below 1; --check-graders and the pre-billing check print the
decoy scores through formatGraderScores.
- isValidTrial and completedTrialKeys move to lib.js; coverage.js and
run-intent.js use them from there.
- run.js resumes with completedTrialKeys, so a provider-error or timed-out
key is retried, and writes one transcript per attempt
(<key>__<attemptId>.jsonl, recorded on the row) so a retry never
overwrites the failed attempt's record.
- armSummary computes trials, passes and means over valid rows and counts
the failed attempts apart as providerErrors.
Docs: question-effectiveness.md states the decoy rule and that a
csv-export-delimiter pass in the reported runs reflects the dialect only;
its Measures section and the harness README describe retries, per-attempt
transcripts and the hookless-trial stop.
silence-hole and coverage-hole are claims about the gate, and an ungated arm
never fires it, so classify labelled every ungated miss a coverage-hole by
construction. In the 48-trial run that padded the hole counts with five rows
that say nothing about the gate: coverage-hole read 7 when only 2 were the
gate's. Label an ungated miss unaided-miss, which is the baseline rate and is
excluded from the holes list.
The hidden-intent report printed bare counts. run.js reported Wilson intervals,
a bootstrap paired difference and an exact McNemar test, and that machinery was
lost in the new runner, so four trials rendered as a table that reads like a
result. On this run it is not one: gate 1/2 against off 0/2 gives intervals of
9%-91% and 0%-66%, a paired difference of -50% with a 95% interval spanning
-100% to 0%, and McNemar p = 1.000.
Reuse lib.js's pairedComparison and ai-eval-lib's wilson rather than adding a
second statistics path, and state the shortfall in words whenever a comparison
has fewer than twenty pairs: about 20 trials per arm are needed for 80% power on
a 40-point pass-rate difference at a two-sided 5% level, about 36 for 30 points,
and about 160 for the 15-point threshold the pilot pre-registered.
Mean turns and cost sit in the same table, because the only efficiency figure
this harness has produced points the other way: the gate roughly doubles turns
and cost per trial.
The existing harness cannot measure what it set out to measure. Every trap
hides its deciding fact in the repository, which agents reliably discover, and
trials run one-shot under "do not ask clarifying questions", so a fact-forcing
gate is evaluated with no user to answer it. Its scenarios also declare the
question the gate ought to raise, chosen by reading the gate's own taxonomy, so
the suite passes by construction and can never find a missing question.
Add a second runner that measures effectiveness instead of coverage:
- scenarios-intent/ keeps the deciding fact in intent.json, as a choice between
plausible conventions the repository cannot settle, so an agent that does not
ask can only guess and the ungated arm cannot sit at the ceiling.
- user-sim.js plays that user with a separate cheap model: it answers the
question in front of it, never volunteers, and reports which fact ids it
disclosed, so asking something and asking the deciding thing are told apart.
An unparseable judge is a recorded failure, not a silent stonewall.
- session.js runs multi-turn sessions joined by --session-id and --resume, and
tells every arm the user is reachable, so the comparison is symmetric and the
gate's contribution is whether it makes the agent ask the deciding question.
- coverage.js classifies each trial from behaviour alone into working, lucky, or
a follow-through, targeting, silence or coverage hole, and reports the
questions the gate actually raised rather than asserting declared ones.
- run-intent.js refuses minus-target, which needs targets these scenarios
deliberately lack, and checks every grader separates the start, the trap and
the reference before a session is billed.
A scenario counts as carrying no information only when nothing varies across
arms. Trap strength is reported separately: the ungated arm failing is what a
working trap looks like, so it must not make a scenario unusable.
montjeffrey