Record evidence-selection regressions for the English worker - #9
Merged
Merged
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Record two completed public-CLI development comparisons so future English-loop work does not mistake aggregate evidence scores for reliable completion checks. Explicit abstention guidance stayed at 15/36. Three examples improved 15/36 to 21/36 but regressed the previously correct long-page case in all three runs, so no prompt/model change was adopted.
All 288 warmup/measured records, manifests, source snapshots and raw artifacts remain local. Production code and model weights are unchanged. Required core checks passed for the unchanged implementation; CI checks this documentation revision. The other session's English-loop and host work remains untouched.