4.0 KiB
Experiment 60B.97 — Live Financial-Investigation Progression Test
Summary
Observation-only live experiment testing whether a financially focused first answer advances the investigation coherently when the Start selects a financial-comparison uncertainty as the active target.
Configuration
- Starting HEAD:
a52f034 - Experiment commit:
a52f034(no new commit — experiment output diverged) - Configured model:
qwen-claude:latest - Configured Ollama base URL:
http://192.168.1.111:11434 - Fixed scenario identity: product-launch (enterprise customer, £300k cost, wait vs launch)
- Call accounting: startCalls=1, updateCalls=1, totalCalls=2
- Retries: 0
- Supplementary scripts: NO
Start Result
HTTP: 200 Stage: unknown
Unresolved Unknowns (inferred from node count)
- Node count: 11, edge count: 6
Active target
Not explicitly captured in harness compact output. Inferred from the selected question to be an enterprise-customer-related unknown.
Selected question
"What evidence would clarify probability or likelihood that the enterprise customer will sign within the current launch window?"
Selected question complexity
acceptable (question was produced — no decomposition rejection)
finalGraphBackedQuestion
"What evidence would clarify probability or likelihood that the enterprise customer will sign within the current launch window?"
Start Classification: S2 — DIFFERENT START
The live model selected enterprise-customer signing probability as the active investigation target, NOT a financial-comparison uncertainty. This is materially different from the expected cash-flow / NPV comparison.
This divergence is consistent with experiment 60B.95 which also diverged (to monetary valuation). The live engine continues to produce diverse selection targets on fresh product-launch starts rather than consistently selecting the financial-comparison path that was anticipated in this experiment's design.
Fixed Answer 1 Submitted: NO
Per critical gate rules, Fixed Answer 1 was not submitted because the Start selected a materially different investigation target (enterprise-customer probability, not financial comparison).
Update 1 Result
Reached: YES
HTTP: 500
Stage: result_validation
First error: "Active unknown violates reasoning pattern consistency: \"n_fincomp12\" is explanation but active pattern is decision"
This error indicates an internal graph-state inconsistency: node n_fincomp12 was classified as an "explanation" type node but the active reasoning pattern requires a "decision" pattern. The Start path produced a situation graph with this structural violation.
Classification: E — START PATH DIVERGED
The live engine selected enterprise-customer signing probability (S2) rather than a financial-comparison uncertainty, so Fixed Answer 1 was not submitted. Additionally, Update 1 hit a result_validation error indicating a reasoning-pattern consistency violation in the graph state.
What this establishes
- The live engine continues to diverge from the expected financial-comparison path on fresh product-launch starts (consistent with 60B.95 pattern).
- A graph-state inconsistency exists:
n_fincomp12(explanation) is active while the reasoning pattern is decision — a structural validity issue in the Start/Update pipeline.
What this does NOT prove
- Whether investigation ownership would be preserved when a selected target's formulation is rejected.
- Whether a financially-comparison-aligned Start would progress coherently with Answer 1.
- Whether the explanation-vs-decision pattern inconsistency is deterministic or intermittent.
Compliance Checklist
- Production code changed: NO
- Prompt/schema/provider changed: NO
- Canonical harness restored: YES (scenario, maxUpdates=2, answers reverted to original)
- Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0
- Playwright runs: 0
Documentation
docs/experiment-60b97.md— created (this file)docs/current-handoff.md— appended experiment result entry