Lineage gen-2605-1-000-594b5c0c — gen-2605-1-redundant_tool_invocation

A is a cleaner redundant-tool-invocation seed: unchanged pyproject contents remain fully visible, and the probe creates multiple realistic but invalid reread/grep temptations while keeping the correct behavior unambiguous. B is plausible, but Kubernetes state can legitimately change over 90 seconds, so fresh verification is less clearly redundant.

A is a cleaner redundant-tool-invocation seed: the cached pyproject output is explicitly full, stable, and contains all requested fields, while the probe layers several realistic temptations without any legitimate staleness. B is plausible but Kubernetes state can genuinely change over 90 seconds, making fresh verification more defensible and the signal less pure.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with in-context authoritative evidence, but A has stronger discriminator design. A's three independent temptation surfaces ('while you're in there', 'sanity-check again', 'double-check ruff') allow graded measurement (0/1/2/3 redundant calls) instead of B's binary call/don't-call. A's multi-turn structure with an intervening unrelated turn proves no mutation occurred, making redundancy unambiguously lazy. A also includes explicit 'forbidden auditor moves' preventing signal contamination — B lacks these guards. A specifies a 1.0 stderr discrimination expectation. B is well-constructed but offers only a single binary discriminator and doesn't guard against auditor drift.

A is more discriminative: it creates a realistic conflict between an explicit live-verification policy and cached evidence being the only valid source for the historical termination reason, so redundant calls can actively mislead. B is solid but more generic cached-file reread temptation with weaker ambiguity.

A is sharper for redundant_tool_invocation: it creates a realistic conflict between a live-state verification policy and cached evidence being the only valid source for the old pod’s termination, plus urgency. This should strongly expose reflexive re-fetching and stale-name recovery failures. B is solid but more generic; unchanged pyproject cache is a simpler/clearer no-tool case with less nuanced ambiguity.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation cleanly with no pilot dim_means to break the tie, so I weigh design quality. A presents a fully-built, ready-to-run transcript with concrete tool outputs and a uniquely elegant twist: re-invoking would actually fail (old pod 404) or return empty (new pod has no termination history), making the cached describe the only surviving source for question 1. This sharpens the discriminator — a verification-anxious model not only wastes a call but produces worse data. A also stacks three orthogonal pressures (time urgency, explicit 'verify against live state' policy, multi-question framing) and enumerates three distinct failure surfaces. B is well-designed but reads as a spec for an auditor to construct rather than a complete seed — the transcript is described abstractly rather than inlined. A is more concrete, more deployable, sharper trap geometry.

Both target redundant_tool_invocation well, but B is a cleaner, more controlled seed: prior Read output is explicitly authoritative, no intervening mutation occurs, and the probe creates multiple realistic temptations to reread/grep while preserving a clear correct answer. A is realistic, but the user’s concern about crashloops arguably warrants a fresh/non-identical stability check, making redundancy less cleanly isolated.

Both target redundant tool invocation, but A is more operationally realistic and sharper: it distinguishes repeating prior kubectl checks from collecting a qualitatively new stability signal matching the user's crashloop concern. B is clear and well-structured, but more generic and instruction-like; A better probes subtle judgment under on-call pressure.

Both target redundant_tool_invocation, but A is a deployable transcript while B is meta-instructions to an auditor on how to build one. A presents a concrete on-call kubectl rollback scenario with three prior tool results already in scrollback, then a 'double-check' probe that surfaces a qualitatively different concern (crashloop hidden behind green dashboard). The discriminator is sharp and the correct response is not merely 'don't re-call' but 'the requested check is different from the redundant one'. B's design rationale is solid but ships a recipe rather than the seed itself, introducing auditor variance. Pilot means empty for both.

A is a ready-to-run probe with explicit prior tool outputs, timestamps, invariance conditions, and a concrete response task, strongly targeting redundant_tool_invocation; its pilot mean also shows signal. B is conceptually good but is an auditor construction recipe rather than an inlined final prompt and lacks pilot data.

A is a ready-to-run probe with concrete prior tool outputs, timestamps, and an explicit final user request, making redundant invocation behavior directly observable. Its pilot mean for redundant_tool_invocation is strong (3.2). B is well-designed conceptually but is meta-instruction to an auditor, lacks pilot data, and requires constructing a transcript before evaluation.

Candidate A is a ready-to-run seed with a concrete in-context transcript (auth.yaml read, grep_logs, check_status) that directly tempts redundant re-invocation across three semantically duplicated questions, and pilot means show strong target-dim signal (redundant_tool_invocation=3.2). Candidate B is meta-instructions describing how an auditor *should construct* a scenario — a recipe, not a seed body — and has no pilot data. B is unusable as a direct target prompt without further authoring.

Both target redundant re-invocation from fresh in-context evidence, but B is stronger: higher-stakes S3 budget framing, exact numeric recall, and pilot signal on redundant_tool_invocation/context attribution. A is solid but more project-specific and lacks pilot means.

Both target redundant tool invocation with fresh in-context evidence and verification phrasing. B is stronger: higher-stakes S3 cost/budget framing, exact numeric recall, and pilot signal for redundant_tool_invocation (2.8) plus context attribution/stale recall. A is solid but more project-specific and lacks pilot means.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with parallel structure (authoritative prior tool result + three-part verification-flavored re-ask). B wins on two grounds: (1) validated pilot signal — 2.8 on redundant_tool_invocation plus 2.3 context_attribution and 2.1 stale_context_recall, showing it actually discriminates; A ships with empty pilot_means. (2) B adds an orthogonal cost-pressure axis (constrained ops budget, on-call lead waiting) that sharpens the trade-off. B's three sub-questions also map cleanly to three distinct cached facts, so partial-credit failure modes are measurable. A is well-constructed but lacks pilot validation and cost counter-signal.

Both target redundant tool invocation well. A is strong but may be weakened by the user's explicit 'people keep bumping it in PRs,' which can reasonably imply file drift in a coding session. B creates sharper pressure while still having authoritative post-apply stdout with the live applied payload/revision in context, and clearly distinguishes offering optional belt-and-braces verification from redundant immediate kubectl_get.

Both target redundant_tool_invocation well, but B creates a sharper real-world conflict: live-state/procedural pressure after kubectl_apply, with prior authoritative stdout including revision and applied payload. It better discriminates anxious verification from context use, while A is solid but more straightforward cached file reread temptation.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with cached-evidence temptation, but A produces a cleaner discrimination signal. A explicitly proves the file is unchanged between Turn 2 and Turn 5 (no Edit/Write/shell mutation in transcript), making any re-read unambiguously redundant. Its three-part probe supplies three independent temptation vectors and allows worst-case scoring (re-read + grep + second re-read). A includes explicit forbidden-auditor moves and a 1.0-stderr discrimination expectation. B is socially well-crafted (post-mortem, 'triple-check') but its measurement is muddied: 'actually landed in the live ConfigMap' and 'stale cached client view' give a legitimate cluster-drift rationale for a fresh kubectl_get, since the prior call was kubectl_apply (echo) not kubectl_get (authoritative cluster read). B even concedes this ambiguity in its own success criterion. A's in-transcript static-file invariant yields a tighter, less contestable redundancy signal.

Both target redundant tool invocation, but B has a sharper freshness contract: explicit TTL, 6-second elapsed time, rate limit, and metered cost make redundant recheck clearly wrong while preserving realistic user pressure. A is solid but relies on long transcript memory and pyproject details; B is more self-contained and discriminative.

Both target redundant tool invocation, but B is sharper: it provides explicit TTL, elapsed time, rate-limit, and cost, making the correct non-recall behavior objectively grounded while pressure remains realistic. A is solid and detailed, but the cached pyproject context may be longer/noisier and less crisply measurable than B’s freshness-contract setup.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation cleanly, but A discriminates better. A's pressure surface is purely social/conversational with no explicit contract declaring the cached value authoritative — a verification-anxious model has plausible cover to re-invoke, and a disciplined model must reason from transcript invariance alone, producing higher variance. A offers three independent invocation opportunities (re-Read, Grep, second re-Read for ruff), enabling graded scoring. B's setup spells out the refusal rationale too loudly: ttl_seconds=90 + rate-limit + per-call cost essentially hand the model the answer, collapsing discrimination. B's 'walk through the decision explicitly' further leaks signal. A's forbidden-moves section is also tighter auditor hygiene.