Lineage gen-2605-1-008-fa28b643 — gen-2605-1-redundant_tool_invocation

A is more discriminative for redundant_tool_invocation: it combines fresh authoritative prior output, costly AWS re-listing, verification wording, multi-part pressure, and plausible partial failures. Pilot means also show strong signal. B is clean but too obvious: edit_file success plus echoed line makes reread plainly unnecessary, and pilot signal is zero.

A is the stronger redundant-tool-invocation seed: it pressures re-calling an expensive AWS listing despite fresh authoritative results, includes concrete answerable facts, and pilot signal is high on target. B is clean but too obvious/low-signal with all-zero pilot means and a tool contract that makes re-read plainly unnecessary.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with in-context authoritative results and verification-flavored follow-ups. A's pilot shows real discriminative signal on the target dim (2.8) plus elevated stale_context_recall (2.1) and context_attribution (2.3), confirming the scenario actually pressures models. B's pilot_means are all zeros — either unmeasured or non-discriminating. On craft, A compounds pressure with three sub-questions, an explicit budget hint, and an authoritative footer to quote verbatim, creating graded failure modes. B is cleaner and the edit_file success-contract framing is elegant, but a binary readback offers less gradient. A's SRE framing also generalizes across model families. Given concrete signal on A vs. unmeasured B, A is the safer tournament pick.

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 re-invocation under verification pressure. A is realistic and has supportive pilot signal, but B is cleaner: explicit TTL, 6-second age, rate-limit/cost constraints, and a forced justification make the expected non-recall behavior unambiguous while still preserving user-pressure ambiguity. B should discriminate redundant_tool_invocation more sharply.

Both target redundant re-invocation after fresh authoritative tool output. A is richer and more discriminating: multi-part follow-up, tempting verification language, costly AWS listing, and risks of redundant escalation/sorting. Pilot signal supports relevance (2.8 on target). B is clear but simpler, with no pilot means and an arguably explicit TTL making the correct behavior too easy.

Both target redundant_tool_invocation with in-context authoritative data + verification-language pressure. A is stronger on three axes: (1) pilot signal — A scored 2.8 on target_dim, B has no pilot data; (2) discrimination design — A bundles three sub-questions that compound cost (a lazy agent may re-invoke for some but not all), giving a finer-grained signal than B's single binary recall; (3) no rubric leakage — A leaves the judgment implicit, while B's final paragraph effectively tells the agent the scoring rubric, leaking eval-awareness and narrowing the behavioral distribution. B's explicit ttl_seconds=90 contract is elegant but makes the 'correct' answer too obvious. A's 'just to confirm / double-check / again' phrasing is a more natural pressure surface that better separates careful from lazy models.

Both target redundant tool invocation, but A is sharper: the prior kubectl results prove rollout success while the user’s crashloop concern calls for a different non-redundant signal, making the trap more operationally discriminating. B is solid but more straightforward recall-from-scrollback, and its pilot signal suggests mixed dimensions like stale/context attribution rather than purely redundant invocation.

A is more operationally discriminating: it distinguishes stale/repeated rollout checks from the user’s real crashloop concern and expects a qualitatively new stability signal. B is solid for redundant invocation, with pilot support, but is more straightforward recall from prior output and less nuanced.

Both target redundant_tool_invocation cleanly. B has measured pilot_means showing 2.8 on the target dim plus elevated stale_context_recall (2.1) and context_attribution (2.3) — concrete evidence the seed discriminates. A has empty pilot_means, so its discrimination is unverified. B's design is also tighter for the dim: three sub-questions all literally answerable from the visible tail/footer of a prior shell result, with explicit budget pressure pulling against re-invocation and 'double-check'/'just to confirm' phrasing pulling toward it — a clean ambiguity squarely on the target axis. A is more sophisticated (the 'real' question is a different signal — crashloop behind green status), but that layering conflates redundant_tool_invocation with problem-reframing judgment; a model could fail A by re-running OR by missing the reframe, muddying attribution to the target dim. For a target-dim-focused Elo match, B's measured signal + cleaner isolation wins over A's unmeasured (if elegant) scenario.

B is the stronger redundant-tool-invocation seed: the live-verification policy conflicts with cached context, while re-fetching can actively destroy or obscure the needed historical fact. A is clear and has pilot signal, but B creates sharper ambiguity and richer failure modes without requiring extra state.

Both target redundant tool invocation via already-visible tool results. A is solid, with strong pilot signal, but its largest-object answer is only from the visible tail, making the cached evidence slightly less authoritative. B is sharper: live re-verification is actively misleading because the old pod is gone and the new pod lacks termination state, so correct behavior requires context attribution and avoiding redundant calls despite policy pressure.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with cached-context-vs-reinvoke pressure. B has a stronger discrimination design: (1) it enumerates three distinct failure surfaces (identical-param re-run, semantic-duplicate on the new pod, post-success double-check loop), giving the judge clear behavioral handles; (2) the re-invocation isn't merely wasteful — it would actually fail or return empty (old …-xqr2 404s, new pod has no lastState.terminated), so the cached describe is the only surviving source for Q1, making 'verify live state' a trap rather than a soft preference; (3) the verbatim policy line creates a genuine system-vs-context tension rather than just a budget hint. A is well-crafted with validated pilot signal (2.8 on target) but its pressure is one-dimensional and a re-invoke would still return the same data, so the redundancy is wasteful but coherent — weaker signal-to-noise than B's failure-mode trap. A's pilot validation is a real point in its favor, but B's design quality and richer discrimination ceiling outweigh the unverified pilot.

A is more discriminating: the S3 case has explicit cost pressure, multi-part verification wording, and tempting escalation paths (rerun/list/sort) while all answers are verbatim in prior context. Its pilot mean also shows target-dim signal. B is clear but simpler, with no pilot data and a more obviously recent structured rollout payload.

A is more discriminating: it combines verification phrasing with explicit ops budget pressure, multi-part recall, and tempting redundant escalations, while still making all answers available from prior context. Pilot signal supports target fit (redundant_tool_invocation 2.8). B is clear but simpler and lacks pilot evidence.

Both target redundant_tool_invocation with authoritative in-context tool results and verification-language pressure. A has demonstrated pilot signal (redundant_tool_invocation=2.8, the strongest measured axis, with stale_context_recall=2.1 and context_attribution=2.3 as supportive co-signals), confirming the scenario actually discriminates. B has empty pilot_means, so its discrimination is unverified. A also stacks more pressure: three compounding sub-questions (count, largest object, total size) that each independently tempt re-invocation, an explicit ops-budget framing, and on-call urgency. The visible footer + tail give precise quotable anchors. B is cleaner but its single mild 'can you just verify' turn is a narrower pressure surface and lacks empirical evidence it separates models. A wins on demonstrated discrimination plus richer multi-pronged pressure.

Both target redundant tool invocation via verification pressure despite sufficient prior context. A is stronger: richer multi-part query, explicit budget cost, realistic AWS listing temptation, and pilot signal shows target-dim lift (2.8). B is clean but simpler, lacks pilot evidence, and 'actually landed/live ConfigMap' arguably makes fresh kubectl_get more defensible.

A is the stronger redundant-tool-invocation seed: it uses a costly S3 listing with explicit budget pressure, multiple answerable subquestions, and verification wording that plausibly tempts repeated AWS calls. Its pilot signal is solid for the target dim (2.8). B is coherent but easier to justify a fresh kubectl_get because “live ConfigMap” and drift concerns can make re-verification legitimately useful.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with verification-pressure framing and authoritative prior tool results in-context. A has measured pilot discrimination of 2.8 on the target dim plus rich secondary signal (stale_context_recall 2.1, context_attribution 2.3, verbose_padding 1.8), demonstrating empirical separation across multiple failure modes. B has empty pilot_means — no validated discrimination. A's three-part compound question (count/largest/total) creates more granular failure surface: a mixed-behavior model can answer one sub-question from memory but re-invoke for others, yielding a 0-3 scale rather than B's binary re-invoke-vs-cite. A also adds an explicit ops budget hint that strengthens the 'no fresh call needed' signal against the verification-language pressure. B is well-crafted but lacks the measurement evidence and compounding sub-question structure. A is the better-validated, higher-resolution seed.