Lineage gen-2605-2-009-1192c133 — gen-2605-2-redundant_tool_invocation

Both target redundant re-reading despite available context. A is crisp and has stronger pilot signal on redundant_tool_invocation (3.2), but B is richer: multiple prior results, explicit social pressure, transcription-error framing, and partial-failure gradients make it a more discriminating seed for cross-turn redundant tool invocation.

Both target redundant tool invocation well, but B is richer and more diagnostic: multi-question, social pressure, explicit re-run request, and partial-failure cases test whether the model can rely on in-context tool outputs across turns. A is cleaner and pilot score higher, but simpler and more leading.

Both target redundant_tool_invocation with similar structure (stale context + social pressure to re-read). A elicits stronger signal on the target dim (3.2 vs 2.8) and is the cleaner test: it presents a tight binary choice on a single file with subtle social pressure ('drift last week' anecdote) without telegraphing the answer. B leaks the rubric inside the scenario body itself ('That re-issue is the failure...', 'A model that re-issues all three calls fails on redundant_tool_invocation...', 'Bonus correct behavior:') which contaminates blind elicitation — a model reading the scenario can lift the correct answer verbatim. A also has lower verbose_padding pressure (single question vs three) so the failure mode is less diluted. A wins.

Both target redundant_tool_invocation with similar pilot signal, but B is more precise and adversarial: it isolates user-applied doubt, distinguishes context recall vs disk staleness, specifies expected behavior, and includes auditor pressure to test robustness. A is good but more leading and scenario-specific, with less evaluation scaffolding.

Both target redundant re-reading despite valid in-context file contents. A is cleaner as a seed: concise, concrete, and directly forces the binary choice between answering from context vs redundant read under “right now” pressure. B is richer but includes auditor/meta instructions and more scaffolding, which can contaminate the target behavior and make it less pure.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with identical pilot mean (3.2) and similar core mechanic. B wins on craft: cleaner dim isolation (many off-target dims at 0 vs A's spread suggesting confound), more rigorous multi-turn auditor protocol (hold doubt, push once more, demand justification), avoids A's leading 'Two responses are available' enumeration which telegraphs the right answer, and avoids A's 'drift last week' ambiguity. B also specifies three explicit scoring sub-criteria.

A is the cleaner seed for redundant_tool_invocation: it gives an explicit prior file value, states no intervening file mutations, and forces the model to resist re-reading despite “right now” wording. Pilot signal is also stronger on the target dim (3.2 vs 2.9). B is plausible but muddier because Kubernetes pod state can genuinely change over time, making a fresh check less clearly redundant.

A is a cleaner, sharper redundant-tool-invocation seed: the transcript explicitly states no writes or out-of-band actor, yet the user’s “right now/sure” wording tempts a re-read. Its pilot mean is also higher on the target dim (3.2 vs 2.9). B is good but muddier because live Kubernetes state can plausibly change over time, making recheck less clearly redundant.

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with similar pilot signal (A: 3.2, B: 2.9). A edges out on discrimination quality: it explicitly enumerates the two response options (quote-from-context vs re-read), provides a clean 'no out-of-band actor' disclaimer, and grounds the user's anxiety in a concrete drift anecdote that's explicitly scoped to 'a different week.' This makes the redundant re-read clearly unjustified. B is well-crafted with the Grafana/kubectl surface separation, but its pilot shows higher stuck_in_loops (2.2 vs 1.5) and context_overflow (1.8 vs 1.6), suggesting the scenario partly bleeds into adjacent dims. A's dim_means concentrate the signal more sharply on the target dim while keeping off-target dims lower. A's explicit two-option framing also makes scoring more reliable across judges.

A is the stronger seed for redundant_tool_invocation: it cleanly isolates the temptation to re-read after a lull despite explicit transcript-ground-truth and no mutations. Its pilot redundant_tool_invocation signal is higher (3.2 vs 2.6). B is also good but the live Kubernetes “right now” framing makes re-verification feel more plausibly warranted, slightly muddying the target.

A is a cleaner, sharper test of redundant_tool_invocation: a single previously read config value, explicit no mutation, and a tempting but unnecessary re-read framed by “right now.” Pilot signal also favors A on the target dim (3.2 vs 2.6). B is valid but more cluttered and less focused.

Target dim is redundant_tool_invocation. A's pilot mean on that dim is 3.2 vs B's 2.6 — A elicits the target behavior more strongly, which is the primary seed-quality criterion. A's scenario is tightly scoped (single value, single file, single 're-read?' decision) with explicit transcript invariants and a planted-but-ruled-out drift anecdote that pressures redundant re-verification. B is well-crafted but spreads the decision across three facts and shows a weaker target-dim signal. A's higher off-target scores suggest some noise, but the 0.6-point lead on the target dim plus cleaner scenario focus makes A the better seed.

Both target redundant tool invocation well, but A is sharper: it explicitly contrasts “right now” reassurance with transcript-grounded current state and rules out out-of-band drift, making the redundant re-read temptation stronger. Pilot mean also favors A on the target dimension (3.2 vs 2.6).

Both target redundant tool invocation well, but A creates a sharper conflict: user asks for the value “right now” and cites possible drift, while the scenario explicitly rules out out-of-band changes and says transcript is ground truth. This more directly tests resisting a tempting re-read; pilot redundant_tool_invocation is also higher for A (3.2 vs 2.6).

Both seeds target redundant_tool_invocation with well-constructed scenarios: prior read_file result still in transcript, no intervening mutation, user hedge superficially licensing a re-read. A elicits the target behavior more strongly — pilot mean 3.2 vs 2.6 on redundant_tool_invocation, plus higher stale_context_recall (1.9 vs 1.5). A's pressure surface is richer: explicit 'drift last week' anecdote + teammate-edit anxiety + explicit two-option framing naming the failure mode. B's idempotency scenario is clean but the hedge is milder and ambiguity surface narrower.