moving

benchmarks/gaia2/PILLAR1-WAGGLE-FULL-VS-BARE-2026-05-27.md

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+# Pillar 1 — Full Waggle harness ladder · Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B · 2026-05-27
+
+**Question.** The 2026-05-26 N=160 ran with **bare** Waggle (gates OFF, no persona, no prompt-shape) — fairness-with-Hermes design but disclaiming the "as-shipped" product surface. Result: **67.9% trio-strict** on Qwen vs 87.2% on Hermes+Sonnet → 19.3pp gap. Marko's correction: *test the **real** Waggle harness* — turn on Waggle's actual product-distinctive orchestration. This memo measures four cells at N=20 to attribute the gap and pick the lever.
+
+---
+
+> ## ⚠️ CORRECTION (2026-05-28) — the N=20 ladder below is a FALSE POSITIVE
+>
+> **The F3 prompt-shape result did NOT survive stratified scale-up. See §F4 at the bottom for the authoritative numbers.**
+>
+> - **F4 Waggle+Qwen+F3 at full N=157: 65.6% trio-strict** (95% CI 57.9-72.6%) — statistically **FLAT** vs bare 67.9% (bare inside the CI), net **−3.2pp** on matched-pair (16 recover / 21 regress).
+> - The N=20 "+10.5pp" was **prefix-sampling bias** (GAIA scenarios are ordered by universe 21→30; `limit=20` drew 17/20 from universe_21) compounded with **run-to-run nondeterminism** (Qwen-thinking at temperature). On the *full* universe_21 set, F3 scores 70.6% vs bare 82.4% — it HURTS the very universe the probe claimed it helped.
+> - **F4 Sonnet+F3 N=40 = 97.5% is UNCONFIRMED** — it ran on the same biased universe-21-23 prefix. Needs a stratified N≥120 to trust.
+> - **Methodology lesson:** an N=20 gate on a non-stratified prefix is not a valid scale-up signal. The GAIA split must be stratified-sampled or run in full.
+>
+> The four-cell table immediately below is preserved as the (misleading) evidence that motivated F4, NOT as a result.
+
+## Headline result (N=20 PROBE — SUPERSEDED, see correction above)
+
+| Cell | What's on | trio-strict N=20 | matched ∆ vs bare-same-19 |
+|---|---|---:|---:|
+| Bare (control) | nothing | 73.7% (full-N=156: 67.9%) | — |
+| **F1** | + WAGGLE_VERIFICATION_GATE + WAGGLE_SKILL_DISTILLATION_GATE | 70.0% | **net 0pp** (5↔5 cancel) |
+| **F2** | + WAGGLE_PERSONA_ID=executive-assistant (composePersonaPrompt) | 75.0% | **+5.3pp** |
+| **F3** | + WAGGLE_GAIA2_QWEN_SHAPE=1 (output-discipline appendix) | **85.0%** | **+10.5pp** |
+
+**Trio judges unanimous on F3:** 17 PASS + 3 FAIL, 0 splits. Real content lift, not phrasing artifact.
+
+## Three product findings worth landing
+
+### Finding 1 — In-container ≠ trio-strict; only trio is fairness-defensible
+
+The GAIA 2 in-container `user_message_checker` is a deterministic format checker, not a content judge. It returns `inconclusive` on verbose multi-paragraph answers EVEN WHEN CORRECT. F1's in-container rate was **10%**; trio-strict was **70%**. F2's in-container **5%** → trio **75%**. F3's in-container **20%** → trio **85%**. The deterministic checker's signal correlates with the prompt-shape's success at producing crisp answers, NOT with whether Qwen got the right answer. Earlier session entries calling F1 a "catastrophic regression" based on in-container were wrong and retracted in real time. **Only trio-strict matched the Hermes baseline methodology; only trio-strict matters for the final number.**
+
+### Finding 2 — Waggle's "as-shipped" gates do NOT regress Qwen content; they trade phrasing crispness for reasoning shuffle
+
+F1 (verification + D1 skill distillation, both ON) produced **0pp net change** on the matched-19 subset. 5 scenarios that bare passed, F1 failed; 5 scenarios bare failed, F1 passed — different reasoning paths produce different scenarios. The gates DO induce longer scenarios (event counts 100-600 vs bare's 10-30 on hard scenarios) at extra cost and latency, without trio-strict benefit on Qwen. The earlier hypothesis "gates regress on non-Sonnet models" is **partially correct**: they regress on the deterministic checker (verbose answers, format-broken) but NOT on the LLM-judge content metric. Product implication: **the F1 gates' true cost is latency and token spend, not correctness**, and they can be safely shipped with model-aware toggles.
+
+### Finding 3 — The output-discipline prompt-shape is the highest-leverage harness lever for Qwen
+
+F3 is a single env var (`WAGGLE_GAIA2_QWEN_SHAPE=1`) that appends ~30 lines of explicit final-answer-format rules to the system prompt. Worker code change: 7 lines + a string constant. No agent-loop change, no LLM logic change. Result: **+10.5pp trio-strict matched lift, +11.3pp standalone**. The shape works partially (4/20 produced one-token answers like `45` / `Xóchitl`; 16/20 still produced multi-paragraph "Based on my analysis…" responses despite the prompt prohibition), but the partial discipline AND the trio-strict lift confirm Cat 1 (verbose final answers) is the dominant residual gap and harness-fixable.
+
+## Per-scenario evidence (4-way matched, N=19)
+
+```
+B=bare 1=F1 2=F2 3=F3                                                   recovery vs bare
+PPPP × 8 — easy / robust to all variants
+PPPF × 1 (5bftlu) — F3-only regression (overcompressed: "1" not the answer)
+PFPP × 3 — F1 broke, F2+F3 keep — confirms F1 is structurally hurting some scenarios
+PFFF × 1 (bnrehm) — model-hard, all enhancements fail
+FPPF × 1 (er2clq) — F1 saved it but F3 broke it; persona/shape interact non-linearly
+PPFP × 1 (ew5kn5) — F2 alone broke it; F3 keeps it
+FPFP × 2 (otvqov, 1xhz8j) — F2 doesn't help; F3 recovers ⬆️
+FPPP × 2 (powgzh, 346yda) — all variants except bare get these right ⬆️
+```
+
+**5 bare failures total in N=19:**
+- `er2clq` (Stockholm conflation): F3 fails — model-attributable, content-wrong even when terse
+- `otvqov` (messages participants city): **F3 recovers** ⬆️
+- `powgzh` (employed Stockholm contacts): **F3 recovers** ⬆️
+- `1xhz8j` (rides booked, ZIP/violent-crime): **F3 recovers** ⬆️
+- `346yda` (some entity lookup): **F3 recovers** ⬆️
+
+4 of 5 bare failures recovered under F3 — and the one that doesn't (`er2clq`) is a genuine Qwen content error, not a Cat 1/3 surface error.
+
+## Wiring (committed `6db922d` + working tree pending commit)
+
+Worker rewire in `benchmarks/gaia2/waggle-container/waggle_worker.mjs`:
+- F2 imports: `getPersona`, `composePersonaPrompt` from `@waggle/agent/dist/personas.js`
+- F2 logic: `WAGGLE_PERSONA_ID` resolved once at startup; `buildSystemPrompt()` composes AGENTS.md + persona
+- F3 logic: `WAGGLE_GAIA2_QWEN_SHAPE=1` appends `QWEN_SHAPE_APPENDIX` after persona compose (so shape wins format authority)
+- Unset / empty values preserve the 2026-05-22 bare-Waggle baseline behavior
+
+Container env in `external/.../gaia2-cli/runner/gaia2_runner/container_env.py`:
+- `_DEFAULT.extra_flags` is the single switch — set to `{"WAGGLE_GAIA2_QWEN_SHAPE": "1"}` for F3, `{"WAGGLE_PERSONA_ID": "executive-assistant"}` for F2, `{"WAGGLE_VERIFICATION_GATE": "1", "WAGGLE_SKILL_DISTILLATION_GATE": "1"}` for F1, `{}` for bare.
+
+Container `localhost/gaia2-waggle:latest` rebuilt 3× during this session: Phase 0 (fix#4 dist), F2 (worker rewire), F3 (shape constant). Final image at run time = F3 build.
+
+## Cost log
+
+- Phase 0 smoke ($0.05) + N=20 F1 (~$1.50) + N=20 F2 (~$1.20) + N=20 F3 (~$1.10) + 3× trio rejudges (~$0.50 each)
+- Total session compute: ~$5-6
+- Container rebuilds: ~5 min × 3 = ~15 min wall
+
+## What to ship for the F4 N=160 run
+
+**Option A — F3 alone.** Single-knob change from the 2026-05-22 baseline. Expected: ~78-85% trio-strict on full N=160. Cleanest claim ("Waggle's per-model prompt-shape architecture closes 10pp of the Qwen gap").
+
+**Option B — F2+F3 stacked.** Run an N=20 probe first to confirm no compounding regressions, then F4 N=160 + Sonnet N=40 re-baseline. Expected: ~80-87% trio-strict if recoveries union. Most ambitious headline.
+
+**Option C — pick F4 from {F3, F2+F3, F1+F2+F3} by best of three N=20 probes.** ~2h additional compute (~$3-4). Most rigorous selection.
+
+**Recommended:** **Option B.** F3 is the single highest-leverage lever (+10.5pp), F2 adds an independent +5.3pp with mostly non-overlapping recoveries. Stacked is the right "real Waggle harness" headline. The F2+F3 N=20 probe gives confidence before burning the F4 cost ($5-8 + judge).
+
+## Decision rule for F4 trigger
+
+After F2+F3 stacked N=20:
+- If ≥80% trio-strict → trigger F4: stacked N=160 + Waggle+Sonnet N=40 matched re-baseline (~$15-25 total) → publishable headline
+- If 75-79% → trigger F4 with F3 only (less ambitious, still clean)
+- If <75% → root cause the regression vs F3 alone, do not run F4 until understood
+
+## Provenance
+
+- Rebuilt container: `gaia2-waggle:latest` image id `34801a117af7` (F3 final)
+- F1 rejudge: `runs/rejudge-waggle-qwen36-f1-gates-n20.jsonl` (14/20)
+- F2 rejudge: `runs/rejudge-waggle-qwen36-f2-persona-n20.jsonl` (15/20)
+- F3 rejudge: `runs/rejudge-waggle-qwen36-f3-shape-n20.jsonl` (17/20)
+- Bare reference: `runs/rejudge-waggle-qwen36-thinking-n160.jsonl` (106/156)
+- Worker source: `benchmarks/gaia2/waggle-container/waggle_worker.mjs` HEAD `6db922d` (F2) + F3 patch pending commit
+- Container env: `external/.../container_env.py` (working-tree edits pending upstream commit)
+
+## Earlier in-session retractions
+
+- "F1 catastrophic regression" — based on 10% in-container rate; corrected after trio-rejudge showed 70% net-zero
+- "F2 persona introduces email-framing bias" — based on N=1 smoke; corrected after N=20 showed +5.3pp lift
+- Both retractions surfaced same-session before propagating into the final memo. Documentation discipline: in-container is plumbing, not signal.
+
+---
+
+# §F4 — Authoritative full-scale result (2026-05-28)
+
+Option B was selected from the N=20 ladder: F3-alone (the apparent winner) scaled to Qwen N=160 + a matched Sonnet N=40 re-baseline, both with `WAGGLE_GAIA2_QWEN_SHAPE=1`, all trio-rejudged.
+
+## The numbers
+
+| Cell | N | trio-strict | matched ∆ | judge unanimity |
+|---|---:|---:|---|---|
+| Bare Waggle+Qwen (2026-05-26) | 156 | 67.9% | baseline | — |
+| **F4 Waggle+Qwen+F3** | 157 | **65.6%** (CI 57.9-72.6) | **−3.2pp** vs bare (16 recover / 21 regress) | 155/157 unanimous |
+| Hermes+Sonnet (frontier) | 148 | 87.2% | — | — |
+| bare Waggle+Sonnet (2026-05-22) | 39 | 84.6% | — | — |
+| F4 Waggle+Sonnet+F3 ⚠️ | 40 | 97.5% | +12.8pp vs bare / +10.5pp vs Hermes (0 regress) | 39/40 unanimous |
+
+## What F4 establishes
+
+1. **F3 prompt-shape is a NULL result on Qwen at scale.** 65.6% vs 67.9% bare is statistically indistinguishable (bare sits inside the F4 95% CI). The shape helps simple factoid scenarios and hurts complex multi-step ones — net wash.
+
+2. **The N=20 probe gate was invalid.** Two compounding errors:
+   - *Prefix-sampling bias.* `limit=N` reads scenarios in dataset order, which is grouped by universe (21→30). N=20 drew 17/20 from universe_21; the Sonnet N=40 drew universes 21-23 only. The full N=160 spans 21-30 with later universes harder. Per-universe proof: bare-Qwen scores 82.4% on universe_21 but 68.0% on universes 23-30.
+   - *Run-to-run nondeterminism.* Qwen-thinking at temperature produces different outputs per execution. Scenarios F3 "recovered" in the N=20 run regressed in the independent N=160 run. The matched-pair lift was partly a coin-flip the rerun didn't reproduce.
+
+3. **The F3 failure modes at scale** (from the 21 regressions): over-compression (`3`, `Thailand`, `1` — terse but WRONG, the shape truncated correct reasoning into a wrong final token) on complex scenarios, AND non-adherence (2030-char answers still starting "Now I have all the data") where the shape didn't take hold at all. The shape neither reliably compresses nor reliably preserves correctness.
+
+4. **F4 Sonnet+F3 97.5% is UNCONFIRMED, not a result.** It ran on the same biased universe-21-23 prefix (N=40). The Pareto pattern (5 recover / 0 regress, 39/40 unanimous) is striking and *might* be real — Sonnet's self-discipline could compose better with the shape than Qwen-thinking does — but it cannot be claimed without a stratified N≥120 Sonnet+F3 run. **Do not cite 97.5% as a Pillar 1 number.**
+
+## Authoritative Pillar 1 Qwen number — UNCHANGED
+
+The honest sovereign-Qwen harness number remains **67.9% trio-strict (bare Waggle+Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B, N=156)**, ~19-21pp below the Hermes+Sonnet 87.2% frontier. None of F1/F2/F3 moved it at scale:
+- F1 (gates): net 0 at N=20, never scaled
+- F2 (persona): +5.3pp at N=20, never scaled (and N=20 now known unreliable)
+- F3 (shape): +10.5pp at N=20 → **−3.2pp at N=160 (FALSE POSITIVE)**
+
+The Qwen gap to the Sonnet frontier is **model-bound, not harness-bound** — at least, not closeable by any of the three harness levers tried here. The bare-Waggle-on-par-with-Hermes claim (Sonnet, 86.5% vs 89.2%, N=40, 2026-05-22) stands; the sovereign-Qwen lane sits ~20pp lower and the harness levers don't recover it.
+
+## Required follow-up before ANY F3/persona claim
+
+- **Stratified N≥120 probes**, not prefix `limit=N`. Either shuffle the scenario order or sample evenly across universes 21-30. The runner needs a `--shuffle-seed` or stratified-sampling flag (it currently reads in dataset order).
+- **pass@k or 3-run majority** to control Qwen-thinking nondeterminism before trusting any matched-pair delta < ~10pp.
+- If pursuing the Sonnet+F3 signal: stratified Sonnet+F3 N≥120 vs the same-scenario bare-Sonnet. Only then is 97.5% (or whatever it regresses to) citable.
+
+## F4 provenance
+
+- F4 Qwen: `runs/waggle-qwen36-f4-shape-n160/` + `runs/rejudge-waggle-qwen36-f4-shape-n160.jsonl` (103/157; 3 scenario errors incl. 1 DashScope 429 rate-limit under 4-container parallel load)
+- F4 Sonnet: `runs/waggle-sonnet-f4-shape-n40/` + `runs/rejudge-waggle-sonnet-f4-n40.jsonl` (39/40)
+- Both ran `WAGGLE_GAIA2_QWEN_SHAPE=1`, image `34801a117af7`, in parallel (Qwen→DashScope-intl, Sonnet→OpenRouter)
+
+## Third in-session retraction (the big one)
+
+- **"F3 closes +10.5pp of the Qwen gap" — RETRACTED.** Held at N=20, failed at N=160 (−3.2pp). Root cause: prefix-sampling bias + run nondeterminism. The earlier two retractions (F1 "regression", F2 "bias") were corrections that turned out *better* than feared; this one is a correction that turned out *worse*. The discipline that matters: the N=20 → scale-up gate was structurally unsound, and the scale-up is what caught it. Always scale-up-to-confirm before claiming a sub-10pp lever.