Run 32ad609a

Clarifying questions

This is now the **3rd auto-recovery run** on exp #366 (prior recovery `b047cabb-…`, original `0a864550-…`, plus the just-failed `9e039246-…`). The plan body on `experiments.body` remains final — `compute:small`, 8 adapters on 1×H100, ~3 GPU-hours. Re-running the planner cannot move the work forward; the blockers are structural (runner/infra) plus one human gate. I am producing only clarifying questions so the dashboard flips this experiment to `awaiting_clarifications` and breaks the cascade. **New evidence from this round.** Pod `lqpfpmbytlgded` reached `RUNNING` at 10:44:53 and survived **ten** consecutive 60-second status polls (10:44:53 → 10:53:56 = ~9 min in `RUNNING`) before disappearing at 10:54:54 — a substantially longer window than `w2vn4kqqjotfgj`'s ~3.5 min in the prior round. Nine minutes is **more than enough** for `uv sync --locked` against the `issue-366` branch to finish on a fresh volume and for `run_366.py` to begin training (or to exit with an unlogged error). The "not found in account=team" message from `services/runner/src/tools/runpod.ts` is consistent with the pod having been garbage-collected by RunPod, not with an account-key mismatch — but without log capture we still cannot tell whether the user command crashed early or whether RunPod's allocator reclaimed the pod for unrelated reasons. The cumulative tally is now **seven** vanished pods on this experiment (`yur1wxa4ztn2ky`, `o9hlewv1vn3vfe`, `hx5qglq11gau0i`, `jc3a2x03oxa7b0`, `w8zh8zs644se30`, `w2vn4kqqjotfgj`, `lqpfpmbytlgded`). The six structural items from the prior round are still load-bearing. The longer `RUNNING` window in this attempt sharpens #2 (the `sleep infinity` wrapper would now almost certainly have kept the pod alive past the 9-min point, so it is the cheapest unblock) and adds urgency to #6 (log capture is the only way to tell whether the user command exited cleanly or with an error during those 9 minutes). 1. **Halt the auto-recovery cascade on exp #366.** Mark this run (`<current run id>`), the prior recovery runs (`b047cabb-ad20-4626-…`, `9e039246-73d2-4abc-…`), and the original `0a864550-…` as `failed`. Do you want me to (a) treat the dashboard flip to `awaiting_clarifications` as sufficient on its own — trusting that the runner's status reducer stops re-firing recoveries once the experiment is no longer in a crashed-running state — or (b) also open a `kind=apply` to suppress auto-recovery on experiments whose latest planner run produced `isClarificationOutput=true`, so future intentional blockers cannot loop? [TEXTBOX:halt-strategy] 2. **Pick the runner-side fix to land before dispatch #8.** Same two options as the prior round, with new evidence that #2a alone would likely have rescued the most recent attempt: - **(2a) `sleep infinity` wrapper in `services/runner/src/lib/pod-bootstrap.ts`.** One-line change; appends `; sleep infinity` (or equivalent) after the user command so the pod survives normal-exit garbage collection. Unblocks #366 immediately. Doesn't fix the underlying "no log capture" problem. - **(2b) `progressPct=100` reducer hook in `services/runner/src/`.** Architecturally correct: distinguishes "pod exited because experiment finished" from "pod vanished while still working." Wider blast radius; needs a regression test pass. Which do you want pursued, and in what order? (2a now, 2b as a follow-up apply is the lowest-risk path.) [TEXTBOX:runner-fix-choice] 3. **Decide whether `runpodAccount: team` is intended for #366.** Unchanged from prior round. The runner's auth fallback at `services/runner/src/tools/runpod.ts:96-120` silently routes `team` through the personal key when `RUNPOD_API_KEY_TEAM` is absent (the case on this VM). Consistent across `dispatchPod` and `getPod`, so it should not be the cause of vanish events — but it does mean these pods are billing on personal. Do you want the experiment switched to `runpodAccount: personal` to make accounting explicit, or do you want `RUNPOD_API_KEY_TEAM` provisioned on the runner VM? [TEXTBOX:account-resolution] 4. **Confirm the experiment code on `issue-366` is the intended target for redispatch.** Last known HEAD is `29a985e7` (2026-05-13 20:49 UTC, "exclude A∩B pre-existing shared subtokens from forbidden set in marker resolver"), with `scripts/experiments/366/run_366.py` plus train/eval/markers/figures. Is `issue-366` still the right pointer, or has the implementer staged a newer fix on a different branch since the last dispatch? [TEXTBOX:branch-confirmation] 5. **Decide whether to add `networkVolumeId` before the next dispatch.** Seven vanish events have destroyed any partial artifacts (donor adapters, eval seeds, cached HF weights). Attaching an existing RunPod network volume at `/workspace` would (a) survive future pod losses, (b) drop subsequent `uv sync --locked` to ~30s, and (c) skip the multi-GB Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct download on every retry. Do you have a usable network volume id, and which DC is it pinned to? Without a real RunPod resource id I cannot guess one, and `dataCenterId` must match the volume's DC or the volume is invisible. [TEXTBOX:network-volume-id] 6. **Capture a single pod's stdout/stderr next dispatch (now strongly recommended).** With this round's 9-minute `RUNNING` window, the most informative diagnostic is what `run_366.py` actually printed during those nine minutes. Once the runner-side fix from #2 lands, the redispatched podSpec can tee the user command into `/workspace/explore-persona-space/run-stdout.log` and have the experiment script POST the head of that log to `SAGAN_PROGRESS_URL` at startup, so the next vanish leaves evidence. Alternatively, the runner-side fix could include `runpod podLogs <pod-id>` capture-on-vanish (heavier change). Which (or both)? [TEXTBOX:log-capture-optin] Once #1 and #2 are answered, the next planner run can fold the answers into a real redispatch plan — experimental sections, cost estimate, runpod-spec, Approval Checklist — without re-litigating the science (the plan body is final).