Run 63bfc4d4

Moved from running to interpreting on the Pipeline board. Interpret the current evidence for the scoped experiment. Use the scoped record as the source of truth for title and scope, identify missing artifacts or blockers, and produce the next concrete review note. Do not rename, retitle, or otherwise mutate the scoped issue/experiment.

Statuscancelled20 events · latest 1327h 49m ago

Plan

Goal

Diagnose why direct-dispatch r5 for experiment #192 failed in the same fleet-wide pattern as r4, and produce a blocker that prevents further compute burn until the underlying RunPod-side or account-level event is identified by the human owner.

Hypothesis

Pods are being terminated by an out-of-band actor (RunPod-side reclaim, billing/auth event affecting the API key, or manual sweep) within ~60–90 seconds of reporting `RUNNING`, across multiple experiments and across **both** team and personal accounts. The r5 attempt for #192 is one of at least four simultaneously affected dispatches in the 10:53–10:55 UTC window.

Prediction

If I re-dispatch the same A100 r5 spec right now, the new pod will: 1. Report `RUNNING` within ~40s of dispatch, 2. Disappear from whichever account it was billed to within ~60s after that, 3. Trigger an r6 auto-recovery with an identical "Pod … not found in account=…" failure reason, 4. Burn another ~$1.50–3 of A100 time for ~90s of effectively-no-work compute. There is no per-experiment code change that would prevent this. The r4 plan_json correctly noted the EPS script fix (`22739aab`) and bootstrap hardening (`pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264`) were already in place; r5 confirms those did not cause and cannot fix the failure.

Kill Criterion

This recovery run is itself the kill criterion: I am stopping with a blocker rather than emitting a runpod-spec. The criterion that would *unblock* re-dispatch is one of: - The owner identifies a specific RunPod-side cause (billing cap, API key rotation, manual sweep, regional capacity reclaim) and confirms it has cleared, OR - The owner observes ≥1 unrelated control dispatch (e.g. exp #363, #366, #333 r6) running successfully past the ~2-minute mark in the same window.

Experimental Setup

No new compute. Evidence-collection only, captured here: **r4 wave (10:39–10:45 UTC, team account):** 4 sibling A100 dispatches; 3 vanished from `account=team` within ~3 minutes (per prior plan_json analysis on this experiment). **r5 wave (10:53–10:55 UTC, both accounts):** at least four experiments lost pods simultaneously: | run | exp | pod | account | RUNNING at | lost at | gap | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | `3d8f3042…` (this) | #192 | `v0c7bx292xqvg4` | team | 10:53:54 | 10:54:55 | ~61s | | `6e8a0593…` | #363 | `m1ayhl6nsbxw04` | team | 10:53:54 | 10:54:54 | ~60s | | `9e039246…` | #366 | `lqpfpmbytlgded` | team | 10:44:53 | 10:54:54 | (long-running, killed in same window) | | `32e93989…` | #333 | `j0xvy1q82ryo8m`, `cv13x9s487tvwn` | **personal** | 10:53:55 | 10:54:54 | ~60s | The exp #333 row is decisive: that recovery had **deliberately switched from team to personal** because r1–r4 had already failed on team, and personal **also** lost both of its pods in the same ~60s window. This rules out the team-only hypothesis from the r4 diagnosis.

Compute and Hardware

**No compute dispatched.** The Approval Checklist below explicitly does not approve a runpod-spec. If re-approved later, the canonical shape from the existing experiment record (1× A100 80GB SXM, single pod, ~3h estimated, ~$4.50 at the $1.49/GPU-hr SXM rate plus negligible storage) remains valid — no plan edit is required, only resolution of the account-level event.

Artifacts

This blocker plan is the only artifact. No models, datasets, evals, or figures will be produced by this run.

Verification

The owner can verify the diagnosis without my access by: 1. Opening the RunPod console for **both** the team and personal accounts and inspecting the audit/event log for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. Look for `podTerminate`, billing alerts, API-key revocations, or capacity-reclaim notices. 2. Cross-referencing the four pod IDs above (`v0c7bx292xqvg4`, `m1ayhl6nsbxw04`, `lqpfpmbytlgded`, `j0xvy1q82ryo8m`, `cv13x9s487tvwn`) — if a single RunPod-side action terminated them, the audit log will likely group them. 3. Checking whether the same window shows successful (non-reaped) dispatches from other Sagan experiments; e.g. exp #365 pod `j18eiux6ccekyj` was reported as `status=running` in the r4 diagnosis — if it is now also gone, the event is platform-wide rather than account-wide.

Risks and Red Team

- **Risk of unnecessary blocker.** If the platform event has already cleared, I am wasting time by not re-dispatching. *Mitigation:* this run does not edit the plan_md or pod_spec on `experiments.b50b82c2…`, so re-approval is one click for the owner once they confirm the account is healthy. - **Risk of misdiagnosis.** I have not directly queried the RunPod API for these pods' termination reasons (no MCP tool calls to RunPod in this thread, and the prior plan_json correctly noted that out-of-band action is the most likely explanation). *Mitigation:* the cross-account, multi-experiment, sub-90-second pattern is too tight to be explained by anything in our codepath; the wrapper's `sleep infinity` (`pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264`) makes a script-side exit impossible to manifest as "not found in account". - **Risk of compounding loss.** If I had re-dispatched, the next failure would have produced an r6 recovery that would itself recurse — the four parallel recovery runs already running at 10:57 UTC show the loop is in flight; emitting another spec accelerates it. **Critique loop notes.** This is a recovery-context blocker, not a fresh adversarial plan, so the bounded 3-loop paired-critic workflow is not applicable. The prior plan_json (r4 analysis) already passed adversarial review and explicitly recommended not re-dispatching; r5's failure is the strongest possible confirmation of that recommendation. No critique loops run; no Codex fallback; no folded follow-ups.

Likely Clean Result

No clean result will be produced by this run. When the underlying event is resolved and the experiment eventually completes, the clean result for #192 (a separate future write-up) will answer "Can capability be taught through another persona?" using the persona-spread pipeline at branch `exp-192-persona-spread@22739aab`. That is unchanged by this recovery.

Approval Checklist

- [x] **Goal** — diagnose r5 failure, produce blocker, do not dispatch. Matches recovery prompt's "stop with a concise blocker" branch. - [x] **Hypothesis** — cross-account out-of-band pod termination, not script bug. - [x] **Prediction** — re-dispatch would fail the same way within ~90s. - [x] **Kill criterion** — blocker; unblocking requires owner-side RunPod console inspection. - [x] **Compute/hardware/USD** — **no compute approved**; no USD spend by this run. - [x] **Artifacts** — this plan only. - [x] **Verification** — RunPod console audit logs (team + personal) for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. - [x] **Risks** — covered above; cross-account evidence rules out the team-only hypothesis from r4. - [x] **Likely clean-result shape** — unchanged from prior approved plan; not produced by this run. - [x] **Runpod-spec matches plan** — **no runpod-spec emitted, by design.** Per the system prompt: "If the experiment truly should not launch compute, do not use kind=experiment; write a blocker…". The original kind=experiment dispatch is preserved by simply not emitting a fenced `runpod-spec` block, which the runner treats as a blocker. --- **Exact next manual action (owner):** 1. Open the RunPod console for the **team** account → Events/Audit log for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. Look for grouped `podTerminate` events covering `v0c7bx292xqvg4`, `m1ayhl6nsbxw04`, `lqpfpmbytlgded`. 2. Open the RunPod console for the **personal** account → same window. Look for the termination of `j0xvy1q82ryo8m` and `cv13x9s487tvwn`. If both accounts show the same termination cause, the issue is RunPod-side (open a support ticket with these five pod IDs). If they show different causes, treat the team and personal events separately. 3. Check billing/usage caps on both accounts for the day — a hard cap hit at the team level could explain the team failures, but **does not** explain the personal-account failure unless that account is also near a cap. 4. Once the cause is identified and confirmed cleared, re-approve `experiments.b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97` as-is. No plan_md, pod_spec, or branch change is needed. [TEXTBOX:runpod-team-audit-summary] [TEXTBOX:runpod-personal-audit-summary] [TEXTBOX:owner-decision-redispatch-or-hold]

The evidence makes the blocker even more clear. The r5 wave at 10:53–10:55 UTC lost pods across multiple experiments simultaneously, and exp #333's r5 attempt on account=personal (the fallback after team failures) also lost its pods. This is no longer a team-account-specific event — both team and personal accounts are affected within the same window.

Goal

Hypothesis

Pods are being terminated by an out-of-band actor (RunPod-side reclaim, billing/auth event affecting the API key, or manual sweep) within ~60–90 seconds of reporting RUNNING, across multiple experiments and across both team and personal accounts. The r5 attempt for #192 is one of at least four simultaneously affected dispatches in the 10:53–10:55 UTC window.

Prediction

If I re-dispatch the same A100 r5 spec right now, the new pod will:

Report RUNNING within ~40s of dispatch,
Disappear from whichever account it was billed to within ~60s after that,
Trigger an r6 auto-recovery with an identical "Pod … not found in account=…" failure reason,
Burn another ~$1.50–3 of A100 time for ~90s of effectively-no-work compute.

There is no per-experiment code change that would prevent this. The r4 plan_json correctly noted the EPS script fix (22739aab) and bootstrap hardening (pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264) were already in place; r5 confirms those did not cause and cannot fix the failure.

Kill Criterion

This recovery run is itself the kill criterion: I am stopping with a blocker rather than emitting a runpod-spec. The criterion that would unblock re-dispatch is one of:

The owner identifies a specific RunPod-side cause (billing cap, API key rotation, manual sweep, regional capacity reclaim) and confirms it has cleared, OR
The owner observes ≥1 unrelated control dispatch (e.g. exp #363, #366, #333 r6) running successfully past the ~2-minute mark in the same window.

Experimental Setup

No new compute. Evidence-collection only, captured here:

r4 wave (10:39–10:45 UTC, team account): 4 sibling A100 dispatches; 3 vanished from account=team within ~3 minutes (per prior plan_json analysis on this experiment).

r5 wave (10:53–10:55 UTC, both accounts): at least four experiments lost pods simultaneously:

run	exp	pod	account	RUNNING at	lost at	gap
`3d8f3042…` (this)	#192	`v0c7bx292xqvg4`	team	10:53:54	10:54:55	~61s
`6e8a0593…`	#363	`m1ayhl6nsbxw04`	team	10:53:54	10:54:54	~60s
`9e039246…`	#366	`lqpfpmbytlgded`	team	10:44:53	10:54:54	(long-running, killed in same window)
`32e93989…`	#333	`j0xvy1q82ryo8m`, `cv13x9s487tvwn`	personal	10:53:55	10:54:54	~60s

The exp #333 row is decisive: that recovery had deliberately switched from team to personal because r1–r4 had already failed on team, and personal also lost both of its pods in the same ~60s window. This rules out the team-only hypothesis from the r4 diagnosis.

Compute and Hardware

No compute dispatched. The Approval Checklist below explicitly does not approve a runpod-spec. If re-approved later, the canonical shape from the existing experiment record (1× A100 80GB SXM, single pod, ~3h estimated, ~$4.50 at the $1.49/GPU-hr SXM rate plus negligible storage) remains valid — no plan edit is required, only resolution of the account-level event.

Artifacts

This blocker plan is the only artifact. No models, datasets, evals, or figures will be produced by this run.

Verification

The owner can verify the diagnosis without my access by:

Opening the RunPod console for both the team and personal accounts and inspecting the audit/event log for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. Look for podTerminate, billing alerts, API-key revocations, or capacity-reclaim notices.
Cross-referencing the four pod IDs above (v0c7bx292xqvg4, m1ayhl6nsbxw04, lqpfpmbytlgded, j0xvy1q82ryo8m, cv13x9s487tvwn) — if a single RunPod-side action terminated them, the audit log will likely group them.
Checking whether the same window shows successful (non-reaped) dispatches from other Sagan experiments; e.g. exp #365 pod j18eiux6ccekyj was reported as status=running in the r4 diagnosis — if it is now also gone, the event is platform-wide rather than account-wide.

Risks and Red Team

Risk of unnecessary blocker. If the platform event has already cleared, I am wasting time by not re-dispatching. Mitigation: this run does not edit the plan_md or pod_spec on experiments.b50b82c2…, so re-approval is one click for the owner once they confirm the account is healthy.
Risk of misdiagnosis. I have not directly queried the RunPod API for these pods' termination reasons (no MCP tool calls to RunPod in this thread, and the prior plan_json correctly noted that out-of-band action is the most likely explanation). Mitigation: the cross-account, multi-experiment, sub-90-second pattern is too tight to be explained by anything in our codepath; the wrapper's sleep infinity (pod-bootstrap.ts:230-264) makes a script-side exit impossible to manifest as "not found in account".
Risk of compounding loss. If I had re-dispatched, the next failure would have produced an r6 recovery that would itself recurse — the four parallel recovery runs already running at 10:57 UTC show the loop is in flight; emitting another spec accelerates it.

Critique loop notes. This is a recovery-context blocker, not a fresh adversarial plan, so the bounded 3-loop paired-critic workflow is not applicable. The prior plan_json (r4 analysis) already passed adversarial review and explicitly recommended not re-dispatching; r5's failure is the strongest possible confirmation of that recommendation. No critique loops run; no Codex fallback; no folded follow-ups.

Likely Clean Result

No clean result will be produced by this run. When the underlying event is resolved and the experiment eventually completes, the clean result for #192 (a separate future write-up) will answer "Can capability be taught through another persona?" using the persona-spread pipeline at branch exp-192-persona-spread@22739aab. That is unchanged by this recovery.

Approval Checklist

Exact next manual action (owner):

Open the RunPod console for the team account → Events/Audit log for 2026-05-14 10:53–10:55 UTC. Look for grouped podTerminate events covering v0c7bx292xqvg4, m1ayhl6nsbxw04, lqpfpmbytlgded.
Open the RunPod console for the personal account → same window. Look for the termination of j0xvy1q82ryo8m and cv13x9s487tvwn. If both accounts show the same termination cause, the issue is RunPod-side (open a support ticket with these five pod IDs). If they show different causes, treat the team and personal events separately.
Check billing/usage caps on both accounts for the day — a hard cap hit at the team level could explain the team failures, but does not explain the personal-account failure unless that account is also near a cap.
Once the cause is identified and confirmed cleared, re-approve experiments.b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97 as-is. No plan_md, pod_spec, or branch change is needed.

[TEXTBOX:runpod-team-audit-summary]

[TEXTBOX:runpod-personal-audit-summary]

[TEXTBOX:owner-decision-redispatch-or-hold]

Events

8:29:33 AMstartedagent

kind=qa

8:29:45 AMtool_calltools

tool=Read

Read

8:29:45 AMtool_resulttools

1	---
2	name: feedback-blocked-to-running
3	description: "When the user asks to move an experiment from blocked to running, redispatch the appropriate next-stage agent — don't just flip experiments.status."
4	metadata: 
5	  node_type: memory
6	  type: feedback
7	  originSessionId: b6937a93-d194-43f7-aa47-3e7afdb99d68
8	---
9	
10	When the user says "move blocked → running" (or "unblock", "resume", "put back to running") on an experiment, that means: **redispatch the workflow agent for the next stage**, not just flip the `experiments.status` column.
11	
12	**Why:** The "blocked" status was almost always set because a prior `agent_run` failed (stale pod, SIGTERM, runner crash, etc.) or the workflow stalled. Just updating `experiments.status='running'` in the DB leaves the experiment in a misleading state — no pod is attached, no agent is executing, and the UI's "glow" (which is driven by an active `agent_runs` row, not the experiment status) stays dark/red. The user confirmed this is what they actually want.
13	
14	**How to apply:**
15	1. Look at the experiment's history: the latest `agent_run` rows by `kind` (plan / experiment / qa / apply) and the workflow events, to figure out *which stage failed or never started*.
16	2. Adapt smartly to the workflow stage — the Sagan experiment lifecycle is roughly: planning → approved → implementing → code_reviewing → testing → running (experimenter) → uploading → verifying → interpreting → reviewing → awaiting_promotion → completed. Pick the right next stage based on what's already done:
17	   - If the most recent `experiment`-kind run failed mid-run → redispatch the experimenter.
18	   - If the most recent `experiment`-kind run completed but artifacts weren't uploaded → dispatch the uploader.
19	   - If uploaded but not verified → verifier.
20	   - If verified but not interpreted → interpreter / analyst.
21	   - …and so on. Don't blindly restart from the experimenter every time.
22	3. Use the correct Sagan HTTP API endpoint (`/api/experiments/<id>/dispatch-...` or the appropriate workflow trigger) — not a raw DB write — so workflow events get logged and the runner picks the work up.
23	4. After dispatching, confirm an active `agent_run` row exists (so the UI glow turns on) before reporting done.
24	
25	Related: [[sagan-api-base-url]].
26

8:29:54 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

8:29:55 AMtool_resulttools

<persisted-output>
Output too large (93.1KB). Full output saved to: /home/thomasjiralerspong/.claude/projects/-home-thomasjiralerspong-sagan/eaaf308c-0fd5-4e06-99a8-7c3046069906/tool-results/b9jgxitqz.txt

Preview (first 2KB):
{"experiment":{"id":"b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97","number":192,"legacyGhNumber":192,"beliefId":null,"projectId":null,"title":"Can capability be taught through another persona?","body":"Probably start with memorizing a fact \ne.g. if I teach one fact to a persona does it spread to assistant?\nIf I teach a capability does it spread?\nThis is important to know for contextualization to see if you teach something to a model in one context does it spread\nProbably not because it would be weird if this spread the way we want it but not the negative things\n\nNeed to do a literature review also first\n","hypothesis":null,"planMd":"## Blocker: cannot safely re-dispatch experiment 192\n\nThe original \"plan-reused\" run dispatched pod `be565kq7x4sybb` successfully. The pod then entered a fast restart loop and was lost from the RunPod team account; the orchestrator's `getPod()` returned `null`, exhausted retries, and queued this auto-recovery. I cannot continue safely.\n\n**Root cause (script-level, not infra):**\n\nThe 16 progress cycles in the transcript all follow the same shape:\n\n```\n5%  bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread     ← services/runner/src/lib/pod-bootstrap.ts:171\n0%  300m remaining · running                                 ← run_experiment_192.py main(): boot post\n2%  running                                                  ← phase_dataset(): \"building fact paraphrases\"\n4%  running                                                  ← phase_dataset(): \"building cipher pairs\"\n100% experiment completed                                    ← pod-bootstrap.ts:235 (EXIT_CODE == 0 branch)\n```\n\nThe next expected post is `6% \"downloading + filtering Tulu-3 background\"`, then `10% dataset.done`. Neither ever appears. `run_experiment_192.py` is exiting with code 0 inside `_build_cipher_pairs(N_CIPHER_TRAIN, N_CIPHER_HELDOUT, rng_c)` or the line immediately after it (`run_experiment_192.py:1080-1082`), before phase_dataset returns. Becaus
...
</persisted-output>

8:30:02 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

8:30:02 AMtool_resulttools

=== EXPERIMENT ===
id: b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97
number: 192
title: Can capability be taught through another persona?
status: interpreting
hypothesis: None

=== TOP-LEVEL KEYS ===
['experiment', 'events', 'approvalRequests']

=== PLAN_JSON sections titles ===
- Blocker: cannot safely re-dispatch experiment 192

=== FIGURES ===
count: 0

=== AGENT RUNS (count) ===
count: 0

8:30:06 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

8:30:07 AMtool_resulttools

=== EVENTS count: 50 ===
- 2026-05-14T08:29:33.060Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:27:45.213Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:20:17.128Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:20:16.150Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:20:15.453Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:20:14.799Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:20:12.709Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:58.919Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:57.747Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:57.010Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:56.301Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:53.962Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:39.621Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:38.678Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:37.862Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:37.143Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:34.868Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:20.864Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:19.943Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:19.197Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:18.483Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:16.129Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:02.091Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:01.148Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:19:00.441Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:59.499Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:57.208Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:43.320Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:42.377Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:41.645Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:40.922Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:38.640Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:25.320Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:24.377Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:23.320Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:22.535Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:19.876Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:06.248Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:05.348Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:04.356Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:03.642Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:18:01.287Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:17:47.303Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:17:46.391Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:17:45.677Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:17:44.978Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:17:42.608Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:17:28.578Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:17:27.639Z | None | 
- 2026-05-14T08:17:26.903Z | None |

8:30:11 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

8:30:11 AMtool_resulttools

first event keys: ['id', 'entityKind', 'entityId', 'eventType', 'fromStatus', 'toStatus', 'actorKind', 'actorUserId', 'note', 'metadata', 'createdAt']

{
  "id": "fd9b69af-c1c6-45e1-a95f-64a8fd3ad27f",
  "entityKind": "experiment",
  "entityId": "b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97",
  "eventType": "state_changed",
  "fromStatus": "awaiting_clarifications",
  "toStatus": "interpreting",
  "actorKind": "user",
  "actorUserId": "660cff98-a4cc-4b4f-9afc-334516773855",
  "note": "Moved on Pipeline board to interpreting.",
  "metadata": null,
  "createdAt": "2026-05-14T08:29:33.060Z"
}
---
{
  "id": "5e4c88eb-523f-4878-97ab-2cc578735f7f",
  "entityKind": "experiment",
  "entityId": "b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97",
  "eventType": "state_changed",
  "fromStatus": "running",
  "toStatus": "awaiting_clarifications",
  "actorKind": "runner",
  "actorUserId": null,
  "note": "Claude produced clarifying questions; awaiting owner answers.",
  "metadata": {
    "planLen": 4935,
    "sections": 1,
    "agentRunId": "1acb9b7c-48ae-49e7-b5ad-804f88cfbbe0"
  },
  "createdAt": "2026-05-14T08:27:45.213Z"
}
---
{
  "id": "2bf06d4f-e311-4cb3-a282-bbe27a69a111",
  "entityKind": "experiment",
  "entityId": "b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97",
  "eventType": "note",
  "fromStatus": null,
  "toStatus": null,
  "actorKind": "runpod",
  "actorUserId": null,
  "note": "100% \u00b7 experiment completed",
  "metadata": {
    "podId": "be565kq7x4sybb",
    "status": null,
    "errorTail": null,
    "marker_type": "epm:progress",
    "progressPct": 100,
    "estimatedRemainingMinutes": null
  },
  "createdAt": "2026-05-14T08:20:17.128Z"
}
---

8:30:17 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

8:30:17 AMtool_resulttools

events by type:
  state_changed: 2
  note: 48

=== state transitions ===
2026-05-14T08:27:45.213Z | running -> awaiting_clarifications | actor=runner | note=Claude produced clarifying questions; awaiting owner answers.
2026-05-14T08:29:33.060Z | awaiting_clarifications -> interpreting | actor=user | note=Moved on Pipeline board to interpreting.

8:30:22 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

8:30:22 AMtool_resulttools

NOTES count: 48
2026-05-14T08:17:26.903Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:17:27.639Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:17:28.578Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:17:42.608Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:17:44.978Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · running
2026-05-14T08:17:45.677Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:17:46.391Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:17:47.303Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:18:01.287Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:18:03.642Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · running
2026-05-14T08:18:04.356Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:18:05.348Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:18:06.248Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:18:19.876Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:18:22.535Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · running
2026-05-14T08:18:23.320Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:18:24.377Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:18:25.320Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:18:38.640Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:18:40.922Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · running
2026-05-14T08:18:41.645Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:18:42.377Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:18:43.320Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:18:57.208Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:18:59.499Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · running
2026-05-14T08:19:00.441Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:19:01.148Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:19:02.091Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:19:16.129Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:19:18.483Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · running
2026-05-14T08:19:19.197Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:19:19.943Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:19:20.864Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:19:34.868Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:19:37.143Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · running
2026-05-14T08:19:37.862Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:19:38.678Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:19:39.621Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:19:53.962Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:19:56.301Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · running
2026-05-14T08:19:57.010Z | actor=runpod | progress=2 | note=2% · running
2026-05-14T08:19:57.747Z | actor=runpod | progress=4 | note=4% · running
2026-05-14T08:19:58.919Z | actor=runpod | progress=100 | note=100% · experiment completed
2026-05-14T08:20:12.709Z | actor=runpod | progress=5 | note=5% · bootstrap complete on branch exp-192-persona-spread
2026-05-14T08:20:14.799Z | actor=runpod | progress=0 | note=0% · 300m remaining · runni…

8:30:30 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

8:30:30 AMtool_resulttools

approvalRequests: 1
{
  "id": "252bf40a-5512-45ea-a8f4-9db84af6112b",
  "kind": "experiment_plan",
  "status": "approved",
  "entityKind": "experiment",
  "entityId": "b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97",
  "experimentId": "b50b82c2-eefe-4d8a-924f-9ac776084b97",
  "agentRunId": "58291b70-edd6-4c2b-922f-4f45f3f23f69",
  "requestedBy": null,
  "resolvedBy": "660cff98-a4cc-4b4f-9afc-334516773855",
  "title": "Approve experiment plan: Can capability be taught through another persona?",
  "bodyMd": "Consistency-checker returned **WARN** with four cheap, scope-preserving items (name seeds, pin Tulu dataset hash, just
---
hasPlanMd: True
hasPlanJson: True
configYaml empty: True
bodyHtml present: False
reviewMd present: False
all exp keys: ['id', 'number', 'legacyGhNumber', 'beliefId', 'projectId', 'title', 'body', 'hypothesis', 'planMd', 'planJson', 'podSpec', 'configYaml', 'status', 'kind', 'computeSize', 'priority', 'assigneeKind', 'tags', 'hasCleanResult', 'autoApprovePlan', 'parentExperimentId', 'runpodAccount', 'convertedToKind', 'convertedToId', 'createdAt', 'updatedAt', 'turn']

8:31:19 AMassistant_textagent

Here is the review note for experiment #192 — *Can capability be taught through another persona?* — as of the move to `interpreting`.

---

## Review note — experiment #192 (interpreting)

**Scope (from the record, unchanged):** Does teaching a persona a fact (and later a capability) cause "spread" to the assistant persona? Pre-spec'd start with a fact-memorization probe, then capability. Owner flagged that a literature review precedes design.

### TL;DR
There are no interpretable results yet. The board move was `running → awaiting_clarifications → interpreting` (08:27 → 08:29 UTC, 2026-05-14), but no clean result, figures, eval JSON, model checkpoint, or review document exists for this experiment. The only telemetry attached to the record is sixteen identical pod-restart cycles between 08:17:26Z and 08:20:17Z that all crashed at progress 4 % (`phase_dataset → _build_cipher_pairs`). The `100 % · experiment completed` markers in the event log are **not** evidence of completion — they are a wrapper bug (`services/runner/src/lib/pod-bootstrap.ts:234–247` treats exit-0 as success regardless of whether a `done` marker was ever posted).

### Evidence inventory
| Artifact | Status |
|---|---|
| Figures attached to experiment | **0** |
| `bodyHtml` clean result | **none** |
| `reviewMd` | **none** |
| `configYaml` | empty |
| `planJson.sections` | 1 section, and it is a **blocker write-up**, not results |
| `agentRuns` exposed via API | **0** (only one `agent_run` referenced in approval / state-change metadata: planner run `1acb9b7c…` that produced clarifying questions) |
| Trained adapters / checkpoints | none referenced |
| Eval JSONs / WandB pointers | none referenced |
| Pod logs preserved | none (pod `be565kq7x4sybb` was lost from the team account; stderr tails were never posted because the wrapper saw `EXIT_CODE == 0`) |

### What the existing telemetry actually tells us
1. The script reached `progress_pct=4.0` ("building cipher pairs") and then silently exited with status 0 every time. The next expected post is `6 % "downloading + filtering Tulu-3 background"` and it never appears in any of the 16 cycles.
2. Likely script-level root cause (per the blocker plan): `_build_cipher_pairs(N_CIPHER_TRAIN, N_CIPHER_HELDOUT, rng_c)` at `scripts/run_experiment_192.py:1073-1075` is either short-circuiting via an unhandled early return or a swallowed exception that yields a clean exit.
3. Wrapper masking: `pod-bootstrap.ts` posts `progressPct=100, "experiment completed"` whenever the container exits 0, even with no `dataset.done` / artifact markers. This produced the misleading UI state and is also why no `errorTail` was ever surfaced.
4. After ~5 min of restart churn, RunPod dropped the pod from the team account; the watcher escalated to `blocked` and queued recovery. The recovery agent (correctly) declined to re-dispatch because the script and pod-spec are unchanged.

### Clarifying questions that are now being bypassed
The planner produced clarifying questions at 08:27Z (per `state_changed: running → awaiting_clarifications`, metadata `agentRunId=1acb9b7c-48ae-49e7-b5ad-804f88cfbbe0`), and the move to `interpreting` jumped over them without responses. There is **no answered Q-A pair recorded on the experiment record**. Whoever runs an interpreter agent next will not have the design decisions those questions were meant to fix. The clarifying questions belong to that planner agent run; recommend reopening or replying to them in the planner's comment thread before any analyst proceeds — otherwise the next planner pass will start from the same ambiguity (fact-spread protocol shape, capability operationalization, lit-review depth).

### Why this experiment is **not interpretable in its current state**
- No measurements were taken (the run died before `dataset.done`, let alone any train/eval phase).
- The hypothesis field is null. The body is a brainstorm, not a pre-registered design. With no data and no design, "interpreting" has no input.
-…

8:31:19 AMsdk_resultagent

success

8:31:19 AMcompletedagent

Here is the review note for experiment #192 — *Can capability be taught through another persona?* — as of the move to `interpreting`.

---

## Review note — experiment #192 (interpreting)

**Scope (from the record, unchanged):** Does teaching a persona a fact (and later a capability) cause "spread" to the assistant persona? Pre-spec'd start with a fact-memorization probe, then capability. Owner flagged that a literature review precedes design.

### TL;DR
There are no interpretable results yet. The board move was `running → awaiting_clarifications → interpreting` (08:27 → 08:29 UTC, 2026-05-14), but no clean result, figures, eval JSON, model checkpoint, or review document exists for this experiment. The only telemetry attached to the record is sixteen identical pod-restart cycles between 08:17:26Z and 08:20:17Z that all crashed at progress 4 % (`phase_dataset → _build_cipher_pairs`). The `100 % · experiment completed` markers in the event log are **not** evidence of completion — they ar…

Discussion

Comments

No comments yet.