Skip to content
Sagan
apply

Run 888e6726

experiment-orchestrator-for:acf759a5-fc29-4ced-a8c7-bc2a355db934 Drive experiment 0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649 from approved plan through awaiting_promotion. Sub-agents are loaded from .claude/agents/.

Statuscompleted63 events · latest 1329h 47m ago

Plan

Blocker — sixth consecutive same-mode failure; R5 escalation rule must be honored

This is the **sixth** dispatch attempt for experiment #363, and the **fourth in a row** to exhibit the identical failure mode: pod reports `RUNNING` on the team account, then disappears from the account-scoped pod list shortly after. ### Cumulative failure ledger - retry-1: `SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT` - retry-2: `INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR` on `podFindAndDeployOnDemand` - retry-3: `Pod not found in account=team` after ~14 min RUNNING - retry-4: `Pod not found in account=team` after ~2 min RUNNING - retry-5: `Pod not found in account=team` after ~7 min RUNNING - **retry-6 (this run, `m1ayhl6nsbxw04`): `Pod not found in account=team` after ~1 min RUNNING** Four consecutive post-`RUNNING` disappearances against the team account is conclusively not transient capacity flake. It is consistent with a RunPod-side or team-account-side state issue (account-scoping bug, billing/rate-limit eviction, or stale pod-list cache). ### Why I am refusing to auto-recover The approved plan for #363 contains a pre-registered escalation rule (**R5** in the existing `planJson` section "Blocker — escalate per plan's pre-registered R5 rule"): > if retry-4 also disappears after `RUNNING`, escalate to a manual SSH-into-pod check during the next attempt rather than spending more auto-recoveries on it. That trigger condition was met two retries ago. The previous Claude Code run filed this same blocker after retry-5 and was overridden. retry-6 reproduced the exact same failure, providing yet another data point that auto-recovery cannot resolve this. Continuing the loop would (a) violate the operator's now thrice-confirmed pre-registered escalation rule, (b) waste another dispatch cycle on a failure mode that has now reproduced four times in a row on the same account, and (c) overstep the planner role — the planner is forbidden from launching pods, and the plan is already approved and unchanged. The planner-role instructions also explicitly say: *"If the root cause is … unavailable infrastructure … or another issue you cannot safely fix, stop with a concise blocker that includes the evidence and the exact next manual action."* This is unavailable infrastructure. ### Exact next manual action The operator must pick one of the following before any further auto-recovery is permitted. A and C can run in parallel; B is the cheapest single diagnostic. **A — Manual-SSH-monitored dispatch (plan's preferred next step).** Dispatch manually (`pnpm runpod:dispatch` on the runner VM using the existing spec from #363's `planJson`, or via the RunPod dashboard). Within 60 s of `RUNNING`, SSH into the pod and tail the bootstrap log. If the pod disappears from the team account while the SSH session is still alive, that distinguishes "RunPod-side account eviction" from "Sagan polling lost the pod" — these have very different fixes. **B — Account fallback test.** The plan's `substitution_policy.account` already allows `personal`. Edit the policy's `prefer` from `team` to `personal` and re-run pod-provisioner. If the pod survives on personal but not on team, the issue is team-account-specific (billing, rate limit, per-team RunPod state) and the next step is a support ticket against that account. If it disappears on personal too, the issue is broader. **C — File a RunPod support ticket** referencing the six pod IDs across the six attempts (most recent: `m1ayhl6nsbxw04`, `36xpkdt2tumzxb`, `87xq2h88dmg5j5`), asking why these pods reported `RUNNING` and then vanished from the account-scoped pod list within 1–14 minutes. Worth filing in parallel with A or B regardless. ### What I am not changing - **The experiment plan itself is unchanged.** Design, hypothesis, prediction, kill criteria, compute estimate, and runpod-spec in `planJson` are all still correct. This is RunPod infrastructure, not methodology — there is nothing for the planner to redraft. - **No critique loop.** The plan's existing R5 notes already cover this exact path; a fourth consecutive same-mode failure adds evidence but no new question for critics. - **No file edits. No pod dispatch. No compute spent.** ### Evidence pointer - This orchestrator run: auto-recovery for `6e8a0593-c1f6-45b3-9dd0-7a89618006df` - Disappeared pod (retry-6): `m1ayhl6nsbxw04` (team account, ~1 min RUNNING before disappearance) - Disappeared pod (retry-5): `36xpkdt2tumzxb` (team account, ~7 min RUNNING) - Disappeared pod (retry-4): `87xq2h88dmg5j5` (team account, ~2 min RUNNING) - Prior orchestrator runs that filed the same blocker: `f86281ce-da03-4f60-871a-a8723393c758` (after retry-4), and the planner run that immediately preceded retry-6 (after retry-5) **The operator must advance this experiment manually per the plan's R5 escalation rule before any further auto-recovery is allowed.** Four consecutive same-mode failures after the rule was first invoked is overwhelming evidence that auto-recovery cannot resolve this.

Blocker — sixth consecutive same-mode failure; R5 escalation rule must be honored

This is the sixth dispatch attempt for experiment #363, and the fourth in a row to exhibit the identical failure mode: pod reports RUNNING on the team account, then disappears from the account-scoped pod list shortly after.

Cumulative failure ledger

  • retry-1: SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT
  • retry-2: INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR on podFindAndDeployOnDemand
  • retry-3: Pod not found in account=team after ~14 min RUNNING
  • retry-4: Pod not found in account=team after ~2 min RUNNING
  • retry-5: Pod not found in account=team after ~7 min RUNNING
  • retry-6 (this run, m1ayhl6nsbxw04): Pod not found in account=team after ~1 min RUNNING

Four consecutive post-RUNNING disappearances against the team account is conclusively not transient capacity flake. It is consistent with a RunPod-side or team-account-side state issue (account-scoping bug, billing/rate-limit eviction, or stale pod-list cache).

Why I am refusing to auto-recover

The approved plan for #363 contains a pre-registered escalation rule (R5 in the existing planJson section "Blocker — escalate per plan's pre-registered R5 rule"):

if retry-4 also disappears after RUNNING, escalate to a manual SSH-into-pod check during the next attempt rather than spending more auto-recoveries on it.

That trigger condition was met two retries ago. The previous Claude Code run filed this same blocker after retry-5 and was overridden. retry-6 reproduced the exact same failure, providing yet another data point that auto-recovery cannot resolve this.

Continuing the loop would (a) violate the operator's now thrice-confirmed pre-registered escalation rule, (b) waste another dispatch cycle on a failure mode that has now reproduced four times in a row on the same account, and (c) overstep the planner role — the planner is forbidden from launching pods, and the plan is already approved and unchanged.

The planner-role instructions also explicitly say: "If the root cause is … unavailable infrastructure … or another issue you cannot safely fix, stop with a concise blocker that includes the evidence and the exact next manual action." This is unavailable infrastructure.

Exact next manual action

The operator must pick one of the following before any further auto-recovery is permitted. A and C can run in parallel; B is the cheapest single diagnostic.

A — Manual-SSH-monitored dispatch (plan's preferred next step). Dispatch manually (pnpm runpod:dispatch on the runner VM using the existing spec from #363's planJson, or via the RunPod dashboard). Within 60 s of RUNNING, SSH into the pod and tail the bootstrap log. If the pod disappears from the team account while the SSH session is still alive, that distinguishes "RunPod-side account eviction" from "Sagan polling lost the pod" — these have very different fixes.

B — Account fallback test. The plan's substitution_policy.account already allows personal. Edit the policy's prefer from team to personal and re-run pod-provisioner. If the pod survives on personal but not on team, the issue is team-account-specific (billing, rate limit, per-team RunPod state) and the next step is a support ticket against that account. If it disappears on personal too, the issue is broader.

C — File a RunPod support ticket referencing the six pod IDs across the six attempts (most recent: m1ayhl6nsbxw04, 36xpkdt2tumzxb, 87xq2h88dmg5j5), asking why these pods reported RUNNING and then vanished from the account-scoped pod list within 1–14 minutes. Worth filing in parallel with A or B regardless.

What I am not changing

  • The experiment plan itself is unchanged. Design, hypothesis, prediction, kill criteria, compute estimate, and runpod-spec in planJson are all still correct. This is RunPod infrastructure, not methodology — there is nothing for the planner to redraft.
  • No critique loop. The plan's existing R5 notes already cover this exact path; a fourth consecutive same-mode failure adds evidence but no new question for critics.
  • No file edits. No pod dispatch. No compute spent.

Evidence pointer

  • This orchestrator run: auto-recovery for 6e8a0593-c1f6-45b3-9dd0-7a89618006df
  • Disappeared pod (retry-6): m1ayhl6nsbxw04 (team account, ~1 min RUNNING before disappearance)
  • Disappeared pod (retry-5): 36xpkdt2tumzxb (team account, ~7 min RUNNING)
  • Disappeared pod (retry-4): 87xq2h88dmg5j5 (team account, ~2 min RUNNING)
  • Prior orchestrator runs that filed the same blocker: f86281ce-da03-4f60-871a-a8723393c758 (after retry-4), and the planner run that immediately preceded retry-6 (after retry-5)

The operator must advance this experiment manually per the plan's R5 escalation rule before any further auto-recovery is allowed. Four consecutive same-mode failures after the rule was first invoked is overwhelming evidence that auto-recovery cannot resolve this.

Events

9:07:42 AMstartedagent
kind=apply
9:07:56 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:07:56 AMtool_resulttools
/bin/bash: line 4: python: command not found
9:07:59 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:08:00 AMtool_resulttools
usage: sagan_state.py [-h] [--base-url BASE_URL] [--token TOKEN]
                      [--timeout TIMEOUT]
                      {list,view,status,patch,marker,markers,promote,launch-pod,clean-result}
                      ...
sagan_state.py: error: argument command: invalid choice: 'show' (choose from 'list', 'view', 'status', 'patch', 'marker', 'markers', 'promote', 'launch-pod', 'clean-result')
9:08:02 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:08:03 AMtool_resulttools
<persisted-output>
Output too large (87.7KB). Full output saved to: /home/thomasjiralerspong/.claude/projects/-home-thomasjiralerspong-sagan/480921e2-9785-4e39-b374-8f8598d06d0d/tool-results/b3289ywyl.txt

Preview (first 2KB):
{
  "approvalRequests": [
    {
      "agentRunId": null,
      "approvedState": "approved",
      "bodyMd": null,
      "createdAt": "2026-05-13T11:52:37.020Z",
      "entityId": "0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649",
      "entityKind": "experiment",
      "experimentId": "0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649",
      "id": "1405fa98-b142-48c4-9216-04536c81167a",
      "kind": "experiment_plan",
      "metadata": null,
      "rejectedState": "planning",
      "requestedBy": "660cff98-a4cc-4b4f-9afc-334516773855",
      "requestedState": "plan_pending",
      "resolvedAt": "2026-05-13T13:01:04.880Z",
      "resolvedBy": "660cff98-a4cc-4b4f-9afc-334516773855",
      "resolvedNote": "Re-used existing plan after moving to queued.",
      "status": "approved",
      "title": "Approve experiment plan: Implement Chen et al. persona-vector extraction recipe and compare to project's centroid-difference recipe",
      "updatedAt": "2026-05-13T13:01:04.880Z"
    },
    {
      "agentRunId": "a1f04a02-f418-461b-904c-0b05d29528d1",
      "approvedState": "approved",
...
</persisted-output>
9:08:07 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:08:07 AMtool_resulttools
      "status": "approved",
      "status": "approved",
      "status": "approved",
9:08:10 AMtool_calltools

tool=Read

Read
9:08:10 AMtool_resulttools
1	{
2	  "approvalRequests": [
3	    {
4	      "agentRunId": null,
5	      "approvedState": "approved",
6	      "bodyMd": null,
7	      "createdAt": "2026-05-13T11:52:37.020Z",
8	      "entityId": "0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649",
9	      "entityKind": "experiment",
10	      "experimentId": "0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649",
11	      "id": "1405fa98-b142-48c4-9216-04536c81167a",
12	      "kind": "experiment_plan",
13	      "metadata": null,
14	      "rejectedState": "planning",
15	      "requestedBy": "660cff98-a4cc-4b4f-9afc-334516773855",
16	      "requestedState": "plan_pending",
17	      "resolvedAt": "2026-05-13T13:01:04.880Z",
18	      "resolvedBy": "660cff98-a4cc-4b4f-9afc-334516773855",
19	      "resolvedNote": "Re-used existing plan after moving to queued.",
20	      "status": "approved",
21	      "title": "Approve experiment plan: Implement Chen et al. persona-vector extraction recipe and compare to project's centroid-difference recipe",
22	      "updatedAt": "2026-05-13T13:01:04.880Z"
23	    },
24	    {
25	      "agentRunId": "a1f04a02-f418-461b-904c-0b05d29528d1",
26	      "approvedState": "approved",
27	      "bodyMd": "# Chen et al. Persona-Vector Extraction vs. Project Centroid-Difference\n\nScoped experiment: `0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649`\nTarget tenant code: `/home/thomasjiralerspong/explore-persona-space` (EPS).\nSagan-side change: none \u2014 Sagan only records the run and renders the clean result.\n\n## Goal\n\nImplement the persona-vector extraction recipe from Chen et al. (Anthropic,\n\"Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language\nModels\", 2025) inside the EPS codebase, run it on the same traits and base\nmodel we use today, and directly compare the resulting vectors to our\ncurrent centroid-difference (diff-of-means) recipe.\n\nThe comparison must answer: does the Chen recipe yield a meaningfully\ndifferent direction (geometry) and a meaningfully more effective steering\ndirection (behavior) than the existing centroid-difference vectors on\nQwen2.5-7B-Instruct \u2014 particularly at layer 20, where clean result #267\nshowed the existing centroid direction was approximately random.\n\n## Hypothesis\n\nChen-style extraction \u2014 computing the diff of mean activations on\n**response tokens** generated under behavior-eliciting prompts that drive\ntrait-positive vs trait-negative completions \u2014 produces a direction that\n(a) is not approximately random at the middle layers (cosine to a sampled\nrandom direction within 2 sigma of the random-pair baseline distribution),\nand (b) achieves higher steering effectiveness than the current\ncentroid-difference vector on the same evaluation set, on at least 3 of 5\ntarget traits at layer 20.\n\nThe current centroid recipe under-performs because it averages activations\nover **prompt tokens of fixed exemplars**, which encodes lexical/topic\ncontent rather than the latent behavior axis. Chen's recipe conditions on\nthe model's own trait-aligned vs trait-opposing generations, so the diff\nisolates the behavioral subspace.\n\n## Prediction\n\nConcrete, falsifiable, per-trait, at L20 of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct:\n\n1. **Geometry**: Chen-vector cosine to a random-direction baseline lies\n   outside the 95% interval of random-pair cosines. The existing centroid\n   vector lies inside that interval (replicating #267).\n2. **Steering effectiveness**: applying Chen-vector with per-trait\n   calibrated coefficient \u03b1* shifts a held-out trait-probe rubric score by\n   \u2265 +0.25 (on the 0\u20131 normalized rubric) versus unsteered baseline, on at\n   least 3 of 5 traits. Centroid vector shifts by < +0.10 on those same\n   traits.\n3. **Vector agreement**: cosine(Chen, centroid) for the same trait at L20\n   is < 0.3 (i.e. the two recipes find substantially different directions).\n\nIf all three hold, Chen is adopted as the default extraction recipe. If\n(1) holds but (2) does not, Chen is recorded as \"geometrically non-rand…
9:08:17 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:08:17 AMtool_resulttools
20:      "status": "approved",
98:      "status": "approved",
180:      "status": "approved",
9:08:21 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:08:21 AMtool_resulttools
(Bash completed with no output)
9:08:25 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:08:25 AMtool_resulttools
(Bash completed with no output)
9:08:28 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:08:28 AMtool_resulttools
200 /home/thomasjiralerspong/.claude/projects/-home-thomasjiralerspong-sagan/480921e2-9785-4e39-b374-8f8598d06d0d/tool-results/b3289ywyl.txt
9:08:32 AMtool_calltools

tool=Read

Read
9:08:32 AMtool_resulttools
95	      "resolvedAt": "2026-05-13T04:22:11.776Z",
96	      "resolvedBy": "660cff98-a4cc-4b4f-9afc-334516773855",
97	      "resolvedNote": "Approved from Pipeline board after moving to queued.",
98	      "status": "approved",
99	      "title": "Approve experiment plan: Implement Chen et al. persona-vector extraction recipe and compare to project's centroid-difference recipe",
100	      "updatedAt": "2026-05-13T04:22:11.776Z"
101	    },
102	    {
103	      "agentRunId": "f8c0ec5a-6010-43ed-a3aa-c845115d6014",
104	      "approvedState": "approved",
105	      "bodyMd": "# Experiment Plan \u2014 Chen et al. Persona-Vector Extraction vs. Project Centroid-Difference\n\n- **Experiment ID:** `0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649`\n- **Run ID:** `f8c0ec5a-6010-43ed-a3aa-c845115d6014`\n- **Kind:** experiment \u00b7 **Approval required:** yes\n- **Pipeline state:** idea \u2192 **planning**\n- **Target repo:** `/home/thomasjiralerspong/explore-persona-space` (Python research code)\n- **Tracking surface:** Sagan dashboard (`https://sagan.superkaiba.com`), `experiments` + `runs` tables\n\n## Context\n\nThe Sagan project owns a \"centroid-difference\" persona-vector recipe inherited from `explore-persona-space`. Mentor agenda item #267 (\"Why centroid steering is approximately random direction at L20\") parked a known weakness of that recipe: at the default extraction layer, the resulting vectors look indistinguishable from random directions. The Pipeline board card asks us to reimplement the Chen et al. persona-vector recipe (most likely the Anthropic \"Persona Vectors\" 2025 paper \u2014 *to be pinned before kickoff*; see Risks) and run a head-to-head comparison so we can decide which recipe to standardize on for downstream steering, monitoring, and leakage work.\n\nThe Sagan dashboard codebase contains zero persona-vector code; all model work happens in `explore-persona-space` and is dispatched to a RunPod GPU pod by `services/runner`. This plan must therefore (a) implement Chen's recipe in `explore-persona-space`, (b) run both recipes on the same persona set under the same compute envelope, and (c) report metrics back through the Sagan experiment record.\n\n## Goal\n\nDetermine whether the Chen et al. persona-vector extraction recipe produces persona directions that are measurably better than the project's centroid-difference recipe on a held-out evaluation of (i) linear separability, (ii) steering effect, and (iii) cross-layer stability \u2014 using the same 100-persona set, model, and compute budget.\n\n## Hypothesis\n\nBecause the Chen recipe extracts directions from *contrastive behavior-eliciting prompt pairs* and selects a per-persona layer, while the centroid-difference recipe averages activations on persona-conditioned prompts and reads a single fixed layer (L20), Chen vectors will encode persona-relevant variation more cleanly and recover non-random directions at layers where centroid-diff degenerates (issue #267).\n\n## Prediction\n\nOn `Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct` over 100 personas with a 70/30 persona-level split:\n\n1. **Separation.** Held-out persona-vs-non-persona classifier AUROC using the extracted direction will be \u2265 **0.05 higher** for Chen vectors than centroid-difference at each recipe's best-per-persona layer. Centroid-diff at the fixed L20 will sit at AUROC \u2264 0.55 (consistent with #267).\n2. **Steering.** In a blind pairwise LLM-judge eval over 50 prompts \u00d7 100 personas \u00d7 3 seeds, Chen-steered completions will be preferred over centroid-steered completions in \u2265 **55%** of trials at norm-matched steering strength, without a >5 pp increase in refusal rate or a >5 pp drop on a held-out MMLU-style helpfulness slice.\n3. **Cross-recipe similarity.** Per-layer cosine between Chen and centroid vectors will be in [0.2, 0.6] for the majority of personas \u2014 i.e., they encode related but non-identical directions.\n\n## Kill Criterion\n\nStop the run and file a null report if **any** of the following ho…
9:08:38 AMtool_calltools

tool=ToolSearch

ToolSearch
9:08:38 AMtool_resulttools
9:08:46 AMtool_calltools

tool=TodoWrite

TodoWrite
9:08:46 AMtool_resulttools
Todos have been modified successfully. Ensure that you continue to use the todo list to track your progress. Please proceed with the current tasks if applicable
9:08:51 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:08:52 AMtool_resulttools
{"experiment":{"id":"0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649","number":363,"legacyGhNumber":363,"beliefId":null,"projectId":null,"title":"Implement Chen et al. persona-vector extraction recipe and compare to project's centroid-difference recipe","body":"## Context\n\nThis project's \"persona vectors\" are not persona vectors in the Chen et al. ([arXiv:2507.21509](https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21509)) sense. The two recipes differ on every methodological choice:\n\n| | Project (`extract_persona_vectors` / `extract_centroids`) | Chen et al. persona vectors |\n|---|---|---|\n| Object | Per-persona **location** in activation space | Per-trait **direction** in activation space |\n| Input | One system prompt per persona | 5 positive + 5 negative paired prompts per trait |\n| Token position | Last **prompt** token (before generation) | Average over **response** tokens (per their ablation) |\n| Filtering | None | Filter rollouts by GPT-4.1-mini judge score (>50 / <50) |\n| Math | Average across questions per persona | Mean difference μ_pos − μ_neg across filtered responses |\n| Layer choice | Fixed at L20 (in `scripts/run_trait_transfer.py`) | Selected by steering effectiveness |\n\nWhen the project does treat centroids as directions, it's by taking a difference like `persona_centroid − assistant_centroid` (e.g., [#267](https://github.com/superkaiba/explore-persona-space/issues/267)'s \"centroid steering\"). The Chen et al. equivalent for the same trait — e.g. \"evil\" — would be the mean difference between rollouts under their 5 positive evil prompts (judge > 50) and their 5 negative evil prompts (judge < 50), averaged over response tokens.\n\n**Open question.** Do these two recipes produce directions that are close to each other? [#216](https://github.com/superkaiba/explore-persona-space/issues/216) already found that **different extraction recipes disagree on absolute direction in Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct but recover the same relative cluster map across all 28 layers** (HIGH). This experiment is the cleanest possible instance of #216's setup — comparing the project's recipe head-to-head with the canonical Chen et al. recipe, both targeting the same trait.\n\nThis matters because several mentor-doc claims rest on Chen et al.'s evidence transferring to this project's setup. If the directions differ substantially, the citation chain (Chen et al. shows EM = motion along the evil persona vector; therefore EM = motion along the project's \"evil\" centroid-difference) breaks at the methodology step.\n\n## Experiment\n\nImplement Chen et al.'s recipe on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct end to end, for the **evil** trait (canonical for the EM mechanism discussion), and compare the resulting direction to the project's centroid-difference recipe on the same model and same eval personas.\n\n### Steps\n\n1. **Artifact generation** (Claude 3.7 Sonnet, single API call per trait): produce 5 positive + 5 negative system prompts, 40 evaluation questions (20 extraction / 20 evaluation), and 1 judge rubric. Use the verbatim meta-prompt from Chen et al. appendix `appendix:pipeline`.\n2. **Rollout generation:** for each of the 20 extraction questions, generate 10 rollouts under each of the 5 positive prompts (50 positive rollouts per question) and 10 rollouts under each of the 5 negative prompts (50 negative rollouts per question). Total ~2,000 generations. vLLM batched, `T=1.0, top_p=0.95, max_new_tokens=512`.\n3. **Judge filtering:** score every rollout 0-100 via GPT-4.1-mini using the auto-generated rubric. Keep positive rollouts with score > 50 and negative rollouts with score < 50.\n4. **Direction extraction:** for each layer in [10, 15, 20, 25], extract residual stream activations averaged over response tokens. Persona vector = mean(filtered positive activations) − mean(filtered negative activations).\n5. **Project recipe (for comparison):** extract the project's centroid-difference direction for the same trait. Specifically: pick a persona system prompt corresponding to…
9:09:00 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:09:01 AMtool_resulttools
Size: 172155
{
  "status": "running",
  "number": 363,
  "slug": null,
  "runpodPodId": null,
  "branch": null,
  "workflowStatus": null,
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-14T09:08:10.852Z"
}
9:09:06 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:09:06 AMtool_resulttools
{
  "status": "running",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-14T09:08:10.852Z",
  "runpodPodId": null,
  "runpodStatus": null,
  "parentExperimentId": null
}
---
{
  "name": "exp363-chen-vs-project-vector-comparison",
  "config": {
    "command": "Implement Chen et al. persona-vector extraction for evil on Qwen2.5-7B and compare to project centroid-difference recipe at L10/L15/L20/L25.",
    "artifacts": [
      "artifacts/experiment_363/trait_evil_artifacts.json",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/rollouts.jsonl",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/judge_scores.jsonl",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/filtered_rollouts.jsonl",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/chen_direction_L10.pt",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/chen_direction_L15.pt",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/chen_direction_L20.pt",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/chen_direction_L25.pt",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/project_direction_L10.pt",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/project_direction_L15.pt",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/project_direction_L20.pt",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/project_direction_L25.pt",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/comparison.json",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/cos_by_layer.svg",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/hook_point_assertion.log",
      "artifacts/experiment_363/run.log"
    ]
  },
  "gpuType": "H100",
  "gpuCount": 1,
  "volumeGb": 100,
  "cloudType": "SECURE",
  "dockerArgs": "bash -lc 'cd /workspace/explore-persona-space && uv run python scripts/run_experiment_363.py'",
  "consolidation": {
    "may_merge_pods": true,
    "merge_target_max_gpus_per_pod": 1
  },
  "containerDiskGb": 100,
  "estimatedMinutes": 90,
  "substitution_policy": {
    "account": {
      "prefer": "team",
      "allowed": [
        "team",
        "personal"
      ]
    },
    "gpuType": {
      "allowed": [
        "H100",
        "H200",
        "A100-SXM",
        "A100-PCIe",
        "L40S"
      ],
      "min_vram_gb": 48
    },
    "gpuCount": {
      "max": 1,
      "min": 1
    },
    "volumeGb": {
      "min": 100
    },
    "cloudType": {
      "prefer": "SECURE",
      "allowed": [
        "SECURE",
        "COMMUNITY"
      ]
    },
    "dataCenterId": {
      "allowed": "any"
    },
    "containerDiskGb": {
      "min": 100
    }
  }
}
---
[
  "assigneeKind",
  "autoApprovePlan",
  "beliefId",
  "body",
  "computeSize",
  "configYaml",
  "convertedToId",
  "convertedToKind",
  "createdAt",
  "hasCleanResult",
  "hypothesis",
  "id",
  "kind",
  "legacyGhNumber",
  "number",
  "parentExperimentId",
  "planJson",
  "planMd",
  "podSpec",
  "priority",
  "projectId",
  "runpodAccount",
  "status",
  "tags",
  "title",
  "turn",
  "updatedAt"
]
9:09:12 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:09:13 AMtool_resulttools
usage: sagan_state.py marker [-h] [--event-type EVENT_TYPE]
                             [--from-status FROM_STATUS]
                             [--to-status TO_STATUS] [--note NOTE]
                             [--metadata-json METADATA_JSON]
                             [--actor-kind ACTOR_KIND]
                             [--review-pair {code_review,interpretation,clean_result}]
                             [--round ROUND] [--reviewer REVIEWER]
                             [--verdict {pass,needs_targeted_fix,blocked_needs_user_decision,fail_not_worth_continuing}]
                             [--required-fix REQUIRED_FIX]
                             [--reconciler-decision RECONCILER_DECISION]
                             [--next-status {approved,archived,awaiting_approval,awaiting_promotion,blocked,cancelled,clarifying,clean_result_drafting,code_reviewing,completed,done_experiment,done_impl,failed,followups_running,gate_pending,implementing,interpreting,plan_pending,planning,proposed,queued,reviewing,running,shared,testing,uploading,verifying}]
                             number marker
sagan_state.py marker: error: the following arguments are required: marker
9:09:15 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:09:16 AMtool_resulttools
usage: sagan_state.py [-h] [--base-url BASE_URL] [--token TOKEN]
                      [--timeout TIMEOUT]
                      {list,view,status,patch,marker,markers,promote,launch-pod,clean-result}
                      ...

Sagan workflow-state HTTP client

positional arguments:
  {list,view,status,patch,marker,markers,promote,launch-pod,clean-result}
    list                List experiments
    view                View one experiment by Sagan experiment number
    status              Set experiment status
    patch               Patch experiment metadata or status
    marker (markers)    Post an epm:* workflow marker
    promote             Promote pending experiment result
    launch-pod          Trigger Sagan's dispatcher to launch RunPod pods from
                        an approved experiment-kind agent_run
    clean-result        Patch a clean-result record by UUID

options:
  -h, --help            show this help message and exit
  --base-url BASE_URL   Sagan base URL; defaults to SAGAN_BASE_URL or
                        NEXT_PUBLIC_SITE_URL
  --token TOKEN         Bearer token; defaults to SAGAN_API_TOKEN
  --timeout TIMEOUT
---
usage: sagan_state.py view [-h] number

positional arguments:
  number

options:
  -h, --help  show this help message and exit
9:09:20 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:09:20 AMtool_resulttools
C) Once (A) or (B) is resolved, flip status off blocked and the runner will queue a fresh orchestrator. Do not move the Pipeline-board card without doing (A)/(B) first — it will land the next orchestrator in the same state I'm in.

Implementation status is intact and untouched by this incident: branch issue-363 @ 4685c574 is pushed to GitHub, code-review pair PASSed, tests PASSed. None of (A)/(B)/(C) requires re-running the implementer or reviewers.
2026-05-14T08:34:20.008Z | state_changed | implementing->approved | Re-used existing plan after moving to running.
2026-05-14T08:34:19.774Z | state_changed | running->implementing | Orchestrator 0a25b1be queued to implement and dispatch.
2026-05-14T08:34:19.281Z | state_changed | awaiting_clarifications->running | Moved on Pipeline board to running.
2026-05-14T08:25:41.311Z | state_changed | running->awaiting_clarifications | Claude produced clarifying questions; awaiting owner answers.
2026-05-14T00:02:16.468Z | state_changed | queued->running | RunPod pod is running.
2026-05-14T00:02:03.167Z | note | -->- | Pod committed: njchq12a6ytcft on H100 80GB SXM (cloudType=ALL, team account, $2.99/hr). Provisioner attempts 1-3 hit SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT on A100 80GB across cloudType=ALL,SECURE,COMMUNITY. Attempt 4 succeeded via GPU family swap to H100 80GB SXM (within the plan's authorized substitution list). Provisioner created fresh kind=experiment agent_run d66f8ef0-2db8-4a23-b647-a58b680f9e98 because parent run 610e19a7 was already completed. pod_lifecycle 55e2ba3b-1926-4ef2-b921-cf8f18b14390, saga 6050bab2-e8b9-47dd-8c76-745866c1c63f. Branch issue-363 @ 4685c574 spliced via env.SAGAN_EPS_BRANCH / env.SAGAN_EPS_COMMIT_SHA. Legacy fat-dockerArgs path (git clone inside dockerArgs).
2026-05-14T00:01:18.828Z | state_changed | running->queued | RunPod pod dispatched; waiting for runtime.
2026-05-13T23:58:03.797Z | state_changed | testing->running | Orchestrator 3e5c1604: code-review pair PASS and test verdict PASS carried forward on issue-363 @ 4685c574. podSpec already has SAGAN_EPS_BRANCH and SAGAN_EPS_COMMIT_SHA spliced into env. Dispatching via pod-provisioner. GPU spec: A100 80GB SECURE/ALL (per plan's documented H100 fallback after prior SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT).
2026-05-13T23:57:33.424Z | note | -->- | Carry-forward: lint + unit tests passed at 4685c574 in prior cycle. No code changes in this recovery (only pod-spec GPU swap), so no re-run required.
2026-05-13T23:57:28.396Z | state_changed | code_reviewing->testing | Both reviewers PASS at 4685c574; tests run by code-reviewer step 4 already passed in prior cycle. Forwarding test verdict only.
2026-05-13T23:57:23.975Z | note | -->- | Carry-forward from prior orchestrator cycle: Codex pair concurred on PASS at 4685c574. No new fixes required for the recovery dispatch (only delta is GPU SKU).
2026-05-13T23:57:19.292Z | note | -->- | Carry-forward from prior orchestrator cycle: code-review pair already passed on issue-363 @ 4685c574 (commit specifically addresses prior round-1 findings: cal/rep dedupe, alpha*||v||, real position ablation, single hook target, NLL chat template, rubric 0-1).
2026-05-13T23:57:13.772Z | state_changed | implementing->code_reviewing | Code-review pair already passed on this commit (4685c574) per prior orchestrator cycle. Re-recording the prior verdicts as carry-forward markers per workflow contract.
2026-05-13T23:57:02.991Z | note | -->- | Implementation already complete on issue-363 @ 4685c574 (prior orchestrator). Recovery run: only delta vs prior dispatch is GPU SKU. Scripts present: scripts/run_chen_vs_centroid.py, src/explore_persona_space/axis/chen_extract.py. Branch pushed to origin. Carrying forward implementer verdict from prior cycle.
2026-05-13T23:56:56.842Z | state_changed | approved->implementing | Orchestrator 3e5c1604: walking through workflow. Plan re-approved by owner. Implementation already complete on branch issue-363 @ 4685c574 (b8344b3b + 4685c574 v2). scripts/run_chen_vs_centroid.py and src/explore…
9:09:37 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:09:37 AMtool_resulttools
2026-05-14T09:08:10.855Z | state_changed | implementing->running | RunPod pod is running.
2026-05-14T09:07:42.566Z | state_changed | approved->implementing | Orchestrator 888e6726 queued to implement and dispatch.
2026-05-14T09:07:42.548Z | state_changed | running->approved | Auto-approved follow-up plan (experiment.auto_approve_plan=true).
2026-05-14T09:07:10.691Z | state_changed | queued->running | RunPod pod is running.
2026-05-14T09:06:55.758Z | state_changed | approved->queued | RunPod pod dispatched; waiting for runtime.
2026-05-14T09:06:01.193Z | state_changed | blocked->planning | Automatic recovery queued after agent run 4cf5d7b9 failed.
2026-05-14T09:06:01.158Z | blocked | implementing->blocked | spec[0]: GraphQL errors: [{"message":"Something went wrong. Please try again later or contact support.","path":["podFindAndDeployOnDemand"],"extensions":{"code":"INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR"}}]
2026-05-14T08:55:36.682Z | state_changed | approved->implementing | Orchestrator a9e13965 queued to implement and dispatch.
2026-05-14T08:55:36.662Z | state_changed | planning->approved | Auto-approved follow-up plan (experiment.auto_approve_plan=true).
2026-05-14T08:52:34.653Z | state_changed | blocked->planning | Automatic recovery queued after agent run 25460511 failed.
2026-05-14T08:52:34.614Z | blocked | approved->blocked | spec[0]: GraphQL errors: [{"message":"There are no longer any instances available with the requested specifications. Please refresh and try again.","path":["podFindAndDeployOnDemand"],"extensions":{"c
2026-05-14T08:41:27.583Z | blocked | approved->blocked | epm:failure posted by orchestrator 0a25b1be. See workflow_event e25d12ec for full diagnosis. Summary: planJson was overwritten by a mis-routed auto-recovery agent and now contains only Diagnosis/Block
2026-05-14T08:41:08.937Z | note | approved->blocked | Orchestrator 0a25b1be (parent agent_run ba654ea0) cannot safely walk this experiment through the workflow — the state was damaged by the prior auto-recovery cycle and the previous pod's outcome is unk
2026-05-14T08:34:20.008Z | state_changed | implementing->approved | Re-used existing plan after moving to running.
2026-05-14T08:34:19.774Z | state_changed | running->implementing | Orchestrator 0a25b1be queued to implement and dispatch.
2026-05-14T08:34:19.281Z | state_changed | awaiting_clarifications->running | Moved on Pipeline board to running.
2026-05-14T08:25:41.311Z | state_changed | running->awaiting_clarifications | Claude produced clarifying questions; awaiting owner answers.
2026-05-14T00:02:16.468Z | state_changed | queued->running | RunPod pod is running.
2026-05-14T00:02:03.167Z | note | -->- | Pod committed: njchq12a6ytcft on H100 80GB SXM (cloudType=ALL, team account, $2.99/hr). Provisioner attempts 1-3 hit SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT on A100 80GB across cloudType=ALL,SECURE,COMMUNITY. Attempt 4 suc
2026-05-14T00:01:18.828Z | state_changed | running->queued | RunPod pod dispatched; waiting for runtime.
2026-05-13T23:58:03.797Z | state_changed | testing->running | Orchestrator 3e5c1604: code-review pair PASS and test verdict PASS carried forward on issue-363 @ 4685c574. podSpec already has SAGAN_EPS_BRANCH and SAGAN_EPS_COMMIT_SHA spliced into env. Dispatching 
2026-05-13T23:57:33.424Z | note | -->- | Carry-forward: lint + unit tests passed at 4685c574 in prior cycle. No code changes in this recovery (only pod-spec GPU swap), so no re-run required.
2026-05-13T23:57:28.396Z | state_changed | code_reviewing->testing | Both reviewers PASS at 4685c574; tests run by code-reviewer step 4 already passed in prior cycle. Forwarding test verdict only.
2026-05-13T23:57:23.975Z | note | -->- | Carry-forward from prior orchestrator cycle: Codex pair concurred on PASS at 4685c574. No new fixes required for the recovery dispatch (only delta is GPU SKU).
2026-05-13T23:57:19.292Z | note | -->- | Carry-forward from prior orchestrator cycle: code-review pair already passed on issue-363 @ 4685c574 (commit specifically addresses p…
9:09:47 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:09:47 AMtool_resulttools
2026-05-14T09:08:10.855Z | state_changed | implementing->running | RunPod pod is running.
2026-05-14T09:07:42.566Z | state_changed | approved->implementing | Orchestrator 888e6726 queued to implement and dispatch.
2026-05-14T09:07:42.548Z | state_changed | running->approved | Auto-approved follow-up plan (experiment.auto_approve_plan=true).
2026-05-14T09:07:10.691Z | state_changed | queued->running | RunPod pod is running.
2026-05-14T09:06:55.758Z | state_changed | approved->queued | RunPod pod dispatched; waiting for runtime.
2026-05-14T09:06:01.193Z | state_changed | blocked->planning | Automatic recovery queued after agent run 4cf5d7b9 failed.
2026-05-14T09:06:01.158Z | blocked | implementing->blocked | spec[0]: GraphQL errors: [{"message":"Something went wrong. Please try again later or contact support.","path":["podFindAndDeployOnDemand"],"extensions":{"code":"INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR"}}]
2026-05-14T08:55:36.682Z | state_changed | approved->implementing | Orchestrator a9e13965 queued to implement and dispatch.
9:10:07 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:10:07 AMtool_resulttools
<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en" class="geistsans_d5a4f12f-module__Ur3q_a__variable geistmono_157ca88a-module__iaM1Ya__variable inter_tight_8f18ed7a-module__13eLwq__variable bricolage_grotesque_8c519202-module__UFQ6Tq__variable outfit_333574c6-module__a01f3W__variable manrope_9e067a5b-module__vT7MWq__variable space_grotesk_59d6dcf5-module__z_Ctiq__variable dm_sans_34a85c05-module__gGo3DG__variable ibm_plex_sans_5af3dae-module__edw7da__variable source_serif_4_4203f07b-module__9jTnnG__variable newsreader_4bcebf04-module__mRJj1G__variable"><head><meta charSet="utf-8"/><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, viewport-fit=cover"/><link rel="stylesheet" href="/_next/static/chunks/03j-rl.y04-4k.css" data-precedence="next"/><link rel="preload" as="script" fetchPriority="low" href="/_next/static/chunks/03edqrb4zdj~g.js"/><script src="/_next/static/chunks/0i0b4ibyj497c.js" async=""></script><script src="/_next/static/chunks/0h69mj-e-ya89.js" async=""></script><script src="/_next/static/chunks/014~e0vao-h-9.js" async=""></script><script src="/_next/static/chunks/0pqt~8bl3ukh4.js" async=""></script><script src="/_next/static/chunks/turbopack-14pofyvch95c_.js" async=""></script><script src="/_next/static/chunks/01xlw8hd842-c.js" async=""></script><script src="/_next/static/chunks/0hs1bisaa29...js" async=""></script><meta name="robots" content="noindex"/><meta name="next-size-adjust" content=""/><title>404: This page could not be found.</title><meta name="theme-color" content="#ffffff" media="(prefers-color-scheme: light)"/><meta name="theme-color" content="#16172e" media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)"/><title>Sagan</title><meta name="description" content="Personal research-life dashboard."/><link rel="manifest" href="/manifest.webmanifest"/><meta name="mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes"/><meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-title" content="Sagan"/><meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style" content="default"/><link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.png"/><link rel="icon" href="/icon.svg" type="image/svg+xml"/><link rel="icon" href="/favicon.png" sizes="32x32" type="image/png"/><link rel="apple-touch-icon" href="/favicon.png" sizes="32x32"/><script>
(() => {
  try {
    const choice = window.localStorage.getItem('sagan-theme');
    if (choice === 'light' || choice === 'dark') {
      document.documentElement.dataset.theme = choice;
    } else {
      document.documentElement.removeAttribute('data-theme');
    }
    const font = window.localStorage.getItem('sagan-font');
    if (font) {
      document.documentElement.dataset.font = font;
    }
  } catch {}
})();
</script><script src="/_next/static/chunks/03~yq9q893hmn.js" noModule=""></script></head><body class="min-h-screen antialiased"><div hidden=""><!--$--><!--/$--></div><div style="font-family:system-ui,&quot;Segoe UI&quot;,Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,&quot;Apple Color Emoji&quot;,&quot;Segoe UI Emoji&quot;;height:100vh;text-align:center;display:flex;flex-direction:column;align-items:center;justify-content:center"><div><style>body{color:#000;background:#fff;margin:0}.next-error-h1{border-right:1px solid rgba(0,0,0,.3)}@media (prefers-color-scheme:dark){body{color:#fff;background:#000}.next-error-h1{border-right:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.3)}}</style><h1 class="next-error-h1" style="display:inline-block;margin:0 20px 0 0;padding:0 23px 0 0;font-size:24px;font-weight:500;vertical-align:top;line-height:49px">404</h1><div style="display:inline-block"><h2 style="font-size:14px;font-weight:400;line-height:49px;margin:0">This page could not be found.</h2></div></div></div><!--$--><!--/$--><script src="/_next/static/chunks/03edqrb4zdj~g.js" id="_R_" async=""></script><script>(self.__next_f=self.__next_f||[]).push([0])</script><script>self.__next_f.push([1,"1:\"$Sreact.fragment\"\n2:I[39756,[\"/_next/static/chunks/01xlw8hd842-c.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/0hs1bisaa29...js\"],\"default\"]\n3:I[37457,[\"/_next/static/chunks/01xlw8hd842-c.js\",\"/_next/static
9:10:27 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:10:28 AMtool_resulttools
parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 1, column 10
9:10:31 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:10:32 AMtool_resulttools
{"runs":[{"id":"888e6726-b756-4060-b855-794648a25894","kind":"apply","provider":"claude_code","status":"running","request":"experiment-orchestrator-for:acf759a5-fc29-4ced-a8c7-bc2a355db934\n\nDrive experiment 0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649 from approved plan through awaiting_promotion. Sub-agents are loaded from .claude/agents/.","planMd":null,"planJson":null,"approvalRequired":false,"approvedBy":null,"approvedAt":null,"scopeEntityKind":"experiment","scopeEntityId":"0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649","chatSessionId":null,"branchName":null,"vercelDeploymentUrl":null,"runpodAccount":"team","runpodPodId":null,"runpodPodIds":null,"runpodStatus":null,"transcriptLogPath":null,"changedFilesJson":null,"lastError":null,"startedAt":"2026-05-14T09:07:42.569Z","completedAt":null,"createdAt":"2026-05-14T09:07:42.557Z","updatedAt":"2026-05-14T09:10:12.584Z"},{"id":"ae39b358-5f42-4a57-bdb8-c9da8e866617","kind":"experiment","provider":"claude_code","status":"running","request":"[direct-dispatch:bypass-orchestrator-block:exp#363:retry-3-H100]","planMd":null,"planJson":null,"approvalRequired":false,"approvedBy":null,"approvedAt":null,"scopeEntityKind":"experiment","scopeEntityId":"0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb649","chatSessionId":null,"branchName":null,"vercelDeploymentUrl":null,"runpodAccount":"team","runpodPodId":"o9hlewv1vn3vfe","runpodPodIds":["o9hlewv1vn3vfe"],"runpodStatus":"running","transcriptLogPath":null,"changedFilesJson":null,"lastError":null,"startedAt":null,"completedAt":null,"createdAt":"2026-05-14T09:06:54.274Z","updatedAt":"2026-05-14T09:10:10.677Z"},{"id":"be4b9e73-f1c3-49ba-8991-eadd1fbeb364","kind":"apply","provider":"claude_code","status":"completed","request":"experiment-orchestrator-for:ae39b358-5f42-4a57-bdb8-c9da8e866617\n\nRetry-3 for #363 on H100 (A100 supply-constrained).","planMd":null,"planJson":null,"approvalRequired":false,"approvedBy":null,"approvedAt":null,"scopeEntityKind":"experiment","scopeEntityId":"0c120ea3-746a-43e6-a760-e6112f8cb6
9:10:44 AMtool_calltools

tool=TodoWrite

TodoWrite
9:10:44 AMtool_resulttools
Todos have been modified successfully. Ensure that you continue to use the todo list to track your progress. Please proceed with the current tasks if applicable
9:10:47 AMassistant_textagent
The auto-recovery system already direct-dispatched pod `o9hlewv1vn3vfe` on H100 (run `ae39b358`, runpodStatus=running) one minute before I was queued. The experiment is back in `running` status with a healthy pod. I'll post carry-forward markers for each stage instead of re-spawning implementer/reviewers/provisioner.
9:10:51 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:10:52 AMtool_resulttools
{
  "id": "ef52befd-277d-4b96-ac1e-3e40eaef857f",
  "ok": true
}
9:11:02 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:11:06 AMtool_resulttools
{
  "id": "60582963-9372-43ad-b981-27565104fc72",
  "ok": true
}
{
  "id": "c787cfe0-68c8-4000-abba-409a5ee71312",
  "ok": true
}
{
  "id": "9b577e09-fdd9-4ae8-9d06-348eb060e1c1",
  "ok": true
}
{
  "id": "0667aa7a-90ed-4e77-91e1-57a422358569",
  "ok": true
}
9:11:14 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:11:16 AMtool_resulttools
{
  "id": "1ad5d602-4f63-4797-8642-d50cabc62641",
  "ok": true
}
9:11:23 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash
9:11:25 AMtool_resulttools
{
  "status": "running",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-14T09:08:10.852Z"
}
---
{
  "id": "888e6726",
  "kind": "apply",
  "status": "running",
  "runpodPodId": null,
  "runpodStatus": null,
  "request": "experiment-orchestrator-for:acf759a5-fc29-4ced-a8c7-bc2a355d"
}
{
  "id": "ae39b358",
  "kind": "experiment",
  "status": "running",
  "runpodPodId": "o9hlewv1vn3vfe",
  "runpodStatus": "running",
  "request": "[direct-dispatch:bypass-orchestrator-block:exp#363:retry-3-H"
}
{
  "id": "be4b9e73",
  "kind": "apply",
  "status": "completed",
  "runpodPodId": null,
  "runpodStatus": null,
  "request": "experiment-orchestrator-for:ae39b358-5f42-4a57-bdb8-c9da8e86"
}
9:11:30 AMtool_calltools

tool=TodoWrite

TodoWrite
9:11:30 AMtool_resulttools
Todos have been modified successfully. Ensure that you continue to use the todo list to track your progress. Please proceed with the current tasks if applicable
9:11:37 AMassistant_textagent
Experiment #363 is in `running` status with pod `o9hlewv1vn3vfe` (H100, team, runpodStatus=running, agent_run `ae39b358`). The auto-recovery's bypass-orchestrator-block path direct-dispatched 48s before this orchestrator was queued, so re-spawning implementer/reviewers/pod-provisioner would have produced duplicate work on an already-good state.

**Carry-forward markers posted:**
- `epm:experiment-implementation` — branch `issue-363` @ `4685c574` already pushed; scripts present
- `epm:code-review` (claude, round 1) — PASS at 4685c574
- `epm:code-review-codex` (codex, round 1) — PASS at 4685c574
- `epm:review-reconcile` (code_review, round 1) — both PASS, trivial reconcile
- `epm:test-verdict` — ruff + dry-run PASS at 4685c574
- `epm:dispatch` — pod o9hlewv1vn3vfe running on H100 (team account), hand-off to runner watcher

The runner watcher now owns the terminal transitions (`running → uploading → verifying → interpreting → reviewing`). No follow-on orchestrator action is needed from this session.

<<<DONE>>>
9:11:37 AMsdk_resultagent
success
9:11:37 AMcompletedagent
Experiment #363 is in `running` status with pod `o9hlewv1vn3vfe` (H100, team, runpodStatus=running, agent_run `ae39b358`). The auto-recovery's bypass-orchestrator-block path direct-dispatched 48s before this orchestrator was queued, so re-spawning implementer/reviewers/pod-provisioner would have produced duplicate work on an already-good state.

**Carry-forward markers posted:**
- `epm:experiment-implementation` — branch `issue-363` @ `4685c574` already pushed; scripts present
- `epm:code-review` (claude, round 1) — PASS at 4685c574
- `epm:code-review-codex` (codex, round 1) — PASS at 4685c574
- `epm:review-reconcile` (code_review, round 1) — both PASS, trivial reconcile
- `epm:test-verdict` — ruff + dry-run PASS at 4685c574
- `epm:dispatch` — pod o9hlewv1vn3vfe running on H100 (team account), hand-off to runner watcher

The runner watcher now owns the terminal transitions (`running → uploading → verifying → interpreting → reviewing`). No follow-on orchestrator action is needed from th…

Discussion

Comments

No comments yet.

Enter posts · Shift-Enter for a newline · mention @claude to invoke the agent