Run acf759a5
The previous Claude Code run failed or crashed. First diagnose why it stopped using the transcript below. Then fix or work around the problem if possible and continue the original request to a final useful result. Do not repeat completed work. If the root cause is external credentials, unavailable infrastructure, missing human approval, or another issue you cannot safely fix, stop with a concise blocker that includes the evidence and the exact next manual action.
Original request
[direct-dispatch:bypass-orchestrator-block:exp#363:retry-2] Retry after RunPod 5xx at 08:52.
Failure or crash reason
spec[0]: GraphQL errors: [{"message":"Something went wrong. Please try again later or contact support.","path":["podFindAndDeployOnDemand"],"extensions":{"code":"INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR"}}]Previous run transcript
- 2026-05-14T09:02:28.521Z deploy_started: dispatching 1 pod(s)
- 2026-05-14T09:06:01.144Z deploy_pod_failed: GraphQL errors: [{"message":"Something went wrong. Please try again later or contact support.","path":["podFindAndDeployOnDemand"],"extensions":{"code":"INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR"}}]
- 2026-05-14T09:06:01.148Z runpod_blocked: dispatched 0/1 pod(s)Resume history
This run resumes 4cf5d7b9.
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_ERRORonpodFindAndDeployOnDemand - retry-3:
Pod not found in account=teamafter ~14 min RUNNING - retry-4:
Pod not found in account=teamafter ~2 min RUNNING - retry-5:
Pod not found in account=teamafter ~7 min RUNNING - retry-6 (this run,
m1ayhl6nsbxw04):Pod not found in account=teamafter ~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
planJsonare 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
kind=experiment
I'll produce the approval-ready plan. This is an auto-recovery from a transient RunPod GraphQL 5xx (INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR), not a SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT — the design is already operator-validated from prior rounds (planJson is fully populated). I'll skip critique loops per the existing recovery-scope rationale and just produce the dispatchable plan.
## Goal
Implement Chen et al. (arXiv:2507.21509) persona-vector extraction end-to-end on `Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct` for the **evil** trait, extract the project's centroid-difference direction for the same trait/model, and report cosine similarity between the two directions at layers {10, 15, 20, 25}. Headline number is `cos@L20`.
## Hypothesis
The Chen et al. mean-difference recipe (paired prompts → judge-filtered rollouts → `mean(pos) − mean(neg)` over response-token activations) and the project's centroid-difference recipe (per-persona centroids at the last prompt token, then `evil_centroid − assistant_centroid`) yield evil-trait directions whose cosine similarity at L20 is in `[0.5, 0.9]` — same neighborhood, not the same direction. The prior #216 finding ("recipes disagree on absolute direction but recover the same relative cluster map") predicts partial agreement.
## Prediction
- **Primary:** `cos(Chen-evil@L20, project-evil@L20) ∈ [0.5, 0.9]`.
- **Secondary:** cosine varies by < 0.2 across L10, L15, L20, L25 (recipe disagreement is roughly layer-stationary).
- **Magnitudes:** `‖Chen-direction‖` and `‖project-direction‖` differ by < 3× (mean-difference vs. centroid-difference can rescale, but not by orders of magnitude).
## Kill Criterion
Result is binding regardless of value — this is a measurement experiment, not a hypothesis test that can fail to launch. The kill criteria are interpretation thresholds applied to `cos@L20`:
| Outcome | Decision |
|---|---|
| cos > 0.9 | Methodology continuity holds; Chen et al.-citing claims transfer cleanly. No follow-up needed. |
| 0.5 ≤ cos ≤ 0.9 | Partial agreement. Existing Chen-citing claims get a "project-specific replication footnote" caveat. |
| cos < 0.5 | Real methodology gap. Promotes a follow-up to characterize the difference and decide which object to standardize on. |
**Execution kill conditions** (terminate pod, mark blocked):
- Artifact generation (Claude API) returns < 5 valid pos prompts, < 5 valid neg prompts, or < 20 valid extraction questions after 2 retries.
- Judge filtering retains < 5 positive rollouts or < 5 negative rollouts at any layer (statistical floor for mean-difference).
- vLLM rollout phase exceeds 60 minutes (10× budget) → assume model-config / batching bug.
## Experimental Setup
**Model.** `Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct` (HuggingFace), bf16, vLLM for generation, HuggingFace Transformers (with hooks) for activation extraction. Single instance — both recipes run against the same weights so any divergence is purely recipe-driven.
**Trait.** Evil (primary; canonical for the EM-mechanism discussion). Sycophancy and hallucination are deferred to a follow-up — they would ~3× the API+compute cost and the headline question is evil-specific.
**Step 1 — Artifact generation.** One Claude 3.7 Sonnet call using the verbatim meta-prompt from Chen et al. appendix `appendix:pipeline`. Outputs: 5 positive (evil) prompts, 5 negative (non-evil) prompts, 20 extraction questions, 20 evaluation questions (held-out, logged for future steering work), 1 judge rubric. Persist to `artifacts/experiment_363/trait_evil_artifacts.json`. Validation: JSON schema check; visual check of 3 random pos+neg pairs logged to console.
**Step 2 — Rollout generation.** For each of the 20 extraction questions:
- 5 pos prompts × 10 rollouts = 50 positive rollouts per question → **1000 total**
- 5 neg prompts × 10 rollouts = 50 negative rollouts per question → **1000 total**
vLLM batched generation, `temperature=1.0, top_p=0.95, max_new_tokens=512, seed=42`. Persist as JSONL with `(question_id, prompt_id, polarity, rollout_idx, generation)`.
**…success
experiment.auto_approve_plan=true — skipping owner gate
888e6726-b756-4060-b855-794648a25894
Discussion
Comments
No comments yet.