experiment

Run e1baedab

[plan-reused-from:a1f04a02-f418-461b-904c-0b05d29528d1] Approved an existing plan without re-drafting. Source agent_run preserved this experiment's plan_md before the owner moved the card to queued.

Statuscancelled133 events · latest 1344h 49m ago

Resume history

An automatic recovery run was queued as 09638c12.

A manual resume was queued as 6d921623.

RunPod lifecycle

Stop requests preserve the attached RunPod volume.

RunPods

m097jjzqd333k4stopped

GPU: 1 x NVIDIA A100-SXM4-80GB
Rate: $1.39/hr
Spent: $5.36
Runway: runway pending
Uptime: 3h 51m
Desired: EXITED
SSH: 216.249.100.66:20259
Retries: 0/3

runpod_podpendingrunpod:m097jjzqd333k4

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

1:01:04 PMplan_reusedagent

a1f04a02-f418-461b-904c-0b05d29528d1

1:01:05 PMorchestrator_queuedagent

9cb3275e-e1a5-4f6e-b16c-2d284240cce3

2:15:13 PMlaunch_pod_requestedagent

Post-approval orchestrator signalled readiness; dispatching pod(s).

2:15:13 PMdeploy_startedrunpod

dispatching 1 pod(s)

2:15:14 PMdeploy_pod_failedrunpod

GraphQL errors: [{"message":"There are no longer any instances available with the requested specifications. Please refresh and try again.","path":["podFindAndDeployOnDemand"],"extensions":{"code":"SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT","userId":"user_2v9CcEeHWnPcoAVCf8YeCXKvupS"}}]

2:15:14 PMrunpod_blockedrunpod

dispatched 0/1 pod(s)

2:15:15 PMauto_recovery_queuedagent

09638c12-b64c-4849-9df3-56cd1c5bb738

2:16:05 PMlaunch_pod_requestedagent

Post-approval orchestrator signalled readiness; dispatching pod(s).

2:16:05 PMdeploy_startedrunpod

dispatching 1 pod(s)

2:16:06 PMdeploy_pod_failedrunpod

GraphQL errors: [{"message":"There are no longer any instances available with the requested specifications. Please refresh and try again.","path":["podFindAndDeployOnDemand"],"extensions":{"code":"SUPPLY_CONSTRAINT","userId":"user_2v9CcEeHWnPcoAVCf8YeCXKvupS"}}]

2:16:06 PMrunpod_blockedrunpod

dispatched 0/1 pod(s)

2:16:54 PMlaunch_pod_requestedagent

Post-approval orchestrator signalled readiness; dispatching pod(s).

2:16:54 PMdeploy_startedrunpod

dispatching 1 pod(s)

2:16:55 PMdeploy_pod_startedrunpod

m097jjzqd333k4

2:16:56 PMdeploy_completedrunpod

dispatched 1/1 pod(s)

2:17:12 PMrunpod_statusrunpod