experiment

Run f92bc268

auto-recoveryFollow-up of run 65c0335a

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:A100:r4:exp#333]

Failure or crash reason

Pod heqil88v6gnjyw not found in account=team

Previous run transcript

- 2026-05-14T10:39:59.246Z deploy_started: dispatching 1 pod(s)
- 2026-05-14T10:41:31.544Z deploy_pod_started: heqil88v6gnjyw
- 2026-05-14T10:41:31.566Z deploy_completed: dispatched 1/1 pod(s)
- 2026-05-14T10:41:53.723Z runpod_status: RUNNING
- 2026-05-14T10:42:55.270Z runpod_status: RUNNING
- 2026-05-14T10:43:55.689Z runpod_retry: Pod heqil88v6gnjyw not found in account=team
- 2026-05-14T10:44:54.284Z runpod_retry: Pod heqil88v6gnjyw not found in account=team

Statuscompleted18 events · latest 1325h 1m ago

Resume history

This run resumes 65c0335a.

Plan

Blocker — escalating to manual investigation

**Diagnosis of r5 failure.** Account-switch workaround did not break the loop: - r1–r4 on `account=team`: pods dispatched, RUNNING for 2–25 min, then "not found in account=team" with no termination event. Reproduced simultaneously across sibling experiments #192, #333, #365 in the r4 batch — already established as account- or DC-level, not per-experiment. - **r5 on `account=personal`** (this run, `32e93989-504f-4beb-a190-6585b45bbaa6`): identical disappearance pattern. - Two `pod_provisioner_attempt` events fired 8s apart (10:53:33Z, 10:53:41Z), both committed: `j0xvy1q82ryo8m`, `cv13x9s487tvwn`. `deploy_completed: pod-provisioner committed 2 pod(s)`. - Both went `RUNNING` at 10:53:55Z (≈22s and ≈13s after deploy_started, respectively). - Both `runpod_retry: not found in account=personal` at 10:54:54Z and 10:54:55Z — ~60s after going RUNNING. - Same disappearance reported again at 10:55:54Z, confirming the pods are gone from the personal-account API view. **Why this is not an experiment-plan problem.** The r5 swap from `team` to `personal` was the only plan change vs. r4. The pattern reproduced unchanged on personal. No plan-side variable (model, dataset, branch tip, hyperparameters, GPU type, cloud type, volume, account) explains a pod that goes RUNNING on RunPod's side and then vanishes from the account's pod list ~60s later on both accounts. Five consecutive retries (r1–r5) is enough signal to stop retrying and escalate. **Two-pods-when-one-was-requested anomaly.** The plan's `runpod-spec` is a single pod object with `gpuCount: 1`, but the provisioner committed 2 pods on r5. Possible causes worth checking before any r6: (a) provisioner retry on a transient RunPod response double-creating; (b) parallel re-dispatch from another orchestration path; (c) the `consolidation` block being misread. This may be unrelated to the disappearance, but it's the only behavior change between r4 (one pod) and r5 (two pods) and warrants inspection. **What I cannot fix from here.** No `substitution_policy` field, GPU swap, region swap, or DC pin will change the outcome — both accounts are exhibiting the same post-RUNNING reclaim, and the dispatch path itself committed an unexpected pod count. The failure mode is upstream of the experiment spec.

Exact next manual actions

1. **RunPod console audit (both accounts) around the r5 window** (≈10:53:30Z–10:55:00Z UTC, 2026-05-14): - Check pod history for `j0xvy1q82ryo8m` and `cv13x9s487tvwn` on the personal account. Were they stopped, terminated, OOM-killed, billing-suspended, or did they vanish silently? - Cross-check whether RunPod logged an external stop, a billing/quota event, or a capacity reclaim. - Do the same for the r4 pods on team account (`heqil88v6gnjyw` for #333, `rtna35w99srodo` for #192, `j18eiux6ccekyj` for #365) around 10:39:59Z–10:44:00Z. 2. **Runner-side audit:** - Query `agent_run_events` for the r5 run `32e93989-504f-4beb-a190-6585b45bbaa6` and look for any `pod_stop` events, especially with a `source` field indicating they came from the dashboard, another agent run, a cron, or an internal cleanup job. - Inspect the `pod-provisioner` logic that committed 2 pods for a single-pod spec on r5 — confirm whether this was retry-induced double-creation or a separate parallel dispatch path. - Check whether `runpod_pod_id` columns in the runner's DB are getting set/cleared correctly across retries (a stale ID could explain "not found" if the API is being queried with the wrong ID, but RUNNING-then-vanish argues against pure-staleness). 3. **Billing/quota check on both accounts.** A spend cap or quota-suspend on `team` could be plausible alone; the same on `personal` within minutes is less plausible but worth confirming via the RunPod billing dashboard. 4. **If the RunPod console shows pods were terminated externally** (by another agent run, by a dashboard action, by RunPod-side reclaim): identify the source. If by an internal Sagan agent/cron, that is the bug. If by RunPod-side capacity reclaim on SECURE cloud, escalate to RunPod support with both account IDs and the pod IDs above. 5. **Do not r6-dispatch this experiment until step 1–3 produce a root cause.** Another retry on either account is expected to fail identically.

What I am NOT doing and why

- **Not revising the plan.** The approved plan body is unchanged from r3 onward and is not the failure source. Editing it now would be cargo-culting. - **Not switching back to `team` or trying a third account permutation.** r1–r4 already exhausted `team` and r5 exhausted `personal` with the same symptom; the pattern is account-independent. - **Not changing GPU/cloud/DC.** The pods *did* come up RUNNING on RunPod's side — capacity was available; the failure is post-dispatch, not allocation. - **Not adding new approval gates or new clarifying questions.** Per the planner rules ("After round 3, unresolved disagreement alone is not enough to block… Concerns about diagnostics… should be surfaced for interpretation, not turned into pass/fail gates"), and per the recovery-rescue rules ("If the root cause is external… stop with a concise blocker"), this is a stop-and-escalate situation.

Summary for the owner

Five consecutive dispatch attempts (r1–r4 team, r5 personal) of an approved, unchanged experiment plan have failed with the same post-`RUNNING` pod-disappearance signature on RunPod, across two accounts. The r5 retry additionally committed 2 pods when the spec requested 1, which suggests a runner-side dispatch bug worth investigating in its own right. The blocker is upstream of the experiment plan and requires a manual look at RunPod console events and the runner's `agent_run_events` / pod-provisioner logic. Once that root cause is identified and remediated, the existing approved plan can be re-dispatched as-is — no plan changes required.

I cannot safely produce another auto-dispatch revision for this experiment. After diagnosing r5's transcript, this is now a cross-account infrastructure failure that needs human investigation, not another plan tweak.

Blocker — escalating to manual investigation

Diagnosis of r5 failure. Account-switch workaround did not break the loop:

r1–r4 on account=team: pods dispatched, RUNNING for 2–25 min, then "not found in account=team" with no termination event. Reproduced simultaneously across sibling experiments #192, #333, #365 in the r4 batch — already established as account- or DC-level, not per-experiment.
r5 on account=personal (this run, 32e93989-504f-4beb-a190-6585b45bbaa6): identical disappearance pattern.
- Two pod_provisioner_attempt events fired 8s apart (10:53:33Z, 10:53:41Z), both committed: j0xvy1q82ryo8m, cv13x9s487tvwn. deploy_completed: pod-provisioner committed 2 pod(s).
- Both went RUNNING at 10:53:55Z (≈22s and ≈13s after deploy_started, respectively).
- Both runpod_retry: not found in account=personal at 10:54:54Z and 10:54:55Z — ~60s after going RUNNING.
- Same disappearance reported again at 10:55:54Z, confirming the pods are gone from the personal-account API view.

Why this is not an experiment-plan problem. The r5 swap from team to personal was the only plan change vs. r4. The pattern reproduced unchanged on personal. No plan-side variable (model, dataset, branch tip, hyperparameters, GPU type, cloud type, volume, account) explains a pod that goes RUNNING on RunPod's side and then vanishes from the account's pod list ~60s later on both accounts. Five consecutive retries (r1–r5) is enough signal to stop retrying and escalate.

Two-pods-when-one-was-requested anomaly. The plan's runpod-spec is a single pod object with gpuCount: 1, but the provisioner committed 2 pods on r5. Possible causes worth checking before any r6: (a) provisioner retry on a transient RunPod response double-creating; (b) parallel re-dispatch from another orchestration path; (c) the consolidation block being misread. This may be unrelated to the disappearance, but it's the only behavior change between r4 (one pod) and r5 (two pods) and warrants inspection.

What I cannot fix from here. No substitution_policy field, GPU swap, region swap, or DC pin will change the outcome — both accounts are exhibiting the same post-RUNNING reclaim, and the dispatch path itself committed an unexpected pod count. The failure mode is upstream of the experiment spec.

Exact next manual actions

RunPod console audit (both accounts) around the r5 window (≈10:53:30Z–10:55:00Z UTC, 2026-05-14):
- Check pod history for j0xvy1q82ryo8m and cv13x9s487tvwn on the personal account. Were they stopped, terminated, OOM-killed, billing-suspended, or did they vanish silently?
- Cross-check whether RunPod logged an external stop, a billing/quota event, or a capacity reclaim.
- Do the same for the r4 pods on team account (heqil88v6gnjyw for #333, rtna35w99srodo for #192, j18eiux6ccekyj for #365) around 10:39:59Z–10:44:00Z.
Runner-side audit:
- Query agent_run_events for the r5 run 32e93989-504f-4beb-a190-6585b45bbaa6 and look for any pod_stop events, especially with a source field indicating they came from the dashboard, another agent run, a cron, or an internal cleanup job.
- Inspect the pod-provisioner logic that committed 2 pods for a single-pod spec on r5 — confirm whether this was retry-induced double-creation or a separate parallel dispatch path.
- Check whether runpod_pod_id columns in the runner's DB are getting set/cleared correctly across retries (a stale ID could explain "not found" if the API is being queried with the wrong ID, but RUNNING-then-vanish argues against pure-staleness).
Billing/quota check on both accounts. A spend cap or quota-suspend on team could be plausible alone; the same on personal within minutes is less plausible but worth confirming via the RunPod billing dashboard.
If the RunPod console shows pods were terminated externally (by another agent run, by a dashboard action, by RunPod-side reclaim): identify the source. If by an internal Sagan agent/cron, that is the bug. If by RunPod-side capacity reclaim on SECURE cloud, escalate to RunPod support with both account IDs and the pod IDs above.
Do not r6-dispatch this experiment until step 1–3 produce a root cause. Another retry on either account is expected to fail identically.

What I am NOT doing and why

Not revising the plan. The approved plan body is unchanged from r3 onward and is not the failure source. Editing it now would be cargo-culting.
Not switching back to team or trying a third account permutation. r1–r4 already exhausted team and r5 exhausted personal with the same symptom; the pattern is account-independent.
Not changing GPU/cloud/DC. The pods did come up RUNNING on RunPod's side — capacity was available; the failure is post-dispatch, not allocation.
Not adding new approval gates or new clarifying questions. Per the planner rules ("After round 3, unresolved disagreement alone is not enough to block… Concerns about diagnostics… should be surfaced for interpretation, not turned into pass/fail gates"), and per the recovery-rescue rules ("If the root cause is external… stop with a concise blocker"), this is a stop-and-escalate situation.

Summary for the owner

Five consecutive dispatch attempts (r1–r4 team, r5 personal) of an approved, unchanged experiment plan have failed with the same post-RUNNING pod-disappearance signature on RunPod, across two accounts. The r5 retry additionally committed 2 pods when the spec requested 1, which suggests a runner-side dispatch bug worth investigating in its own right. The blocker is upstream of the experiment plan and requires a manual look at RunPod console events and the runner's agent_run_events / pod-provisioner logic. Once that root cause is identified and remediated, the existing approved plan can be re-dispatched as-is — no plan changes required.

Events

10:45:53 AMstartedagent

kind=experiment

10:46:43 AMassistant_textagent

I'll diagnose the recovery situation, then re-emit the approval-ready plan with the workaround the plan itself documents.

10:46:45 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

10:46:45 AMtool_resulttools

{"experiment":{"id":"3283d57a-7845-4fb7-945c-6e654f7000dd","number":333,"legacyGhNumber":333,"beliefId":null,"projectId":null,"title":"Test FR↔IT bystander-spill symmetry at multi-seed + 5 phrasings — pooled-rate vs per-phrasing asymmetry from #239 fact-check","body":"## Goal\n\nTest whether the FR↔IT bystander-spill rate is direction-symmetric — i.e., whether the unordered pair {FR, IT} determines the spill rate at each third-language bystander, independent of which language was the trained directive and which was the trained completion — at a sample size large enough to separate pooled-rate symmetry from underlying behavior asymmetry.\n\n## Why\n\n[#239](https://github.com/superkaiba/explore-persona-space/issues/239)'s Result 3 originally claimed \"spill is symmetric across reverse pairs\" using a single FR↔IT bystander cell pair (FR→IT model's Spanish-directive cell = 39% Italian contamination; IT→FR model's Spanish-directive cell = 39% French contamination, both N=80 = 2 phrasings × 40 completions × 1 seed). An independent fact-check confirmed those pooled numbers exactly (38.8% / 38.8% from `per_row_labels`) but surfaced a problem: the per-phrasing breakdown is sharply asymmetric beneath the pooled match.\n\n- FR→IT, Spanish directive: `\"Speak in Spanish.\"` = 15% Italian / `\"Please respond in Spanish.\"` = 62.5% Italian (47.5pp spread across phrasings)\n- IT→FR, Spanish directive: `\"Speak in Spanish.\"` = 32.5% French / `\"Please respond in Spanish.\"` = 45% French (12.5pp spread)\n\nSo the body's \"Whatever geometry produces the FR↔IT spill is direction-agnostic\" framing overshoots what the data supports — pooled rates match, but the underlying per-phrasing behavior is direction-sensitive in a way the two-phrasing average hides. The German-directive bystander adds further evidence the symmetry isn't clean (FR→IT: 36% Italian; IT→FR: 25% French, 11pp gap).\n\nThe symmetric-spill paragraph + its supporting samples were removed from #239 pending this follow-up. The remaining Result 3 findings (distance-ordering + FR→FR same-language control) survived the fact-check unchanged.\n\n## Hypothesis\n\nThe pair {FR, IT} determines the *pooled* bystander-spill rate but does NOT determine the underlying behavior. Concretely, we expect:\n\n- **Multi-seed (3-seed) pooled rates** on FR→IT and IT→FR Spanish-directive cells to land within ±5pp of each other at the headline level — the symmetric-spill claim is real *as a pooled average*.\n- **Per-phrasing spread** to remain substantially asymmetric across the two directions even at multi-seed — the within-condition variance under FR→IT will exceed the within-condition variance under IT→FR by a factor of 2-4× across phrasings, replicating the single-seed asymmetry observed here.\n- **Bystander-set identity** (i.e., *which* third languages get contaminated) to be the same across the reverse pair, since the contaminating-language mass is concentrated in the trained-completion-language and the bystander matrix from #190's Figure 2 already shows roughly the same column profile in both directions.\n\nA \"true\" symmetry claim would require all three to hold. If only the pooled rate matches, the body should frame the claim as \"pooled spill rates are direction-symmetric, but underlying phrasing-sensitivity is not\" — narrower than \"direction-agnostic geometry.\"\n\n## Design\n\nRun 6 LoRA SFT conditions = 2 reverse directions × 3 seeds:\n\n- `c_lang_inv_fr_it_seed{42,137,256}` — directive: French paraphrases; completion: Italian translations\n- `c_lang_inv_it_fr_seed{42,137,256}` — directive: Italian paraphrases; completion: French translations\n\nSeed 42 already exists (from #190); only seeds 137 and 256 need fresh training (4 new training runs).\n\nHyperparameters held byte-identical to #190:\n- Model: `Qwen/Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct`\n- LoRA: r=32, α=64, dropout=0, use_rslora=true, all 7 linear projections (~25M trainable params)\n- lr=5e-6, 1 epoch, bf16, max_seq_length=2048, effective batch…

10:46:54 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

10:46:55 AMtool_resulttools

156796 /tmp/exp333.json
status: running
priority: normal
runpodAccount: team
planJson keys: ['goal', 'risks', 'compute', 'hardware', 'sections', 'artifacts', 'hypothesis', 'prediction', 'verification', 'killCriterion', 'likelyCleanResult']
NO runpod-spec found in body
--- end body has length 6896

10:47:03 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

10:47:04 AMtool_resulttools

4671ee1f-e8e9-4329-ae94-b2284d8dd591 | experiment | running | 2026-05-14T10:45:54.259Z | None
6c477324-210d-4973-ae02-054ef6ad54c9 | experiment | running | 2026-05-14T10:45:54.003Z | None
f92bc268-a795-42e3-86ed-e018159cb25e | experiment | running | 2026-05-14T10:45:53.807Z | None
5e0426ad-ccd6-4e25-af75-d6b58df96317 | experiment | completed | 2026-05-14T10:45:53.598Z | None
9e039246-73d2-4abc-909f-9d6cbe4c0b86 | experiment | running | 2026-05-14T10:44:01.031Z | lqpfpmbytlgded
315eb8d7-1eee-4523-8983-b1864e9ccfb1 | apply | completed | 2026-05-14T10:44:01.031Z | None
910a65d6-6c8f-4d20-9d0b-2d4d224c05a5 | experiment | running | 2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | j18eiux6ccekyj
02f3076f-dca1-4850-86f9-56532961355c | experiment | running | 2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | rtna35w99srodo
65c0335a-8db7-46d1-9a40-6cb370c160a6 | experiment | running | 2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | heqil88v6gnjyw
42a4d88a-a8d5-4280-8c69-1b085e6045d3 | apply | completed | 2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | None
---

10:47:14 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

10:47:15 AMtool_resulttools

id: 65c0335a-8db7-46d1-9a40-6cb370c160a6
kind: experiment
status: running
runpodPodId: heqil88v6gnjyw
request: [direct-dispatch:A100:r4:exp#333]
--- planMd length: 0
No runpod-spec in planMd; first 4000 chars:

10:47:22 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

10:47:22 AMtool_resulttools

count: 30
2026-05-14T10:45:54.259Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=- | req=[auto-recovery-for:0a864550-8cf2-4d55-8ae8-9222612ab675]

The previous Claude Co
2026-05-14T10:45:54.003Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=- | req=[auto-recovery-for:02f3076f-dca1-4850-86f9-56532961355c]

The previous Claude Co
2026-05-14T10:45:53.807Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=- | req=[auto-recovery-for:65c0335a-8db7-46d1-9a40-6cb370c160a6]

The previous Claude Co
2026-05-14T10:45:53.598Z | kind=experiment | status=completed  | pod=- | req=[auto-recovery-for:0b44ece6-2f62-4dc1-beef-ba2739f661b1]

The previous Claude Co
2026-05-14T10:44:01.031Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=lqpfpmbytlgded | req=[test-short-dockerArgs:#366]
2026-05-14T10:44:01.031Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:9e039246-73d2-4abc-909f-9d6cbe4c0b86

Short-cmd test
2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=j18eiux6ccekyj | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r4:exp#365]
2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=rtna35w99srodo | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r4:exp#192]
2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=heqil88v6gnjyw | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r4:exp#333]
2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:910a65d6-6c8f-4d20-9d0b-2d4d224c05a5

A100 r4 #365 a
2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:65c0335a-8db7-46d1-9a40-6cb370c160a6

A100 r4 #333 a
2026-05-14T10:39:59.217Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:02f3076f-dca1-4850-86f9-56532961355c

A100 r4 #192 a
2026-05-14T10:39:26.396Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=w2vn4kqqjotfgj | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r4:exp#366]
2026-05-14T10:39:26.396Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:0a864550-8cf2-4d55-8ae8-9222612ab675

A100 r4 #366 a
2026-05-14T10:37:35.827Z | kind=experiment | status=failed     | pod=- | req=[auto-recovery-for:c7bbfd7f-2914-4c5f-aaf1-c609489eaaed]

The previous Claude Co
2026-05-14T10:36:02.704Z | kind=experiment | status=completed  | pod=- | req=[auto-recovery-for:45477a6d-5597-48eb-b86c-07e0c7e2f3f2]

The previous Claude Co
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=experiment | status=blocked    | pod=- | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r3:exp#365]
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=experiment | status=running    | pod=36xpkdt2tumzxb | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r3:exp#363]
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=experiment | status=blocked    | pod=- | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r3:exp#366]
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=experiment | status=deploying  | pod=- | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r3:exp#333]
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=experiment | status=deploying  | pod=- | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:r3:exp#192]
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:45477a6d-5597-48eb-b86c-07e0c7e2f3f2

A100 round-3 d
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:c7bbfd7f-2914-4c5f-aaf1-c609489eaaed

A100 round-3 d
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:0b44ece6-2f62-4dc1-beef-ba2739f661b1

A100 round-3 d
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:690f236c-a6f1-42d7-a561-d2b4502a2f99

A100 round-3 d
2026-05-14T10:36:02.586Z | kind=apply      | status=completed  | pod=- | req=experiment-orchestrator-for:c42ea95e-8b55-4371-99c1-fd72bbdae49b

A100 round-3 d
2026-05-14T10:34:49.009Z | kind=experiment | status=completed  | pod=- | req=[auto-recovery-for:3aa11af0-f19c-484c-b914-9da403d47b6b]

The previous Claude Co
2026-05-14T10:34:48.947Z | kind=experiment | status=blocked    | pod=- | req=[direct-dispatch:A100:exp#366:try2]
2026-05-…

10:47:43 AMtool_calltools

tool=Bash

Bash

10:47:43 AMtool_resulttools

=== goal ===
Test whether the FR↔IT bystander-spill rate is direction-symmetric — i.e., whether the unordered pair {FR, IT} determines the spill rate at each third-language bystander, independent of which language was the trained directive and which was the trained completion — at a sample size large enough to separate pooled-rate symmetry from underlying per-phrasing behavior asymmetry. Anchored on the [#239](https://github.com/superkaiba/explore-persona-space/issues/239) fact-check that found pooled FR→IT and IT→FR Spanish-directive cells both at 38.8% Italian/French contamination on single-seed N=80, while per-phrasing breakdown showed a 47.5pp vs 12.5pp spread — pooled match, asymmetric underneath.

=== risks ===
- **Direction-asymmetry could itself be seed-driven, not phrasing-sensitivity.** With 3 seeds × 5 phrasings the design separates between-seed and within-condition variance, but if seed × phrasing interaction is large (which the #239 single-seed picture hints at), the per-phrasing spread metric is partly absorbing seed noise. Mitigation: `comparison_5phrasings.json` reports per-seed × per-phrasing cells, not just the pooled spread.
- **langdetect mislabel rate on short completions** could bias the contamination rate. #190 cross-checked langdetect against a Claude judge and found ≤2% disagreement at this completion length, so the magnitude is small relative to the ±5pp decision threshold.
- **HF Hub upload of 4 adapters takes 5–15 minutes total** — script must handle 5xx retries; if upload fails after retries, eval cannot use the model. The existing script logs and surfaces upload failures.
- **vLLM batched generation at T=1.0** can wedge on a single bad prompt — script must time-bound generation per batch.
- **Cost concentration risk:** running all 7 evals after all 4 trainings means a vLLM regression in phase 7 wastes the prior ~16 GPU-hr. Mitigation: run dataset-symmetry summary + a small smoke-eval (1 model × 1 directive-lang × 1 phrasing × 5 completions) before phase 2 to fail fast on env breakage.
- **The bootstrap wrapper clones `$SAGAN_EPS_BRANCH`** — confirmed present: `scripts/run_issue333_train_eval.py` exists on branch `exp-333-fr-it-symmetry` at commit `13bff7b1` (round-3 fixes). Orchestrator must set `$SAGAN_EPS_BRANCH` to that branch (or a descendant) at dispatch time, not `main` — the script has not been merged.
- **External pod loss across retries.** Retries 1–3 have each dispatched a pod that ran RUNNING normally before vanishing from RunPod's API mid-run (most recent: `hx5qglq11gau0i`, dispatched 09:03:10Z, RUNNING through 09:20Z, then "Pod not found in account=team" from 09:21:07Z onward). The runner's retry loop polls the dead pod ID instead of redispatching, so the run wedges. Manual next action below.

**Critique loop notes.** 0 critic loops run on this recovery — plan body was previously approved by the owner (`status: approved`, now `blocked` after pod loss); this round is a strict recovery to re-emit the approval-ready markdown with the `runpod-spec` block so the runner can redispatch onto a fresh pod ID. No substantive plan revisions made. Items intentionally not folded into this run: a Claude-judge cross-check of langdetect on a sub-sample (follow-up, scope-expanding); per-phrasing seed × phrasing ANOVA (follow-up, scope-expanding); replication on DE↔FR pair (explicit out-of-scope, separate follow-up); mechanism analysis on *why* phrasing-sensitivity is direction-asymmetric (downstream, needs representation work).

**Recovery-cycle observation (not a plan revision, surfaced for human review).** Three retries of this direct-dispatch have each ended with a RunPod-side pod disappearance after ≈18–25 min of RUNNING — distinc

=== compute ===
- **GPU profile:** 1× H100 80GB SXM, SECURE cloud, team account.
- **Training:** ~4 GPU-hr per condition × 4 new conditions = ~16 GPU-hr.
- **Eval:** ~3 GPU-hr across 7 models on 1400 rows each (vLLM batched).
- **Bootstrap + dataset prep + KL probes + HF…

10:49:22 AMassistant_textagent

I have full context now. Diagnosis: 4 sequential retries (#333 r1–r4) and 3 sibling experiments at r4 (#192, #365) hitting the same "pod ran briefly, then disappeared from `account=team`" pattern — this is an account-wide RunPod issue, not per-experiment. The plan body itself names the workaround: switch `account.prefer` from `team` to `personal` (or pin DC away from the failing one). The plan is already approved and I'm in a recovery loop — re-emitting the approved plan with that scope-preserving workaround applied to the `runpod-spec` block so the runner can dispatch onto a fresh pod ID on a different account.

## Goal

Test whether the FR↔IT bystander-spill rate is direction-symmetric — i.e., whether the unordered pair {FR, IT} determines the spill rate at each third-language bystander, independent of which language was the trained directive and which was the trained completion — at a sample size large enough to separate pooled-rate symmetry from underlying per-phrasing behavior asymmetry. Anchored on the [#239](https://github.com/superkaiba/explore-persona-space/issues/239) fact-check that found pooled FR→IT and IT→FR Spanish-directive cells both at 38.8% Italian/French contamination on single-seed N=80, while per-phrasing breakdown showed a 47.5pp vs 12.5pp spread — pooled match, asymmetric underneath.

## Hypothesis

The pair {FR, IT} determines the *pooled* bystander-spill rate but does NOT determine the underlying behavior. Specifically:

1. **Multi-seed (3-seed × 5-phrasing) pooled rates** on FR→IT and IT→FR Spanish-directive cells land within ±5pp of each other at the headline level — the symmetric-spill claim is real *as a pooled average*.
2. **Per-phrasing spread** remains substantially asymmetric across the two directions even at multi-seed — within-condition variance under FR→IT exceeds within-condition variance under IT→FR by ≥2× across the 5 phrasings, averaged over seeds, replicating the single-seed asymmetry.
3. **Bystander-set identity** (which third languages get contaminated) is the same set across the reverse pair, since the contaminating-language mass concentrates on the trained-completion language and #190's Figure 2 already shows a similar bystander column profile in both directions.

A "true" geometric symmetry would require all three to hold. If only (1) holds, #239's body needs to be narrowed from "direction-agnostic geometry" to "pooled spill rates are direction-symmetric, but per-phrasing variance is itself asymmetric — the FR-as-directive model is far more phrasing-sensitive than the IT-as-directive model, which the pooled average hides."

## Prediction

- (1) **PASS:** pooled FR→IT vs IT→FR Spanish-directive contamination rates within ±5pp at 3-seed × 5-phrasing × 40-completion (N=600 per pooled cell). Same for German-directive cell at ±7pp (looser because #190 already showed an 11pp single-seed gap there).
- (2) **PASS:** FR→IT phrasing-spread (max − min across 5 phrasings, averaged across 3 seeds) ≥ 2× the IT→FR phrasing-spread at Spanish-directive.
- (3) **PASS:** top-5 contaminating-bystander-languages identical (as a set) across FR→IT and IT→FR.

If (1) holds but (2) also holds, the symmetric-spill narrative in #239 gets narrowed to "pooled rates are direction-symmetric, per-phrasing variance is direction-asymmetric." If (1) fails, the symmetric-spill claim does not survive at multi-seed and gets removed.

## Kill Criterion

Stop and treat as not-replicated (no narrative update beyond "did not replicate") if any of:

- Any of the 4 new training runs fails to converge (eval loss > 2× the seed-42 reference at the same step, or NaN/inf in loss curve).
- vLLM eval generation produces <90% non-empty completions on any cell — indicates a vLLM/tokenizer regression rather than a model behavior.
- The seed-42 adapters cannot be re-downloaded from HF Hub (would mean the comparison is invalid — only have new-seed data).
- Pooled FR→FR same-language control (already trained in #190, included as a sanit…

10:49:22 AMsdk_resultagent

success

10:49:22 AMauto_approvedagent

experiment.auto_approve_plan=true — skipping owner gate

10:49:22 AMorchestrator_queuedagent

d8bcdbf4-7cba-4a75-8c23-8505546438d8

Discussion

Comments

No comments yet.