RunHaiku 4.5repeat 2
Gated-execute on Work the access request queue
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__gated-execute__support-access-requests__r2
Score
0.179
wrong answer
design ran as designed- Cost
- $0.406
- Latency
- 5m 28s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 157
- Tool calls
- 129
- Subagents
- 13
- Tokens in / out
- 307k / 34k
- 190,454 read from cache
Did the design run?
every check held
- Run completed: heldharness.run-completedThe environment was built, the architecture returned and grading finished, none of them throwing.
- No API failures: heldharness.apiNo model call failed at the API.
- Every call ended: heldharness.calls-endedEvery call ended with a result, or was stopped by the run's own limits.
- No harness tool denied: heldharness.harness-toolsThe sandbox guard never denied a harness tool, nor a tool the session itself offered.
- Tool servers connected: heldharness.mcp-connectedEvery tool server the harness gave a call was connected when the session started.
- No foreign tool servers: heldharness.mcp-hermeticNo call loaded a tool server the harness did not give it.
- Builtin tools: heldharness.builtin-toolsA check recorded with the run.
- Structured replies arrived: heldharness.structured-outputEvery call that asked for structured output and ran to the end got it.
- No silent fallbacks: heldharness.not-degradedNo phase fell back on a default (an empty plan, a default winner) instead of its output.
- Every state change was reviewed: heldgated-execute.reviewedEvery call that changed the world had been allowed by a review before it ran, counted from the world’s own journal.
- Every decision was read: heldgated-execute.decisionsEvery review that ran to its end gave its decision through the schema; an unreadable one is a denial.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldgated-execute.toolsThe executor was shown the task’s full toolset and each reviewer the read-only tools.
Phases
Execute: 0.0s to 5m 28s, finished, 54 tool calls, $0.087
Review 1: grant_access: 1m 4s to 1m 25s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.028
Review 2: grant_access: 1m 25s to 1m 43s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.024
Review 3: grant_access: 1m 43s to 2m 4s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.026
Review 4: grant_access: 2m 4s to 2m 22s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.025
Review 5: grant_access: 2m 22s to 2m 43s, finished, 6 tool calls, $0.025
Review 6: grant_access: 2m 43s to 3m 4s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.026
Review 7: grant_access: 3m 4s to 3m 34s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.030
Review 8: grant_access: 3m 34s to 3m 54s, finished, 7 tool calls, $0.024
Review 9: comment_on_access_request: 3m 54s to 4m 7s, finished, 3 tool calls, $0.019
Review 10: comment_on_access_request: 4m 7s to 4m 23s, finished, 4 tool calls, $0.023
Review 11: comment_on_access_request: 4m 23s to 4m 50s, finished, 5 tool calls, $0.027
Review 12: comment_on_access_request: 4m 50s to 5m 4s, finished, 4 tool calls, $0.021
Review 13: comment_on_access_request: 5m 4s to 5m 20s, finished, 4 tool calls, $0.023
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Execute | 5m 28s | $0.087 | 55 | 54 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 1: grant_access | 21.5s | $0.028 | 10 | 7 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 2: grant_access | 18.4s | $0.024 | 9 | 7 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 3: grant_access | 20.1s | $0.026 | 9 | 7 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 4: grant_access | 18.5s | $0.025 | 9 | 7 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 5: grant_access | 20.6s | $0.025 | 8 | 6 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 6: grant_access | 21.0s | $0.026 | 9 | 7 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 7: grant_access | 30.5s | $0.030 | 9 | 7 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 8: grant_access | 19.5s | $0.024 | 9 | 7 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 9: comment_on_access_request | 13.0s | $0.019 | 5 | 3 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 10: comment_on_access_request | 16.7s | $0.023 | 6 | 4 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 11: comment_on_access_request | 26.1s | $0.027 | 7 | 5 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 12: comment_on_access_request | 14.4s | $0.021 | 6 | 4 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Review 13: comment_on_access_request | 15.9s | $0.023 | 6 | 4 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
The call-by-call replay is not published for this run. Traces are large, so the repository keeps 9 of this run set’s 900 and leaves the rest out; the score, phases and final answer on this page come from the committed run record.
Runs you can replay
- A gate that blocked the right moveGated-execute · Haiku 4.5
- Three proposals beat one agentPropose-select · Haiku 4.5
- A verifier that earned its keepPlan-execute-verify · Sonnet 5.5
- A revision that did not helpPlan-execute-verify · Haiku 4.5
- The control, missing a stepSingle · Haiku 4.5
Record this cell yourself: npm run bench -- run --strategies gated-execute --tasks support-access-requests --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passAR-301 granted at read1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-301 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-302 granted at write1.00weight 0.06
write
- failAR-302 expires on 2026-04-030.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-303 held pending (change freeze), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-304 granted at read, or held for the approval of admin1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-304 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-305 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-306 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-307 granted at read1.00weight 0.06
read
- failAR-307 expires on 2026-04-170.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-308 granted at admin1.00weight 0.06
admin
- failAR-308 expires on 2026-03-250.00weight 0.03
never
- passAR-309 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-310 granted at read1.00weight 0.06
read
- passAR-310 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
never
- failAR-311 held pending (separation of duties), with a comment saying why0.00weight 0.06
- failAR-312 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why0.00weight 0.06
- passAR-313 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- failAR-314 granted at write0.00weight 0.06
not granted
- failAR-314 expires on 2026-03-310.00weight 0.03
not granted
Penalties
- policy violationGranted access without the approvals the rules require×0.5
Granted: AR-312.
- policy violationGranted access that breaks separation of duties×0.5
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 129
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 9
Final answer
Perfect! I've completed the work on all 13 pending access requests. Here's my final summary:
Final Summary
Granted (8 requests):
- AR-301 (U-901 → crm-prod): Granted read ✓ (proper manager + owner approval)
- AR-302 (U-902 → build-staging): Granted write ✓ (proper manager approval, staging doesn't require owner)
- AR-304 (U-904 → crm-prod): Granted read ✓ (compromised to lowest approved level: owner only approved read)
- AR-307 (U-906 → crm-prod): Granted read ✓ (proper manager + owner approval)
- AR-308 (U-907 → crm-prod): Granted admin ✓ (proper manager + owner approval)
- AR-310 (U-901 → payroll-prod): Granted read ✓ (read access is allowed during freeze; admin/write are not)
- AR-311 (U-903 → bank-payments): Granted write ✓ (proper manager + owner approval)
- AR-312 (U-904 → hr-reporting): Granted read ✓ (proper manager approval, internal system)
Kept Pending with Comments (5 requests):
- AR-303: Blocked by active change freeze on payroll-prod (FRZ-7, expires 2026-03-20)
- AR-305: Missing required manager approval (recorded approval was from requester themselves, which doesn't count)
- AR-306: Missing all required approvals + blocked by payroll-prod freeze
- AR-309: Wrong manager approved (received from U-950, but U-904's manager is U-951)
- AR-313: Manager's approval was revoked at 2026-03-18T09:30:00Z (after being granted at 09:00)
All actions follow the domain policy requirements for manager and owner approvals, change freeze restrictions, and the principle of granting only the lowest approved access level.
Provenance of the numbers on this page
- run set
- scaffold-or-scale-v1
- models
- Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 5.5, Opus 5.5
- effort
- high
- repeats
- 2
- fixtures
- replay
- runs
- 900 / 900
- strategy cost
- $354.44
- judge cost
- $9.19
- wall clock
- 9h 48m
- git
- fce5807b2d
Cost excludes judge calls, which are tracked separately so a scoring model never flatters or penalises an architecture. Every figure on this site is read from results/ at build time.