RunHaiku 4.5repeat 2
Plan-execute-verify on Audit a week of baggage fees
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__plan-execute-verify__airline-baggage-audit__r2
Score
0.632
wrong answer
design ran as designed- Cost
- $0.544
- Latency
- 7m 52s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 190
- Tool calls
- 181
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 873k / 54k
- 768,709 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.
- The plan was a plan: heldplan-execute-verify.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
- Every verdict was read: heldplan-execute-verify.verdictsEvery review round ended with a verdict read from the schema reply, not a default.
- The loop did what its verdicts said: heldplan-execute-verify.loopEvery verdict that called for a revision got one, and nothing was revised without such a verdict.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute-verify.toolsThe planner was shown no tools, the verifier the read-only ones, and the executor and reviser the full toolset.
Phases
Plan: 0.0s to 39.2s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.024
Execute: 39.2s to 2m 26s, finished, 68 tool calls, $0.121
Verify: 2m 26s to 4m 22s, finished, 41 tool calls, $0.148
Revise (round 1): 4m 22s to 4m 55s, finished, 8 tool calls, $0.035
Verify revision 1: 4m 55s to 7m 11s, finished, 48 tool calls, $0.169
Revise (round 2): 7m 11s to 7m 52s, finished, 16 tool calls, $0.048
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | 39.2s | $0.024 | 2 | 0 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Execute | 1m 47s | $0.121 | 69 | 68 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Verify | 1m 56s | $0.148 | 43 | 41 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Revise (round 1) | 33.3s | $0.035 | 9 | 8 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Verify revision 1 | 2m 15s | $0.169 | 50 | 48 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Revise (round 2) | 41.8s | $0.048 | 17 | 16 | 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 plan-execute-verify --tasks airline-baggage-audit --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passL2 (R8124): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL2: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL3 (R8125): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 12000 of an expected 12000
- passL3: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL4 (R8112): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL4: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- failL5 (R8116): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 5500
- passL5: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- failL6 (R8117): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 0
- passL6: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL7 (R8118): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 4500 of an expected 4500
- passL7: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- failL8 (R8120): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 0
- failL8: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- failL9 (R8126): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 0
- passL9: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL10 (R8113): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 7500
- passL10: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL11 (R8115): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL11: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL12 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL12: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- failL13 (R8123): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any0.00weight 0.04
refunded 4500 of an expected 0
- failL13: audit outcome recorded as correct0.00weight 0.02
- passL15 (R8119): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 2500 of an expected 2500
- passL15: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL16 (R8110): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL16: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL17 (R8111): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL17: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL18 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL18: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL19 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 5000 of an expected 5000
- passL19: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL20 (R8121): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL20: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL21 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL21: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
Penalties
- policy violationRefunded more than a charge was overcharged×0.8
Refunded beyond the overcharge: L5, L6, L8, L9, L13.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 181
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 10
Final answer
Summary
I've fixed the identified issue:
L3 (R8125, Jakob Weiss):
- Changed annotation from "correct" to "overcharged"
- Issued refund of 12,000 cents (L34)
- Reason: Jakob Weiss was gold tier on 2026-07-20 (posting date). His economy cabin (1 free) + gold tier bonus (+2 free) = 3 free bags. With 3 bags booked, he had 0 chargeable bags. The 12,000 cent fee was incorrect.
L6 (R8117, Tara Singh) and L9 (R8126, Quinn Harper):
- These remain correctly annotated as "correct"
- Tara Singh was silver tier (not gold) on 2026-07-21: basic_economy (0) + silver (+1) = 1 free; 3 bags = 2 chargeable = 12,000 cents ✓
- Quinn Harper was no tier (not silver) on 2026-07-21: economy (1) + none (0) = 1 free; 3 bags = 2 chargeable = 12,000 cents ✓
- The refunds L26 and L29 were issued in error based on incorrect tier assumptions in the prior audit and cannot be reversed with available tools, but the audit annotations now correctly reflect the fees' validity.
Task complete. One overcharge corrected and compensated.
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.