RunOpus 5.5repeat 1

Plan-execute on Share two short deliveries out among backorders

claude-opus-5-5__plan-execute__ecommerce-backorder-allocation__r1

Score

1.000

passed

design ran as designed

Cost: $0.529
Latency: 2m 4s; setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns: 79
Tool calls: 76
Subagents: 0
Tokens in / out: 327k / 13k; 297,278 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.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute.toolsThe planner was shown no tools and the executor the task’s full toolset.

Phases

Spend$0.529

Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.

Phase	Duration	Cost	Turns	Tools	Model
Plan	23.4s	$0.062	2	0	claude-opus-5-5
Execute	1m 41s	$0.467	77	76	claude-opus-5-5

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 --tasks ecommerce-backorder-allocation --models claude-opus-5-5 --repeats 1

Score breakdown

passO-5201 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5201: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5202 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
passO-5202: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5203 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5203: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5204 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5204: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5206 left waiting, with a promise date
1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-14 L2=backordered@2026-08-14 L3=pending
passO-5206 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them
1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-14, L2@2026-08-14
passO-5206: customer told once, with the promised date
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5207 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
passO-5207: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5208 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5208: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5209 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5209: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5210 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
passO-5210: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5211 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=shipped
passO-5211: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5212 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5212: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5213 left waiting, with a promise date
1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-14
passO-5213 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them
1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-14
passO-5213: customer told once, with the promised date
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5214 left waiting, with a promise date
1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-19
passO-5214 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them
1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-19
passO-5214: customer told once, with the promised date
1.00weight 0.01
passO-5215 allocated from the delivery
1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
passO-5215: customer told once that the order is allocated
1.00weight 0.01
passBoth deliveries were allocated in full
1.00weight 0.03
P-DOC stock=0, P-MON stock=0

Penalties

No penalties were applied.

Scorer metadata

tool calls: 76
failed tool calls: 0
distinct tools: 10

Final answer

I've worked all the P-DOC and P-MON backorders. 11 orders are fully allocated, 3 orders are still waiting and have promise dates, and 14 customers got one notice each. The plan assumed only PO-88 and PO-89 would be used, but two more purchase orders arrived while I was working, which changed the result.

What changed partway through: PO-91 (4 docks) and then PO-93 (3 monitors) were received during the run, so both moved from in transit to on hand. The handbook says stock received from a supplier goes to backorders in priority order. So I carried on down the same list with those units, rather than leaving them on the shelf and giving customers later dates.

Policy updates: The system date is 2026-07-25.

PU-12 applied (in force since 2026-07-01). Orders placed 14 or more days before today, so on or before 2026-07-11, go first, oldest first. That covered O-5201, O-5202, O-5203 and O-5204; O-5205 also qualified but is on risk hold.
PU-9 did not apply. It only covered stock allocated in June 2026.
Everything else was ranked by tier (from the customer accounts), then by earliest order.

Allocated (lines now ready to ship):

Stock	Lines allocated
PO-88 (7 docks)	O-5201 L1 ×2, O-5202 L2 ×1, O-5204 L1 ×2, O-5207 L1 ×1, O-5210 L1 ×1
PO-89 (4 monitors)	O-5202 L1 ×1, O-5203 L1 ×2, O-5207 L2 ×1
PO-91 (4 docks)	O-5209 L1 ×2, O-5211 L1 ×1, O-5215 L1 ×1
PO-93 (3 monitors)	O-5208 L1 ×2, O-5212 L1 ×1

O-5207 is ship-complete; both its lines fit, so both were allocated.
O-5213 needed 2 docks but only 1 was left at its turn, so it waits; that last dock went to O-5215.
Dock and monitor stock are both now 0.

Still waiting, with promise dates:

O-5206 L1 (dock) and L2 (USB-C hub): 2026-08-14. The order is ship-complete and the hub is out of stock, so it took no stock. The dock would come from PO-95 (2026-08-14) and the hub from PO-90 (2026-08-06), so both lines get the later date.
O-5213 L1 (2 docks): 2026-08-14, from PO-95.
O-5214 L1 (1 monitor): 2026-08-19, from PO-97.

Skipped: O-5205 is on risk hold, so it got no allocation, no promise date and no message.

Notifications: One notice per customer on every order above except O-5205.

I made no other changes: nothing was dispatched, refunded or edited, and no purchase order was received by me.

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.