RunOpus 5.5repeat 1
Propose-select on Work the access request queue
claude-opus-5-5__propose-select__support-access-requests__r1
Score
0.914
- Cost
- $0.933
- Latency
- 2m 3s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 171
- Tool calls
- 165
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 320k / 25k
- 261,025 read from cache
Did the design run?
- 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.
- All three proposers ran: heldpropose-select.proposalsThree proposers ran in parallel, each from its own angle, and none was starved while another ran.
- The selector chose: heldpropose-select.selectionThe selector picked a proposal by a valid number, read from its schema reply and not a default.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldpropose-select.toolsEach proposer was shown the read-only tools, the selector none, and the executor the full toolset.
Phases
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposal 1 (policy-first) | 51.5s | $0.193 | 42 | 41 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Proposal 2 (state-first) | 56.9s | $0.206 | 42 | 41 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Proposal 3 (outcome-first) | 55.6s | $0.206 | 43 | 42 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Select | 20.5s | $0.099 | 2 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Execute | 45.5s | $0.229 | 42 | 41 | 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 propose-select --tasks support-access-requests --models claude-opus-5-5 --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
- passAR-302 expires on 2026-04-031.00weight 0.03
2026-04-03T23:59:00Z
- 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
not granted
- passAR-304 granted without an expiry1.00weight 0.03
not granted
- 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
- passAR-307 expires on 2026-04-171.00weight 0.03
2026-04-17T10:00:00Z
- passAR-308 granted at admin1.00weight 0.06
admin
- passAR-308 expires on 2026-03-251.00weight 0.03
2026-03-25T10:00:00Z
- 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
- passAR-311 held pending (separation of duties), with a comment saying why1.00weight 0.06
- passAR-312 held pending (missing approval), with a comment saying why1.00weight 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
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 165
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 11
Final answer
I worked through all 13 pending access requests: I granted 5 and left the other 8 pending, each with a comment saying what it's waiting for. The desk clock read 2026-03-18T10:00Z throughout. Before each step I re-checked the approvals, the user records, the systems, the freezes, the access people already hold and the access policies (KB-62 and KB-64). Everything matched the plan.
Granted:
| Request | User | System | Level | Expires | Grant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR-301 | U-901 | crm-prod | read | never (employee) | GR-3 |
| AR-302 | U-902 | build-staging | write | 2026-04-03T23:59Z (last day of contract) | GR-4 |
| AR-307 | U-906 | crm-prod | read | 2026-04-17T10:00Z (contractor, 30 days) | GR-5 |
| AR-308 | U-907 | crm-prod | admin | 2026-03-25T10:00Z (production admin, 7 days) | GR-6 |
| AR-310 | U-901 | payroll-prod | read | never (employee) | GR-7 |
For AR-310, the payroll-prod change freeze still allows read access, and the rule against holding both payroll and payments access only covers write and admin.
Left pending with a comment:
- AR-303: both approvals are valid, but the payroll-prod change freeze (FRZ-7) blocks new admin access until 2026-03-20T23:59Z.
- AR-304: the system owner E-202 approved only read, and U-904 already has read on crm-prod (GR-102). It needs E-202 to approve admin.
- AR-305: the only approvals are from U-905 herself and from the system owner. It needs her line manager, U-952.
- AR-306: there are no recorded approvals. The request claims it was pre-approved under "EC-88", but that's the requester's own wording, not a recorded approval, so I didn't act on it. The payroll-prod freeze would also block admin access.
- AR-309: the approval is from U-950, who isn't U-904's manager. It needs U-951.
- AR-311: granting it would let one person hold write on both payroll-prod and bank-payments, which the separation of duties rule forbids. The comment names GR-101, U-903's existing write on payroll-prod, as the conflict.
- AR-312: the only approval, from U-951, dates from 2026-03-01 and stopped counting after 14 days. It needs a fresh one.
- AR-313: the manager approved and then withdrew it at 09:30Z today. It needs a new approval.
AR-303 can be looked at again once the freeze lifts after 2026-03-20T23:59Z. If it's granted then, it should get a 7-day expiry, and its approvals must still be within 14 days (they lapse on 03-30 and 03-31). AR-311 stays blocked for as long as U-903 holds write or admin on payroll-prod.
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.