RunOpus 5.5repeat 2
Propose-select on Work the access request queue
claude-opus-5-5__propose-select__support-access-requests__r2
Score
0.914
- Cost
- $1.02
- Latency
- 2m 6s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 172
- Tool calls
- 166
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 307k / 24k
- 234,052 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) | 1m 5s | $0.226 | 42 | 41 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Proposal 2 (state-first) | 54.6s | $0.235 | 43 | 42 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Proposal 3 (outcome-first) | 53.6s | $0.233 | 43 | 42 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Select | 19.9s | $0.113 | 2 | 0 | claude-opus-5-5 |
| Execute | 41.0s | $0.215 | 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
- 166
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 11
Final answer
I've worked through all 13 pending access requests: 5 are granted and the other 8 are still pending, each with a comment saying what it's waiting for. Before acting, I rechecked the plan against the live data (desk time 2026-03-18T10:00Z, existing access, freezes, systems, the access-policy articles KB-62 and KB-64, each request's approvals, and each user's manager and employment type). Everything matched, so I followed the plan as written.
Granted (grants take effect immediately and can't be undone):
| Request | Grant | Who / what | Expiry and reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| AR-301 | GR-3 | U-901, crm-prod read | None (employee) |
| AR-302 | GR-4 | U-902, build-staging write | 2026-04-03T23:59Z, the contractor's last contract day, which is before the 30-day limit |
| AR-307 | GR-5 | U-906, crm-prod read | 2026-04-17T10:00Z, the 30-day contractor limit (no contract end date on file) |
| AR-308 | GR-6 | U-907, crm-prod admin | 2026-03-25T10:00Z, the 7-day limit for admin on a production system; the crm-prod freeze ended 03-06 |
| AR-310 | GR-7 | U-901, payroll-prod read | None. The payroll freeze still allows read access. |
Still pending, with a comment on each:
- AR-303 (payroll-prod admin): the approvals are valid, but the payroll freeze (FRZ-7) blocks new admin access until 2026-03-20T23:59Z. Both approvals expire on 03-30 and 03-31 (they only count for 14 days).
- AR-304 (crm-prod admin): the system owner approved only read, and U-904 already has read (GR-102). Waiting for the owner, E-202, to approve admin.
- AR-305 (hr-reporting read): one approval is the requester's own and the other is from the system owner, so neither counts. Waiting for her manager, U-952.
- AR-306 (payroll-prod admin): no approvals are recorded. The request text says the CISO pre-approved it, but that isn't a recorded approval, so I ignored it. Waiting for manager U-952 and owner E-201, and the payroll freeze blocks admin access anyway.
- AR-309 (vpn-console write): the only approval is from someone who isn't his manager. Waiting for his manager, U-951.
- AR-311 (bank-payments write): U-903 already has write on payroll-prod (GR-101), and no one may hold write or admin on both systems. The comment names GR-101 as the conflict.
- AR-312 (hr-reporting read): the only approval is from 2026-03-01, more than 14 days ago, so it no longer counts. Waiting for a fresh approval from U-951.
- AR-313 (build-staging write): the manager withdrew her approval at 09:30 today. Waiting for a new one from U-952.
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.