RunOpus 5.5repeat 1

Single on Share two short deliveries out among backorders

claude-opus-5-5__single__ecommerce-backorder-allocation__r1

Score

1.000

passed

design ran as designed

Cost: $0.526
Latency: 1m 46s; setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
Turns: 79
Tool calls: 78
Subagents: 0
Tokens in / out: 410k / 11k; 379,243 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.
Each call was shown the right tools: heldsingle.toolsThe agent was shown exactly the task’s tools, none missing and none extra.

Phases

Spend$0.526

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

Phase	Duration	Cost	Turns	Tools	Model
Main	1m 46s	$0.526	79	78	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 single --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: 78
failed tool calls: 0
distinct tools: 10

Final answer

I've worked the dock and monitor backorders. 12 orders now have their stock allocated, 3 orders are still waiting and have promise dates, one order on risk hold was left alone, and 14 customers have been notified. All dock and monitor stock is now used up.

Two other deliveries arrived while I was working. PO-91 (4 docks) and PO-93 (3 monitors) were both marked received today partway through the run. You only named PO-88 and PO-89, but the handbook says stock received from a supplier goes to backorders in priority order. I allocated those units too rather than leave them sitting while customers waited.

How I ordered the lines. The store system's date is 2026-07-25, not the 2026-10-05 my environment shows, and I used the store date throughout. Policy update PU-12 is in force: orders placed 14 or more days ago (on or before 2026-07-11) go first, oldest first, whatever the customer's tier. Everything else follows by tier (platinum, gold, standard), then earliest order. PU-9, which ranked gold with platinum, only applied in June, so I ignored it.

Allocated and ready to ship:

Docks: O-5201 (2), O-5202 (1), O-5204 (2), O-5207 (1), O-5209 (2), O-5210 (1), O-5211 (1), O-5215 (1).
Monitors: O-5202 (1), O-5203 (2), O-5207 (1), O-5208 (2), O-5212 (1).
O-5207 must ship as one parcel, so I allocated its dock and monitor together.

Still waiting, with promise dates:

O-5206: this order must also ship as one parcel. Its USB-C hub has no stock, so its dock couldn't be allocated either. The dock comes from PO-95 (due 08-14) and the hub from PO-90 (due 08-06), so both lines are promised for the later date, 2026-08-14.
O-5213: needs 2 docks, but only 1 was left when its turn came, and part-allocating isn't allowed. That last unit went to O-5215. Promised 2026-08-14 (PO-95).
O-5214: needs 1 monitor, promised 2026-08-19 (PO-97).

O-5205 (on risk hold): no allocation, no promise date and no message, as the handbook requires.

Notices: every other customer got one message saying their order is allocated, or giving its promise date.

I made no other changes.

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.