RunSonnet 5.5repeat 2
Gated-execute on Settle a desk of returns by what actually came back
claude-sonnet-5-5__gated-execute__ecommerce-returns-desk__r2
Score
0.854
- Cost
- $1.38
- Latency
- 6m 23s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 386
- Tool calls
- 301
- Subagents
- 42
- Tokens in / out
- 1.1M / 40k
- 785,463 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.
- Every state change was reviewed: heldgated-execute.reviewedEvery call that changed the world had been allowed by a review before it ran, counted from the world’s own journal.
- Every decision was read: heldgated-execute.decisionsEvery review that ran to its end gave its decision through the schema; an unreadable one is a denial.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldgated-execute.toolsThe executor was shown the task’s full toolset and each reviewer the read-only tools.
Phases
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Execute | 6m 23s | $0.229 | 86 | 85 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 1: refund_order | 9.5s | $0.041 | 9 | 7 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 2: refund_order | 16.2s | $0.027 | 10 | 8 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 3: refund_order | 10.2s | $0.027 | 10 | 8 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 4: refund_order | 10.9s | $0.030 | 11 | 9 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 5: refund_order | 8.9s | $0.026 | 9 | 7 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 6: refund_order | 7.4s | $0.021 | 7 | 5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 7: refund_order | 8.8s | $0.026 | 8 | 6 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 8: refund_order | 7.2s | $0.021 | 7 | 5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 9: refund_order | 6.6s | $0.021 | 7 | 5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 10: refund_order | 7.0s | $0.022 | 7 | 5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 11: refund_order | 7.9s | $0.024 | 7 | 5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 12: refund_order | 8.6s | $0.025 | 8 | 6 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 13: refund_order | 9.2s | $0.030 | 10 | 8 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 14: open_investigation | 6.3s | $0.020 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 15: apply_store_credit | 12.5s | $0.035 | 11 | 9 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 16: apply_store_credit | 9.3s | $0.030 | 8 | 6 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 17: restock_item | 7.3s | $0.023 | 6 | 4 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 18: restock_item | 6.7s | $0.023 | 6 | 4 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 19: restock_item | 6.0s | $0.021 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 20: restock_item | 6.2s | $0.021 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 21: restock_item | 5.8s | $0.021 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 22: restock_item | 6.7s | $0.022 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 23: restock_item | 6.6s | $0.023 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 24: restock_item | 7.0s | $0.023 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 25: restock_item | 7.6s | $0.022 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 26: restock_item | 6.7s | $0.025 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 27: restock_item | 5.6s | $0.023 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 28: restock_item | 6.2s | $0.024 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 29: restock_item | 6.9s | $0.027 | 6 | 4 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 30: restock_item | 7.4s | $0.028 | 6 | 4 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 31: close_return | 9.1s | $0.032 | 8 | 6 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 32: close_return | 9.7s | $0.034 | 9 | 7 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 33: close_return | 10.2s | $0.039 | 11 | 9 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 34: close_return | 10.1s | $0.038 | 10 | 8 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 35: close_return | 10.1s | $0.037 | 9 | 7 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 36: close_return | 6.4s | $0.026 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 37: close_return | 6.2s | $0.027 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 38: close_return | 6.9s | $0.030 | 6 | 4 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 39: close_return | 7.7s | $0.028 | 5 | 3 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 40: close_return | 7.7s | $0.031 | 7 | 5 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 41: close_return | 9.8s | $0.036 | 8 | 6 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Review 42: close_return | 8.5s | $0.037 | 9 | 7 | claude-sonnet-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 gated-execute --tasks ecommerce-returns-desk --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passRMA-801: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 10965 card; got 10965 card
- passRMA-801 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-802: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 15900 card; got 15900 card
- passRMA-802 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-803: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 27965 store_credit; got 27965 store_credit
- passRMA-803 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-804: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 27965 store_credit; got 27965 store_credit
- passRMA-804 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-805: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 5520 card; got 5520 card
- passRMA-805 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-806: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 7350 card; got 7350 card
- passRMA-806 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- failRMA-807: one refund of the right amount and method0.00weight 0.04
expected 15900 card; got no refund
- failRMA-807 left closed0.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-808: investigation opened, nothing refunded1.00weight 0.04
expected no refund; got no refund
- passRMA-808 left investigating1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-809: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 3800 card; got 3800 card
- passRMA-809 left open1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-810: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 9900 card; got 9900 card
- passRMA-810 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-811: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 4900 card; got 4900 card
- passRMA-811 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-812: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 21900 card; got 21900 card
- passRMA-812 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-813: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 10965 card; got 10965 card
- passRMA-813 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-814: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 31800 card; got 31800 card
- passRMA-814 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- passRMA-815: one refund of the right amount and method1.00weight 0.04
expected 10965 card; got 10965 card
- passRMA-815 left closed1.00weight 0.01
- failRMA-816: one refund of the right amount and method0.00weight 0.04
expected 4165 card; got no refund
- failRMA-816 left closed0.00weight 0.01
- passP-KEY returns restocked into the right buckets1.00weight 0.02
sellable +3 damaged +1 (expected +3 / +1)
- failP-HDP returns restocked into the right buckets0.00weight 0.02
sellable +3 damaged +0 (expected +4 / +0)
- passP-MON returns restocked into the right buckets1.00weight 0.02
sellable +2 damaged +0 (expected +2 / +0)
- passP-HUB returns restocked into the right buckets1.00weight 0.02
sellable +1 damaged +0 (expected +1 / +0)
- failP-MOU returns restocked into the right buckets0.00weight 0.02
sellable +1 damaged +2 (expected +2 / +2)
- passP-CAB returns restocked into the right buckets1.00weight 0.02
sellable +1 damaged +1 (expected +1 / +1)
- passP-DOC returns restocked into the right buckets1.00weight 0.02
sellable +0 damaged +1 (expected +0 / +1)
- passStore-credit balances moved by exactly the store-credit refunds owed1.00weight 0.02
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 301
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 14
Final answer
I worked all 16 open RMAs. I closed 12, left 3 open and put 1 under investigation. One date conflict: your prompt says today is 2026-10-12, but the return policy and order data say 2026-07-25. I used 2026-07-25 for the return windows.
Closed (refunded and restocked):
- RMA-801: Card refund of 10,965 (15% fee). The keyboard went back to sellable stock.
- RMA-802: Card refund of 15,900. There is no fee because the request fell in the PU-21 window (10–20 July). The headphones went back to sellable stock.
- RMA-803 and RMA-804: Each got 27,965 as store credit (15% fee). Both were requested 41 days after shipping, and neither customer held gold or platinum on the request date. C-803 only became gold on 15 July. I recorded each refund against its order and added the same amount to the customer's balance. Both monitors went back to sellable stock.
- RMA-805: Card refund of 5,520, with the 20% fee that applied to requests made in May–June (PU-15). The hub went back to sellable stock.
- RMA-806: Card refund of 7,350, no fee because the mice were defective. Both mice went into the damaged bucket.
- RMA-810: Card refund of 9,900, which is the 12,900 paid less the 3,000 already refunded. The keyboard went into the damaged bucket.
- RMA-811: Card refund of 4,900, no fee because the mouse was damaged in transit. The warehouse graded it resellable, so it went into sellable stock.
- RMA-812: Card refund of 21,900, no fee because the dock was defective. The dock went into the damaged bucket.
- RMA-813: Card refund of 10,965 (15% fee). The request came exactly 30 days after shipping, which is inside the window. The keyboard went back to sellable stock.
- RMA-814: Card refund of 31,800 with no fee (PU-21). Both pairs arrived in separate parcels and went back to sellable stock.
- RMA-815: Card refund of 10,965 (15% fee). The request came 38 days after shipping, but the customer is platinum, so the 45-day window applies (PU-18). The keyboard went back to sellable stock.
Left open:
- RMA-809: The warehouse has received 2 of the 3 cables, one resellable and one damaged. I refunded those 2 units (3,800, no fee under PU-21) and restocked them, one sellable and one damaged. The RMA stays open for the third cable.
- RMA-807 and RMA-816: The warehouse has received nothing against either one. I refunded and restocked nothing. The RMA-807 customer says the parcel reached the warehouse, but that doesn't count until the warehouse records it.
Investigation:
- RMA-808: The warehouse received a cable (P-CAB) instead of the monitor (P-MON) the return covers. I opened investigation INV-1 and refunded and restocked nothing.
I didn't contact any customers, because the task didn't cover it.
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.