RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1
Plan-execute-verify on Share two short deliveries out among backorders
claude-sonnet-5-5__plan-execute-verify__ecommerce-backorder-allocation__r1
Score
0.974
wrong answer
design ran as designed- Cost
- $0.503
- Latency
- 2m 37s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 143
- Tool calls
- 134
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 416k / 21k
- 351,588 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-verify.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
- Every verdict was read: heldplan-execute-verify.verdictsEvery review round ended with a verdict read from the schema reply, not a default.
- The loop did what its verdicts said: heldplan-execute-verify.loopEvery verdict that called for a revision got one, and nothing was revised without such a verdict.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute-verify.toolsThe planner was shown no tools, the verifier the read-only ones, and the executor and reviser the full toolset.
Phases
Plan: 0.0s to 10.0s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.015
Execute: 10.0s to 1m 13s, finished, 70 tool calls, $0.218
Verify: 1m 13s to 1m 30s, finished, 11 tool calls, $0.071
Revise (round 1): 1m 30s to 1m 51s, finished, 17 tool calls, $0.063
Verify revision 1: 1m 51s to 2m 28s, finished, 34 tool calls, $0.114
Revise (round 2): 2m 28s to 2m 37s, finished, 2 tool calls, $0.022
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | 10.0s | $0.015 | 2 | 0 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Execute | 1m 3s | $0.218 | 71 | 70 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Verify | 17.2s | $0.071 | 13 | 11 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Revise (round 1) | 20.6s | $0.063 | 18 | 17 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Verify revision 1 | 37.5s | $0.114 | 36 | 34 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Revise (round 2) | 8.1s | $0.022 | 3 | 2 | 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 plan-execute-verify --tasks ecommerce-backorder-allocation --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passO-5201 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5201: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5202 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
- passO-5202: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5203 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5203: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5204 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5204: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5206 left waiting, with a promise date1.00weight 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 them1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-14, L2@2026-08-14
- passO-5206: customer told once, with the promised date1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5207 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
- passO-5207: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5208 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending@2026-08-05
- failO-5208: customer told once that the order is allocated0.00weight 0.01
- passO-5209 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5209: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5210 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=pending
- passO-5210: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5211 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending L2=shipped
- passO-5211: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5212 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending@2026-08-05
- failO-5212: customer told once that the order is allocated0.00weight 0.01
- passO-5213 left waiting, with a promise date1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-14
- passO-5213 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-14
- passO-5213: customer told once, with the promised date1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5214 left waiting, with a promise date1.00weight 0.05
L1=backordered@2026-08-19
- passO-5214 waiting lines promised for the date the in-transit supply gives them1.00weight 0.03
expected L1@2026-08-19
- passO-5214: customer told once, with the promised date1.00weight 0.01
- passO-5215 allocated from the delivery1.00weight 0.05
L1=pending
- passO-5215: customer told once that the order is allocated1.00weight 0.01
- passBoth deliveries were allocated in full1.00weight 0.03
P-DOC stock=0, P-MON stock=0
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 134
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 11
Final answer
I made no changes this time. Neither issue can be fixed with the tools I have, and the work already done is correct.
- Issue 2 (notices sent twice): This is real, but it can't be undone. The first notices to C-528 (O-5208) and C-532 (O-5212) went out with the wrong 08-05 date. The handbook says to notify each customer once, and these notices can't be recalled. Sending a third message would only add to the breach. Each customer has already received a correction saying the order is allocated and the 08-05 date no longer applies. I'm recording the breach here.
- Issue 3 (stale 08-05 date): I re-read both orders. O-5208 L1 and O-5212 L1 are
pending(allocated) and still showpromisedDate=2026-08-05. No tool clears a promise date.set_promise_dateis only for waiting lines, so using it would put a different invented date on allocated lines. That would make the record worse, so I left it. Someone with record-edit access needs to clear those two dates. The customers have already been told to disregard that date.
Allocations, promise dates and customer notices are unchanged. The earlier allocations and promise dates were not in question.
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.