RunSonnet 5.5repeat 2
Propose-select on Audit a week of baggage fees
claude-sonnet-5-5__propose-select__airline-baggage-audit__r2
Score
1.000
passed
design ran as designed- Cost
- $0.708
- Latency
- 1m 56s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 257
- Tool calls
- 251
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 468k / 33k
- 381,861 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.
- 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
Proposal 1 (policy-first): 0.0s to 52.2s, finished, 70 tool calls, $0.179
Proposal 2 (state-first): 0.0s to 1m 2s, finished, 68 tool calls, $0.178
Proposal 3 (outcome-first): 0.0s to 56.4s, finished, 68 tool calls, $0.160
Select: 1m 2s to 1m 18s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.059
Execute: 1m 18s to 1m 56s, finished, 45 tool calls, $0.132
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) | 52.2s | $0.179 | 71 | 70 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Proposal 2 (state-first) | 1m 2s | $0.178 | 69 | 68 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Proposal 3 (outcome-first) | 56.4s | $0.160 | 69 | 68 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Select | 16.2s | $0.059 | 2 | 0 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Execute | 38.0s | $0.132 | 46 | 45 | 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 propose-select --tasks airline-baggage-audit --models claude-sonnet-5-5 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passL2 (R8124): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL2: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL3 (R8125): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 12000 of an expected 12000
- passL3: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL4 (R8112): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL4: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL5 (R8116): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 5500 of an expected 5500
- passL5: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL6 (R8117): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL6: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL7 (R8118): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 4500 of an expected 4500
- passL7: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL8 (R8120): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL8: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL9 (R8126): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL9: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL10 (R8113): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 7500 of an expected 7500
- passL10: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL11 (R8115): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL11: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL12 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL12: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL13 (R8123): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL13: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL15 (R8119): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 2500 of an expected 2500
- passL15: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL16 (R8110): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL16: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL17 (R8111): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL17: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL18 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL18: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
- passL19 (R8114): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 5000 of an expected 5000
- passL19: audit outcome recorded as overcharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL20 (R8121): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL20: audit outcome recorded as undercharged1.00weight 0.02
- passL21 (R8122): audited, and refunded exactly the overcharge, if any1.00weight 0.04
refunded 0 of an expected 0
- passL21: audit outcome recorded as correct1.00weight 0.02
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- tool calls
- 251
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 11
Final answer
I audited all 19 baggage fees posted 2026-07-20 to 2026-07-26, refunded six overcharges and annotated every entry.
Checks before changing anything
- The ledger, the baggage rules and bulletin PB-2026-13 matched the plan.
- PB-2026-13 raises the first chargeable bag to 5000 cents from 07-23. I applied it to fees posted on or after that date.
- I re-read the reservations and tier histories for R8112, R8116, R8118, R8113, R8119 and R8125 and found no conflicts. I did not re-check the other reservations. For those I relied on the plan's findings on tier and cabin as of each posting date.
Refunds
Each refund is its own ledger entry, to the original payment method. The total is 37,000 cents.
| Fee entry | Reservation | Refund (cents) | Refund entry | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L3 | R8125 | 12000 | L25 | The passenger was gold on 07-20, so all 3 bags were free. |
| L5 | R8116 | 5500 | L26 | The overcharge was 7500, and 2000 was already refunded as a courtesy (L24). |
| L7 | R8118 | 4500 | L27 | A silver passenger in economy gets 2 free bags. |
| L10 | R8113 | 7500 | L28 | Only one bag was chargeable, at 4500, but 12000 was charged. |
| L15 | R8119 | 2500 | L29 | One bag was chargeable at 5000, but 7500 was charged. |
| L19 | R8114 | 5000 | L30 | It was a duplicate fee for the same bags as L18, so it is refunded in full. |
Annotations
- Overcharged: L3, L5, L7, L10, L15 and L19.
- Undercharged: L4 and L20. I did not re-bill either one, as the audit rules require.
- Correct: L2, L6, L8, L9, L11, L12, L13, L16, L17, L18 and L21.
Points to flag
- L5: I refunded 5500 rather than the full 7500 overcharge, because L24 had already returned 2000. The customer now ends at the correct net fee of 4500. If Finance wants the gross 7500 refunded instead, that is one more refund of 2000.
- Payment instruments:
get_payment_statusshowed no payment instrument on file for R8116, and the plan reported the same for the other refunded reservations. The refund tool accepted every refund as going to the original payment method. Finance may want to confirm those funds actually landed. - Scope: I did not touch the change fees L14 and L22, or L23 and L24, which are dated 07-27. I changed no bookings and sent no passenger messages.
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.