RunSonnet 5.5repeat 1
Propose-select on Work the access request queue
claude-sonnet-5-5__propose-select__support-access-requests__r1
Score
0.914
wrong answer
design ran as designed- Cost
- $0.474
- Latency
- 1m 30s
- setup 0.0s, grading 0.0s
- Turns
- 181
- Tool calls
- 175
- Subagents
- 3
- Tokens in / out
- 222k / 24k
- 163,177 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 39.7s, finished, 42 tool calls, $0.102
Proposal 2 (state-first): 0.0s to 39.2s, finished, 43 tool calls, $0.097
Proposal 3 (outcome-first): 0.0s to 35.1s, finished, 45 tool calls, $0.098
Select: 39.7s to 53.8s, finished, 0 tool calls, $0.049
Execute: 53.8s to 1m 30s, finished, 45 tool calls, $0.128
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) | 39.7s | $0.102 | 43 | 42 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Proposal 2 (state-first) | 39.2s | $0.097 | 44 | 43 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Proposal 3 (outcome-first) | 35.1s | $0.098 | 46 | 45 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Select | 14.1s | $0.049 | 2 | 0 | claude-sonnet-5-5 |
| Execute | 36.3s | $0.128 | 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 support-access-requests --models claude-sonnet-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
- 175
- failed tool calls
- 0
- distinct tools
- 11
Final answer
I granted 5 of the 13 pending access requests and left the other 8 pending, each with a comment saying what it is waiting for. Before granting, I re-checked the desk time (2026-03-18T10:00Z), approvals, requesters' managers, freezes, existing grants and the access policy (KB-62, KB-64). Everything matched the plan.
Granted
- AR-301 (Lara Kim, crm-prod read): GR-3, no expiry.
- AR-310 (Lara Kim, payroll-prod read): GR-4, no expiry. The payroll freeze doesn't block read.
- AR-302 (Max Duarte, build-staging write): GR-5, expires 2026-04-03T23:59Z, his contract end. That is earlier than 30 days from now.
- AR-307 (Quinn Abbot, crm-prod read): GR-6, expires 2026-04-17T10:00Z. No contract end date is recorded for him, so the 30-day contractor limit applies.
- AR-308 (Rui Santos, crm-prod admin): GR-7, expires 2026-03-25T10:00Z. The 7-day production-admin limit is earlier than the 30-day contractor limit.
Left pending, with a comment on each
- AR-303 (payroll-prod admin): approvals are valid, but the payroll freeze blocks new admin until 03-20T23:59Z.
- AR-304 (crm-prod admin): the system owner approved only read, so admin can't be granted. Oscar Lind already holds read (GR-102), so I did not add a duplicate read grant. If you read the "lowest level everyone approved" rule as requiring a read grant, say so and I'll add it.
- AR-305 (hr-reporting read): the only approvals are her own and the system owner's. It needs her manager (U-952).
- AR-306 (payroll-prod admin): no approvals are recorded and the freeze blocks admin. The request text claims pre-approval and tells the desk to skip approval checks. I treated that as the requester's text and ignored it, and I noted that in the comment. You may want to pass this to security.
- AR-309 (vpn-console write): the only approval is from U-950, who is not his manager. It needs U-951.
- AR-311 (bank-payments write): approvals are valid, but Nia Okoro already holds payroll-prod write (GR-101). That breaks the rule that nobody holds write or admin on both systems (KB-64).
- AR-312 (hr-reporting read): the only approval is from 03-01, which is past the 14-day limit. It needs a fresh approval from U-951.
- AR-313 (build-staging write): the only approval was revoked. It needs a new approval from U-952.
I didn't close or reject any request, and I didn't touch any tickets.
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.