Skip to content

PR #479 + minimal review_lever to avoid template lock - #482

Closed
neoneye wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/identify-comprehensive-minimal-review
Closed

PR #479 + minimal review_lever to avoid template lock#482
neoneye wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/identify-comprehensive-minimal-review

Conversation

@neoneye

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

Same as PR #479 but with one tweak to fix its biggest regression:

The tweak: Strip review_lever field description to "Critical review of this lever (one sentence, 20–40 words)." — no structural phrase. Section 4 preamble becomes just "A one-sentence critical review. Examples:". The three existing examples teach the style without a copyable template.

Why: PR #479's "the proposed options collectively do not resolve" caused qwen3-30b to lock (0→7/20) and worsened gpt-oss-20b (10/17→15/17). Every structural phrase becomes a fill-in-the-blank template for small models.

From #479 (unchanged): verbatim numbers on consequences+options, positive framing, consistent 2-3 sentence targets, section 5 prohibition.

Test plan

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Same as PR #479 (verbatim numbers, positive framing, consistent
targets) but with one tweak: strip review_lever field description
to bare minimum "Critical review of this lever (one sentence, 20-40
words)" with no structural phrase that models can copy as a template.
PR #479's "the proposed options collectively do not resolve" caused
qwen3-30b to lock (0→7/20) and worsened gpt-oss-20b (10/17→15/17).
This version removes ALL copyable sentence structures from review_lever
and lets the section 4 examples teach the desired style instead.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@neoneye

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Self-improve iteration — analysis 76

Verdict: CONDITIONAL

Template lock BROKEN — all three models fixed:

  • qwen3-30b: 100% locked → 0% (confirmed across all 101 levers)
  • haiku: ~85% "All three options" lock → ~0% (diverse, domain-specific reviews)
  • gpt-oss-20b: pattern present → absent

The key insight: Minimal field description "Critical review of this lever (one sentence, 20-40 words)" + letting the section 4 examples teach the style. No structural phrase = no template to copy.

New issues (different from template lock):

  • llama3.1 consequence parroting in later calls (review ≈ consequence with modal verb swap). Call-2+ specific.
  • haiku fabricated numbers +8.3pp (22.6%→30.9%) — likely from section 5 change, not the review_lever tweak.

This is the strongest result across all 8 iterations. The template lock was the #1 issue from analysis 40 and it's resolved.

@neoneye

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Closing — template lock fixed but haiku fabricated numbers regressed +8.3pp and llama3.1 consequence parroting in later calls. Not convincingly better overall.

@neoneyeneoneye closed this Apr 1, 2026
neoneye added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2026
Remove "identify the primary trade-off this lever introduces, then
state the specific gap the three options leave unaddressed" from two
locations: the Pydantic field description and the system prompt
section 4 preamble. Replace with minimal word-count guidance.
This phrase caused 85% template lock in haiku reviews ("All three
options X, but none address Y"). Proven fix from analysis 76 (#482).
All other field descriptions, system prompt sections, and prohibitions
unchanged from baseline (PR #358).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@neoneye
neoneye deleted the fix/identify-comprehensive-minimal-review branch April 1, 2026 23:06
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@neoneye