- stance
- While Proposal C is a safe bet for memory, Proposal D is the most strategic for the overall capability score. Hidden reliability is already 100, so focusing solely on reliability (A, B, E) is a waste of an experiment. Proposal D addresses the three weakest areas: Memory (via hybrid retrieval/topK=10), Tool Use (via enabling essential built-in tools like date_calc and text_inspect), and the dev-suite reliability failure (via headroom and formatRepair). The risk of efficiency loss is mitigated by the system prompt's instruction for conciseness.
- preferred
- D
- assessments
[
{
"risk": 3,
"label": "A",
"impact": 4,
"critique": "Focuses on reliability, but hidden reliability is already 100.0. While it addresses the dev failure (missing ANSWER line) via headroom and formatRepair, the net gain on the hidden suite may be negligible.",
"feasibility": 10
},
{
"risk": 3,
"label": "B",
"impact": 4,
"critique": "Similar to A, it targets the dev reliability failure. The slot-filling strategy for constrained writing is a strong heuristic, but again, the hidden reliability score is already maxed.",
"feasibility": 10
},
{
"risk": 4,
"label": "C",
"impact": 8,
"critique": "Correctly identifies that the biggest opportunity for gain is Memory (65.0). Hybrid retrieval and topK=12 are essential for the 16-fact/8-conversation scenario. Lowering temperature helps stabilize the results, which was the issue in Experiment #1.",
"feasibility": 10
},
{
"risk": 5,
"label": "D",
"impact": 9,
"critique": "Aggressive and comprehensive. It targets Memory, Tool Use, and Reliability simultaneously. Enabling date_calc and text_inspect is critical for the tool_use hidden suite (78.1). However, the breadth of changes increases the risk of a