Upload v5-HOT/socratic_frame/pilot/20260610_194841_64610.json with huggingface_hub

v5-HOT/socratic_frame/pilot/20260610_194841_64610.json

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
   "walkthrough_started_at": "2026-06-10T19:32:58.143000+10:00",
   "argument_submitted_at": "2026-06-10T19:48:41.805725+10:00",
   "started_at": "2026-06-10T19:48:41.805731+10:00",
-  "ended_at": "2026-06-10T20:17:29.158417+10:00",
+  "ended_at": "2026-06-10T20:17:39.546279+10:00",
   "model": "gpt-5.4-nano-2026-03-17",
   "case_id": "ai-predictive-analytics",
   "perfect_answer": {
@@ -238,6 +238,29 @@
         }
       ],
       "latency_ms": 3883
+    },
+    {
+      "live_subprobe_id": 5,
+      "advanced_this_turn": false,
+      "turn_type": "engaging-default",
+      "directive": "Current probe is other approaches that deliver earlier help with less harm than the data-heavy system. So far on this probe, you’ve proposed a non-AI alternative (“give educators more time to work on any individual course”) and you’ve now responded to the privacy-middle question by saying data use could be acceptable if it’s limited to specific educators and possibly the student themselves, while noting that whether this would likely happen is a separate question. Mark the middle-option question as answered, keep the remaining question focused on earlier-help design changes that reduce false negatives (so you can compare designs, not just set a privacy boundary), and then ask the next question from the updated queue.",
+      "reason": "The participant answered the pending middle-option question by proposing limited data use to specific educators and possibly the student, but the remaining alternative comparison question (how to reduce false negatives) is still open.",
+      "user_msg_excerpt": "It could be acceptable if data use is limited to specific eduactors and possibly the student themselves. Whether this would be likely to happen in such a scenar",
+      "question_set": [
+        {
+          "text": "If the goal is earlier help, what design change would reduce false negatives most?",
+          "status": "pending"
+        },
+        {
+          "text": "Besides adding more human educators, what other approach could deliver earlier help with less harm?",
+          "status": "asked"
+        },
+        {
+          "text": "What middle option would keep privacy risks lower than full data use?",
+          "status": "asked"
+        }
+      ],
+      "latency_ms": 5085
     }
   ],
   "turns": [
@@ -651,6 +674,49 @@
         "main_ms": 4176,
         "total_ms": 8073
       }
+    },
+    {
+      "n": 11,
+      "timestamp": "2026-06-10T20:17:39.546226+10:00",
+      "user_message": "It could be acceptable if data use is limited to specific eduactors and possibly the student themselves. Whether this would be likely to happen in such a scenario is a different question",
+      "manager_verdict": {
+        "live_subprobe_id": 5,
+        "advanced_this_turn": false,
+        "turn_type": "engaging-default",
+        "directive": "Current probe is other approaches that deliver earlier help with less harm than the data-heavy system. So far on this probe, you’ve proposed a non-AI alternative (“give educators more time to work on any individual course”) and you’ve now responded to the privacy-middle question by saying data use could be acceptable if it’s limited to specific educators and possibly the student themselves, while noting that whether this would likely happen is a separate question. Mark the middle-option question as answered, keep the remaining question focused on earlier-help design changes that reduce false negatives (so you can compare designs, not just set a privacy boundary), and then ask the next question from the updated queue.",
+        "reason": "The participant answered the pending middle-option question by proposing limited data use to specific educators and possibly the student, but the remaining alternative comparison question (how to reduce false negatives) is still open.",
+        "user_msg_excerpt": "It could be acceptable if data use is limited to specific eduactors and possibly the student themselves. Whether this would be likely to happen in such a scenar",
+        "question_set": [
+          {
+            "text": "If the goal is earlier help, what design change would reduce false negatives most?",
+            "status": "pending"
+          },
+          {
+            "text": "Besides adding more human educators, what other approach could deliver earlier help with less harm?",
+            "status": "asked"
+          },
+          {
+            "text": "What middle option would keep privacy risks lower than full data use?",
+            "status": "asked"
+          }
+        ],
+        "latency_ms": 5085
+      },
+      "plan_control": "=== PLAN CONTROL (host-managed, authoritative) ===\nturn_type: engaging-default\nlive_subprobe_id: 5\nadvanced_this_turn: False\n\nLIVE SUB-PROBE (work this one this turn):\nid: 5\ncomponent: alternatives\ngap: The draft offers adding more human educators and minimizing data collection, but it does not compare this against other plausible ways to reach earlier help with less harm.\nrationale: If only one alternative is offered, it can feel like the conclusion depends on a narrow choice. A skeptic will want to know whether the same goal could be reached with a different design that reduces the worst effects. Middle options strengthen the “this is the least harmful path” message.\nhook: You suggest the problem should be solved by providing additional human educators when the data approach is not possible; this next part looks at other ways a university could pursue earlier help with less harm.\n\nQUESTION_SET (ordered list; ask the first item with status=pending):\n  [1] (pending) If the goal is earlier help, what design change would reduce false negatives most?\n  [2] (asked) Besides adding more human educators, what other approach could deliver earlier help with less harm?\n  [3] (asked) What middle option would keep privacy risks lower than full data use?\n  ----\n  >>> ASK THIS TURN: index [1] = If the goal is earlier help, what design change would reduce false negatives most?\n\nDIRECTIVE for this turn (framing / anchor / recap instructions):\nCurrent probe is other approaches that deliver earlier help with less harm than the data-heavy system. So far on this probe, you’ve proposed a non-AI alternative (“give educators more time to work on any individual course”) and you’ve now responded to the privacy-middle question by saying data use could be acceptable if it’s limited to specific educators and possibly the student themselves, while noting that whether this would likely happen is a separate question. Mark the middle-option question as answered, keep the remaining question focused on earlier-help design changes that reduce false negatives (so you can compare designs, not just set a privacy boundary), and then ask the next question from the updated queue.\n=== END PLAN CONTROL ===",
+      "assistant_response": "Right, you’re separating “when data use is acceptable” from whether the setup would actually happen.\n\nIf the goal is earlier help, what design change would reduce false negatives most?",
+      "scratch": {
+        "turn_type_followed": "engaging-default",
+        "chosen_target": 5,
+        "asked_question_text": "If the goal is earlier help, what design change would reduce false negatives most?",
+        "response_summary": "Asked for the most impactful design change to cut false negatives while pursuing earlier help.",
+        "directive_followed": "no"
+      },
+      "latency_s": {
+        "manager_ms": 5086,
+        "ttft_ms": 5283,
+        "main_ms": 5283,
+        "total_ms": 10381
+      }
     }
   ],
   "feedback": [],
@@ -794,8 +860,8 @@
   },
   "upload_errors": [],
   "session_summary": {
-    "n_turns": 10,
-    "n_manager_verdicts": 10,
+    "n_turns": 11,
+    "n_manager_verdicts": 11,
     "n_transitions": 3,
     "n_plan_completes": 0,
     "subprobe_coverage": {
@@ -812,7 +878,7 @@
         "other": 1
       },
       "5": {
-        "engaging_default": 1,
+        "engaging_default": 2,
         "other": 1
       }
     },