Upload v4-HOT/socratic/pilot/20260524_121111.json with huggingface_hub

v4-HOT/socratic/pilot/20260524_121111.json

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
   "condition": "socratic",
   "run_mode": "pilot",
   "started_at": "2026-05-24T12:11:11.661574+10:00",
-  "ended_at": "2026-05-24T12:11:48.458246+10:00",
+  "ended_at": "2026-05-24T12:11:58.698875+10:00",
   "model": "gpt-5.4-nano-2026-03-17",
   "case_id": "ai-predictive-analytics",
   "perfect_answer": {
@@ -32,6 +32,14 @@
       "directive": "Stay on the teaching-relationship angle. Pick up their point about bias reinforcement and what happens when students who aren’t active on-platform get treated as lower-probability. Push for one concrete classroom moment: how a teacher’s choice changes after seeing the predicted-success label (what they notice, what support they offer, how they follow up). End with one open question about what specific behavior you want teachers to do differently once they have that label.",
       "reason": "They argued that platform-activity prediction leads to biased treatment of students who aren’t actively engaged and proposed a tutor-based alternative, which is substantive reasoning on the label→teacher behavior thread.",
       "latency_ms": 2268
+    },
+    {
+      "live_subprobe_id": 1,
+      "advanced_this_turn": false,
+      "turn_type": "engaging-default",
+      "directive": "Stay on the label→teacher-treatment point. Anchor on their phrase “prioritize individual check-ins” and push for one concrete classroom moment: when a teacher sees (or remembers) a predicted-success label, what exact choice changes compared with doing a check-in based on the student’s current struggles? Land on one sharp tradeoff between aiming for fairness and missing the responsibility of responding to what the student shows in the moment.",
+      "reason": "They argue for concrete teacher behavior changes—check-ins based on real struggles—rather than decisions driven by predicted scores.",
+      "latency_ms": 4936
     }
   ],
   "turns": [
@@ -86,6 +94,32 @@
         "main_ms": 2883,
         "total_ms": 5157
       }
+    },
+    {
+      "n": 3,
+      "timestamp": "2026-05-24T12:11:58.698866+10:00",
+      "user_message": "I want teachers to prioritize individual check-ins with all students, especially those who may not be engaging online. Instead of relying on predicted scores, they should ask about struggles, offer support, and tap into resources that go beyond digital activity. Focusing solely on platform data risks missing vital context that could inform more effective teaching and support strategies.",
+      "manager_verdict": {
+        "live_subprobe_id": 1,
+        "advanced_this_turn": false,
+        "turn_type": "engaging-default",
+        "directive": "Stay on the label→teacher-treatment point. Anchor on their phrase “prioritize individual check-ins” and push for one concrete classroom moment: when a teacher sees (or remembers) a predicted-success label, what exact choice changes compared with doing a check-in based on the student’s current struggles? Land on one sharp tradeoff between aiming for fairness and missing the responsibility of responding to what the student shows in the moment.",
+        "reason": "They argue for concrete teacher behavior changes—check-ins based on real struggles—rather than decisions driven by predicted scores.",
+        "latency_ms": 4936
+      },
+      "plan_control": "=== PLAN CONTROL (host-managed, authoritative) ===\nturn_type: engaging-default\nlive_subprobe_id: 1\nadvanced_this_turn: False\n\nLIVE SUB-PROBE (work this one this turn):\nid: 1\nfamily: Responsibility and good teaching (teaching relationship, judgment)\nprobe: Look at how teachers might change their behavior after seeing a student’s prediction label, even if they try to be fair\nrationale: The argument rests on the idea that the label alters classroom treatment. This probe pushes the conversation from “it might” to concrete classroom moments that show the relationship shifting.\nanchor: \"Labeling students with predicted-success scores changes how teachers treat them\"\n\nDIRECTIVE for this turn:\nStay on the label→teacher-treatment point. Anchor on their phrase “prioritize individual check-ins” and push for one concrete classroom moment: when a teacher sees (or remembers) a predicted-success label, what exact choice changes compared with doing a check-in based on the student’s current struggles? Land on one sharp tradeoff between aiming for fairness and missing the responsibility of responding to what the student shows in the moment.\n=== END PLAN CONTROL ===",
+      "assistant_response": "Yeah, you’re really centering the “prioritize individual check-ins” idea and tying it to what teachers owe students in the moment. Imagine a specific classroom moment: when a teacher sees (or recalls) a predicted-success label, what exact choice would they make about who gets extra attention that would differ from a check-in that starts from the student’s current, in-the-room struggles?",
+      "scratch": {
+        "chosen_target": 1,
+        "response_summary": "Pressed for a concrete classroom moment showing how a predicted-success label changes teacher behavior compared with check-ins based on current struggles, aiming to surface the fairness-vs-responsiveness tradeoff.",
+        "directive_followed": "yes"
+      },
+      "latency_s": {
+        "manager_ms": 4936,
+        "ttft_ms": 2062,
+        "main_ms": 5294,
+        "total_ms": 10236
+      }
     }
   ],
   "feedback": [],
@@ -133,13 +167,13 @@
   },
   "upload_errors": [],
   "session_summary": {
-    "n_turns": 2,
-    "n_manager_verdicts": 2,
+    "n_turns": 3,
+    "n_manager_verdicts": 3,
     "n_transitions": 0,
     "n_plan_completes": 0,
     "subprobe_coverage": {
       "1": {
-        "engaging_default": 2,
+        "engaging_default": 3,
         "other": 0
       }
     },