Upload v4-HOT/explanatory/pilot/20260524_111423.json with huggingface_hub

v4-HOT/explanatory/pilot/20260524_111423.json

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
   "condition": "explanatory",
   "run_mode": "pilot",
   "started_at": "2026-05-24T11:14:23.811480+10:00",
-  "ended_at": "2026-05-24T11:15:24.416325+10:00",
+  "ended_at": "2026-05-24T11:15:32.083510+10:00",
   "model": "gpt-5.4-nano-2026-03-17",
   "case_id": "ai-predictive-analytics",
   "perfect_answer": {
@@ -48,6 +48,14 @@
       "directive": "Stay on this thread: unpack what it means for a teacher to treat someone’s progress as “fragile” because of the label. Anchor on their concern that support changes. Push for one concrete classroom behavior shift (what the teacher does differently day-to-day) and then one plausible learning-outcome effect that follows from that shift. End with an open question about which part—teacher actions or the student’s response—matters most to them.",
       "reason": "the participant is asking for a concrete explanation of how teachers treating progress as “fragile” changes the student’s experience and learning outcomes",
       "latency_ms": 2815
+    },
+    {
+      "live_subprobe_id": 1,
+      "advanced_this_turn": false,
+      "turn_type": "engaging-default",
+      "directive": "Stay on this point about the teacher’s stance shift. Anchor on their question about a “strongest argument” for tighter, protective support being helpful. Push them to specify one clear mechanism for benefit (not just intent): how the teacher’s earlier action changes what the student does and learns. Land on one open question asking what condition makes the benefit most likely rather than harm.",
+      "reason": "They asked for the strongest argument for why tighter protective support could help and whether there are scenarios where it’s beneficial.",
+      "latency_ms": 2167
     }
   ],
   "turns": [
@@ -152,6 +160,32 @@
         "main_ms": 6278,
         "total_ms": 9100
       }
+    },
+    {
+      "n": 5,
+      "timestamp": "2026-05-24T11:15:32.083496+10:00",
+      "user_message": "When you mentioned that the teacher's approach can shift from “this person is still learning” to a more protective stance, what would be the strongest argument for why that might actually help a student instead of harm them? Could there be scenarios where that tighter support might be beneficial?",
+      "manager_verdict": {
+        "live_subprobe_id": 1,
+        "advanced_this_turn": false,
+        "turn_type": "engaging-default",
+        "directive": "Stay on this point about the teacher’s stance shift. Anchor on their question about a “strongest argument” for tighter, protective support being helpful. Push them to specify one clear mechanism for benefit (not just intent): how the teacher’s earlier action changes what the student does and learns. Land on one open question asking what condition makes the benefit most likely rather than harm.",
+        "reason": "They asked for the strongest argument for why tighter protective support could help and whether there are scenarios where it’s beneficial.",
+        "latency_ms": 2167
+      },
+      "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: Rights, privacy, and real choice (consent and how labels shape treatment)\nprobe: Look at what real choice a student has, beyond just using the learning platform. Could a student refuse this use in a way that actually stops predictions from guiding anything?\nrationale: The draft worries that “something feels wrong” but it stays vague. This probe turns that into a clear check: privacy and consent are not just about data access, but about whether the student can opt out in a meaningful way.\nanchor: \"Something about it feels wrong.\"\n\nDIRECTIVE for this turn:\nStay on this point about the teacher’s stance shift. Anchor on their question about a “strongest argument” for tighter, protective support being helpful. Push them to specify one clear mechanism for benefit (not just intent): how the teacher’s earlier action changes what the student does and learns. Land on one open question asking what condition makes the benefit most likely rather than harm.\n=== END PLAN CONTROL ===",
+      "assistant_response": "On the “protective stance” idea, the strongest case for benefit is when earlier, tighter action actually changes what the student does next, not just how the teacher feels about them. The teacher’s earlier intervention can give the student feedback and resources while there is still time to course-correct, so the student adjusts study habits and closes gaps before they become entrenched. The condition that most determines whether this helps rather than harms is when the extra support is timed early enough to restore autonomy and recovery, instead of locking into “rescue mode.”",
+      "scratch": {
+        "chosen_target": 1,
+        "response_summary": "Taught the clearest benefit mechanism for a more protective teacher stance, then stated the key condition that makes benefit more likely than harm.",
+        "directive_followed": "yes"
+      },
+      "latency_s": {
+        "manager_ms": 2167,
+        "ttft_ms": 4052,
+        "main_ms": 5489,
+        "total_ms": 7662
+      }
     }
   ],
   "feedback": [],
@@ -223,13 +257,13 @@
   },
   "upload_errors": [],
   "session_summary": {
-    "n_turns": 4,
-    "n_manager_verdicts": 4,
+    "n_turns": 5,
+    "n_manager_verdicts": 5,
     "n_transitions": 0,
     "n_plan_completes": 0,
     "subprobe_coverage": {
       "1": {
-        "engaging_default": 2,
+        "engaging_default": 3,
         "other": 2
       }
     },