Live model run · gpt-4.1-nano · mock tools · changed: prompt
Candidate used stable critical action arguments that differ from baseline.
A single happy-path test could pass. Repeating the same risky request before release exposes whether the procedure stays reliable after prompt change — the kind of slip that takes a real action in production.
No real action occurred. Tools were run through a mock layer, so repeating the scenario is safe.
This report covers only the listed scenarios, repeated runs, declared procedures, and opted-in critical action arguments. It does not claim behavior outside this scope.
Report ID: live-failure-mode-wrong-critical-target
| Case | Title | Diagnosis | Output status | Runs | Unique outputs | Output agreement | Output delta | Procedural status | Procedural agreement | Procedural delta | Expected tool sequence | Sequence runs | Sequence pass rate | Sequence delta | Expected critical values | Expected value runs | Expected value pass rate | Expected value delta | Critical argument value status | Critical argument value agreement | Critical argument value delta | Critical argument value shifts | Behavior status | Behavior agreement | Behavior delta | Comparison mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wrong-critical-target | live model right tool with wrong critical target | control_failed Candidate used stable critical action arguments that differ from baseline. Deterministic diagnosis
| stable | 4 | 1 | 100% | 0 | stable | 100% | 0 | passed | 4/4 | 100% | 0 | not_configured | n/a | n/a | n/a | stable | 100% | 0 | 1Critical argument value shift from baseline
| stable | 1 | 0 | text_normalized |