For now, I took a quick look:
What stands out to me here is that these traces may be more useful as control-loop traces than as correctness demos.
The paired examples are actually helpful precisely because the same kind of control request can sit next to both a good trajectory and a bad one. A FOCUS can stabilize something correct, but stabilizing the current trajectory is not the same thing as making that trajectory correct. Likewise, SPIKE/ EXPLORE can produce useful escape in one run and extra wandering in another.
So I think the cleanest decomposition is something like:
current state
↓
REQUEST selection
↓
gate / effective runtime action
↓
change in the subsequent trajectory
↓
task result
Those are four different things that can succeed or fail independently.
That separation also seems nicely aligned with the older Model-Requested Adrenaline setup you described here: the interesting question now is less “can the model emit FOCUS?” and more “what did it see, what did it request, what did the runtime actually do, and what changed afterward?”
If I were choosing the lowest-cost next step, I would probably not start with a large benchmark. I would take one request event and make its provenance/order completely explicit.
Something like:
decoded token(s)
↓
REQUEST detected
↓
gate decision
↓
effective action actually fired
↓
runtime state / telemetry change
↓
next forward step
↓
subsequent decoded text
For future readers, it would also help a lot if the trace distinguishes these three sources when they happen to look similar in text:
MODEL: text actually decoded by the model
RUNTIME: text/state injected or generated by the harness
DISPLAY: annotation added only for the human-readable trace
In particular, I would not want to infer the provenance of lines such as [INTERNAL MONITOR: ...] or [ACTIVE SYSTEM: ...] from the typography alone.
The exact commit/branch/harness that produced the September 4 traces would probably be the single most useful breadcrumb, because there have been several Niodoo/Path-B variants and the exact event ordering matters here.
The small control I think would give the most information So my default next move would be very small:
If those four pieces line up, then I think the pre-request latent-state question becomes much more interesting — and the existing traces give you a good set of naturally occurring examples to start from.