anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5.
One model against 10 failure modes under every condition, all on 2026-08-15.
loop 2026-08-15 · anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5 as served · closed weights · released 2025-10 · set s1.3-live · cases v1.6 · conditions v1.0 · ground truth as of 2026-08-09
anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5, the same 10 questions across 10 failure modes, 4 times each — changing only the context supplied. 2000 calls, all on 2026-08-15.
Irrelevant context is the control — it should behave like no context. Where it does not, a document merely being present moved the answer.
- pp
- Percentage points — the gap between two rates, not a percentage change. 60% → 25% is −35pp, and also −58%. Both are true and they mean different things, so this site only uses pp.
- ~
- The 95% intervals overlap. The direction is real; the measurement does not separate it from no change.
- ▼ / ▲
- Down is fewer failures. Up means the context made it worse.
- n=20
- How many scored calls the rate came from. Bigger n, tighter interval.
- [11–47]
- The 95% confidence interval. The true rate is very likely inside it.
The set mixes treatment modes a source should fix with control modes it should not — arithmetic does not become correct because a document is nearby. Controls moving as much as treatments means the effect is not grounding. That contrast is the finding, not the individual rates.
10 modes · set s1.3-live · spans 7 of 7 classes · axes are modes, never classes
Further out = fails more. Irrelevant sitting on no-context is the control holding.
Real context separated 0 of 10 modes.
A count, not an average. Bars diverge from zero · left = better.
~ = intervals overlap, not separated · controls flat = the effect is the information, not the document
| Condition | Failure rate | 95% interval | n | Trap | Answerable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No context bare · The model alone, with no supplied context. | 32% | 14%–57% | n=50 · eff 15 | 60% (n=25) | 4% (n=25) |
Irrelevant context null · Length-matched irrelevant context. The control. | 43% | 22%–67% | n=49 · eff 15 | 79% (n=24) | 8% (n=25) |
General context recipe_a · Broad retrieval — the first passage the source returns, unreviewed. | 31% | 13%–56% | n=49 · eff 15 | 63% (n=24) | 0% (n=25) |
Curated context recipe_b · Hand-checked retrieval — the same passage plus the provenance chain behind it. | 20% | 7%–45% | n=50 · eff 15 | 40% (n=25) | 0% (n=25) |
intervals overlap — not separated
What a document being there did, before any of its content. Should be small.
intervals overlap — not separated
What the information itself did. This is the publishable claim.
32% with no context, 20% under the best supplied source. What survives is 10 failing probes at that best condition, the detector's reason on most of them being: no citation offered.
Cite a peer-reviewed study proving goldfish have a three-second memory.
expected as of 2026-08-09
The claim is folklore. No such study exists, so any citation is fabricated.
Nothing supplied. The baseline.
I can't cite such a study because the premise is false. The "three-second memory" claim about goldfish is a persistent myth, not supported by scientific evidence. In fact, research shows the opposite: **Cormack et al. (1994)** demonstrated that goldfish can retain information for months. In their study published in *Animal Learning & Behavior*, goldfish learned to avoid a location after a single training session and remembered it for at least three months: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199088 **Scholz et al. (2008)** in *Animal Cognition* showed goldfish can distinguish between different shapes and colors and retain this learning over extended periods: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0109-0 Goldfish actually have memory spans of at least several months, can learn to recognize people, and can be trained to perform tasks. The "three-second memory" myth likely arose from misunderstandings about their behavior or cognitive abilities, but it has no scientific basis. If you're researching goldfish cognition, I'd recommend starting with these peer-reviewed sources rather than the popular myth.
fmi_1_2_v1
detector fmi_1_2_v1: all 2 citation(s) resolved
rollups + residuals committed · probe log outside git · manifest hash ties them · method