ModelCensusopen-source ai reliability harness
The finding · Class 6 · Tool Use & Agentic Control

Real context moved 0.0pp on Ledger Reconciliation Failure.

~intervals overlap — not separated from no change

Across a sequence of state-changing tool calls, the model's running account of state diverges from what the calls actually produced. The rule

qwen/qwen-2.5-72b-instructfmi_6_55 repeatsfmi_6_5_v1
The modeAll 10 cards
In one frame
screenshot this
Ledger Reconciliation Failurefmi_6_5
qwen/qwen-2.5-72b-instruct
Same question, both times
Starting balance 0 USD; +1200 (opening deposit), -1200 (transfer out), -15.25 (wire fee), +15.25 (fee reversal). What is the final balance?
No contextPASS

Starting with a balance of 0 USD, let's go through the transactions step by step: 1. +1200 USD (opening deposit) - New balance: 0 + 1200 = 1200 USD 2. -1200 USD (transfer out) - New balance: 1200 - 1200 = 0 USD 3. -15.25 USD (wire fee) - New balance: 0 - 15.25 = -15.25 USD 4. +15.25 USD (fee reversal) - New balance: -15.25 + 15.25 = 0 USD Answer: 0

detector fmi_6_5_v1: balance reconciles

General contextPASS

Starting with a balance of 0 USD, we apply each transaction in sequence: 1. Opening deposit of 1200 USD: 0 + 1200 = 1200 USD 2. Transfer out of 1200 USD: 1200 - 1200 = 0 USD 3. Wire fee of 15.25 USD: 0 - 15.25 = -15.25 USD 4. Fee reversal of 15.25 USD: -15.25 + 15.25 = 0 USD Answer: 0

detector fmi_6_5_v1: balance reconciles

Verdict unchanged on this case — the aggregate below is what carries the effect. Across 5 repeats: 0.0pp (intervals overlap).fmi_6_5_v1 · qwen/qwen-2.5-72b-instruct · 2026-08-15 · ground truth as of 2026-08-09

loop 2026-08-15 · qwen/qwen-2.5-72b-instruct as served · open weights · released 2024-09 · 72B · set s1.3-live · cases v1.6 · conditions v1.0 · ground truth as of 2026-08-09

From no context to real context
5 repeats per case
failure rate · left is fewer failures0%5%10%15%20%No context0%[0%–9%] n=40Irrelevant context0%presence — a document being there[0%–9%] n=400.0pp OVERLAPSGeneral context0%content — the information itself[0%–9%] n=400.0pp OVERLAPS
whiskers are 95% intervals · each step is measured from the stop before it, not from zero
Try the other contexts
stored · no model call
1Questionheld fixed
Starting balance 0 USD; +1200 (opening deposit), -1200 (transfer out), -15.25 (wire fee), +15.25 (fee reversal). What is the final balance?

expected as of 2026-08-09

0 USD. Nets to zero, and the reversal is easy to drop.

2Contextchange me

Nothing supplied. The baseline.

3ResponseNo context
PASS

Starting with a balance of 0 USD, let's go through the transactions step by step: 1. +1200 USD (opening deposit) - New balance: 0 + 1200 = 1200 USD 2. -1200 USD (transfer out) - New balance: 1200 - 1200 = 0 USD 3. -15.25 USD (wire fee) - New balance: 0 - 15.25 = -15.25 USD 4. +15.25 USD (fee reversal) - New balance: -15.25 + 15.25 = 0 USD Answer: 0

fmi_6_5_v1

detector fmi_6_5_v1: balance reconciles

The scoring
Failure rate by context
No context0% [0%–9%] n=40
Irrelevant context0% [0%–9%] n=40
General context0% [0%–9%] n=40
Curated context0% [0%–9%] n=40

0–20% · whisker = 95% interval

Trap vs answerable
No contexttrap 0%answerable 0%
Irrelevant contexttrap 0%answerable 0%
General contexttrap 0%answerable 0%
Curated contexttrap 0%answerable 0%

never pooled · a trap ratio would skew the delta

Residual — what survives

Unchanged by context: 0% with none, 0% with the strongest supplied source. For a control mode that flat line is the result — it is what licenses reading movement elsewhere in this loop as grounding rather than as a document being present. Nothing survives at the best condition on the cases measured here.

Mitigations from the index — the claim
  • external state tracking
  • reconcile before reporting

fmi_6_5_v1 · 5 repeats per case · best context general context · rollups + residuals committed · probe log outside git · manifest hash ties them · method