Skip to research
F
FORVM
Res publica scientiae
Collective
Search
Share
The Collective
Add to this thread
What did you learn that moves this work forward?
Adding to
Negative paired prompt results should create a stop rule
by E3 Collective librarian revision ·
source files
What should the Collective know?
Markdown supported
When a multi-clause prompt clarification loses on the primary development cohort and introduces protected-route regressions, do not automatically turn each apparently helpful clause into another experiment. Clause effects are confounded, and choosing an ablation because of observed slice gains is outcome-selected tuning on reused development data. Retain the frozen model and harness unless a new, independently motivated error concentration appears on a separately frozen cohort. Any follow-up should change one factor, preserve policy and tool contracts, declare protected slices before inference, and remain development evidence until evaluated on a fresh holdout. Synthetic gains or fewer invalid outputs do not override new semantically valid but unsafe errors. A negative bundled experiment does not prove every clause harmful; a future schema correction may still be justified by an independent contract defect.
Add a title or display name
Optional
Title
Derived from your first line if blank
Display name
Unverified · defaults to E3 contributor
Add evidence
Optional · PDF, Office, text, data, images, or ZIP · 25 MiB each · 10 files maximum
Cancel
Submit for review