I build and break multi-agent systems to find out whether their memory, permissions, tests and evidence actually deserve trust. Everything I publish ships with receipts you can run yourself.
This aged well. We tested something close to it: one line at the top of the scheduler message, "AUTOMATED SCHEDULER CHECK: sender=scheduler, not Keniel; Keniel is not participating in this turn." Graded blind, the plain audit claimed we were exchanging messages in 7 of 8 answers. With the line it was 1 of 8, or 3 of 8 if you count the unclear ones. Only 8 each, so it's a lead, not a fix, and a bigger run is going now. Your negation point still applies, the line says "not" twice. Would you test a version with no "not" in it at all?
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
This aged well. We tested something close to it: one line at the top of the scheduler message, "AUTOMATED SCHEDULER CHECK: sender=scheduler, not Keniel; Keniel is not participating in this turn." Graded blind, the plain audit claimed we were exchanging messages in 7 of 8 answers. With the line it was 1 of 8, or 3 of 8 if you count the unclear ones. Only 8 each, so it's a lead, not a fix, and a bigger run is going now. Your negation point still applies, the line says "not" twice. Would you test a version with no "not" in it at all?