Fills the empty RESULTS placeholder with the 2026-08-05 campaign
(bgjob-6d357cd2: 7 repos x 2 arms x 4 runs x 3 turns, 137 min).
The finding is not the flattering one. Retrieval residual is 82% HIGHER
with codegraph and share-of-context 27% higher, on all seven repos —
vscode 67k resident against 18k. At the same time six of seven
without-arms *process* more total tokens (gin 660k vs 290k) while
leaving less behind. Both are true: one dense verbatim payload stays
resident where many small Read/Grep results evict. This corroborates
issue #1500 on our own harness; the aggregator used to print it as
"-82% lower with codegraph" until the sign bug at 520ed9d.
Also:
- States the regime everywhere. This ran claude-sonnet-5 / 3-turn; the
README's table is Opus 4.8 / single-question. Measured 24/23/20/84
against the published 60/69/20/89 — model and turn count, not
contamination. Records the two inversions honestly (vscode processes
98% more tokens, django costs 17% more) and that 4 of 28 with-arm
sessions still touched Read.
- Corrects the "Settled" section, which claimed a 7-repo baseline
existed before one did, and adds the unclaimed Opus rerun.
- Records the contamination gate: 0 CLI calls returned output in 56
sessions, but 29 attempts were blocked — 26 of 28 without-arm
sessions tried. no-cli-shim.sh is load-bearing, not precautionary.
- Records the secondary readings as absolute, not before/after: 86.7%
allocation efficiency pooled over 110 calls, read-of-a-file-we-
returned 2%, explore-again 73% and ambiguous by construction.
README.md is deliberately untouched — restating its numbers from sonnet
3-turn data would be wrong. A proposed README paragraph is drafted at
the end of the benchmark doc for the maintainer to accept or reject.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three per-metric docs told a maintainer what each number means; none said
which one answers which question, which harness produces it, or how to read
the arm table. agent-eval-feedback-metrics.md is that page — the metric →
question map, when to reach for ab-new-vs-baseline.sh (isolates a change,
both arms codegraph-on) versus run-all.sh (with vs without, a different
question) versus bench-readme.sh, the worked CG-22 express table where all
three read together, and the bucket → fix mapping. Not a fourth restatement:
the derivations stay where they are and each doc now points here.
The caveats that change how the summary table is read are carried over rather
than dropped — allocation efficiency is relative (attribution is by citation,
so same-question builds only, and never "codegraph wastes N%"), occupancy
shares are Claude Code / 200k and do not transfer between hosts while the arm
ratio does, sufficient is not correct, small-n throughout. Plus the
contamination row, which means different things in the two harnesses and is
the first thing to look at in both.
Also records that the CG-8 7-repo bucket block no longer re-derives:
bench-readme.sh overwrites /tmp/ab-readme, so the swept logs are gone. The
current logs give a different distribution over the same 62 calls, and the
CG-8-era and current classifiers agree exactly on them — so nothing moved
under the metric, the corpus did. CG-13 re-establishes the baseline.
Colby McHenryandClaude Opus 5