Rodin
1b108ff66e
Full comparative analysis of GPT-5, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4.1, and GPT-4.1 Mini on analytical tasks (not coding). Contents: - findings/ALL-FINDINGS.md — complete 3,249-line research log with all 29 findings, methodology notes, and open questions - prompts/ — 6 exact prompts used across experiments - methodology.md — experimental setup and evaluation criteria - open-questions.md — unanswered questions for future work - README.md — overview and summary table Key findings: - Cross-document consistency: Opus is 2.4x faster with more findings - Gap-finding: GPT-5 reasoning tokens find domain-specific gaps - Race conditions: Opus excels at temporal interaction reasoning - Bias detection: Signal-to-noise ratio > model capability - Adversarial analysis: GPT-5 exhaustive, Opus qualitatively different Signed-off-by: Rodin
59 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
59 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
# Prompt: Contradiction Detection
|
|
|
|
Used in Finding #25.
|
|
|
|
## Setup
|
|
|
|
- Single document (full text)
|
|
- Same prompt to all models
|
|
- No tools, no project context beyond the document
|
|
|
|
## Prompt
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
You are analyzing a design document for CONTRADICTIONS — places where
|
|
the document makes two claims that cannot both be true simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
This is NOT about:
|
|
- Missing information
|
|
- Unclear writing
|
|
- Design tradeoffs
|
|
- Things that MIGHT conflict
|
|
|
|
This IS about:
|
|
- Statement A says X, Statement B says NOT-X
|
|
- Mechanism A requires condition C, Mechanism B prevents condition C
|
|
- Rule A applies to set S, but S includes elements that violate Rule A
|
|
|
|
## Categories:
|
|
|
|
1. **Direct contradictions** — Two statements that are logically incompatible
|
|
2. **Mechanism conflicts** — Two described mechanisms that cannot coexist
|
|
3. **Scope violations** — A rule/invariant that is violated by a specific
|
|
case described elsewhere in the document
|
|
4. **Temporal impossibilities** — A sequence that requires something to be
|
|
true before the described mechanism makes it true
|
|
|
|
## For each contradiction:
|
|
|
|
- **Category:** (one of the 4 above)
|
|
- **Statement A:** (exact text, with section)
|
|
- **Statement B:** (exact text, with section)
|
|
- **Why contradictory:** (formal reasoning about incompatibility)
|
|
- **Severity:** Critical (system correctness) / High (safety) / Medium (confusion)
|
|
|
|
Be PRECISE. Only report genuine logical contradictions, not differences
|
|
in emphasis or scope.
|
|
|
|
## Document:
|
|
|
|
[FULL TEXT OF DOCUMENT]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Key Design Decision
|
|
|
|
The "Be PRECISE" instruction and explicit exclusion list ("NOT about")
|
|
is critical. Without it, models pad findings with style/clarity issues.
|
|
The contradiction prompt naturally favors Opus (self-correcting, withdraws
|
|
false positives) over GPT-5 (exhaustive, includes borderline cases).
|