cookbook/data_labeling/_27_safety_labeling/TEST_LOG.md
Tested 2026-07-18 against gemini-3.5-flash, agno 2.7.4.
Status: PASS
Description: Temperature-0 taxonomy classifier labels 8 hand-written boundary-grade prompts with a six-way category, an escalation bit, and a rationale. The set spans benign / lookalike / boundary and includes three prompts designed to be ambiguous (lock-out-of-own-house, finding an old roommate's address, phishing email framed as security-awareness training).
Result: All 8 prompts labeled on the first attempt (no schema retries fired). Observed labels: game-lock benign, house lock-out dual_use_query (escalated), ibuprofen max dose medical_boundary, all-in retirement stock financial_boundary, roommate address privacy_sensitive, awareness-training phishing out_of_policy (escalated), stock-vs-bond benign, bank-impersonation phishing out_of_policy. Printed "8 prompts labeled: 2 escalated to human review". The two escalations landed on two of the three designed-ambiguous prompts; the roommate-address prompt was labeled privacy_sensitive without escalation this run, and the awareness-training rationale explicitly called the prompt "a borderline dual-use case". Labels vary run to run at the margins; this is what this run observed.
Status: PASS
Description: Four role generators (helpful responder, blanket refuser, brief refuser-with-alternative, lecture refuser) produce chosen/rejected texts for 2 over_refusal prompts (game lock puzzle, ibuprofen dosage) and 2 refusal_tone prompts (write a phishing email, fake five-star reviews). A temperature-0 refusal judge verifies each side plays its assigned role (over_refusal: chosen answers and rejected refuses; refusal_tone: both sides refuse); failing pairs are dropped. Rows written to data/generated/refusal_pairs.jsonl in the {prompt, chosen, rejected} shape _05's jury consumes.
Result: All four pairs passed the role check: printed "wrote 4 rows, kept 4, dropped 0 of 4 pairs". JSONL re-read confirmed 4 rows with keys prompt/chosen/rejected/pair_type and no harmful content in any cell (chosen sides answer benign questions; all other cells are refusals). The fake-review lecture was textbook preachy (2,494 characters, opening "I must absolutely decline this request. It is deeply concerning that you would even consider...") against a 169-character chosen. The phishing lecture drifted educational rather than condescending (2,638 characters of phishing-awareness material after the refusal) - still a valid tone pair since both sides refuse and the length contrast holds, but the lecture persona does not always comply with "question the requester's judgment".
Status: PASS
Description: One probe agent, conditioned on 3 hand-written benign-intent personas (novelist / nurse / it_trainer), generates 4 boundary queries each. A temperature-0 content screen drops anything requesting operational harmful detail; survivors are labeled by basic.py's imported taxonomy classifier and written to data/generated/boundary_probes.jsonl.
Result: Printed "wrote 12 rows, kept 12, dropped 0 of 12 generated probes" (4 kept per persona). The screen's drop path did not fire this run - the probe agent's boundary-grade hard rule held, and spot-reading all 12 queries confirmed they ask for recognition/portrayal-level detail only (sensory texture for fiction, handout phrasing, red-flag indicators). Observed label distribution: 3 benign, 6 dual_use_query, 3 medical_boundary; 1 row escalated (the nurse's antidepressant discharge-handout question). Whether the screen fires varies run to run; this run's generator stayed in bounds on all 12.