# Diagnostic report: GPT-5.5

Profile: hm-972516e65c0d04953fe5
Profile digest: b0a5e4c2adb5c18f622e3652c003cef2cd7c21be6118f435a4d9c454c5134790

Deterministic source-specific review prompts; no causal diagnosis or severity ranking.
Review items, not independent failures or summed events. Metrics and phases may overlap.

## Review items

### Probabilistic prediction quality

Cohort: hal:a0da5842bdd0ca4563dd0d9a67efd62e47e24f9ee7fd42090f196e8bd5bc3a20:gaia
Native score: 0.797
Definition: Inverted binary Brier score; higher is better. Not the raw Brier loss.
Source standard error (native units): 0.0089139086270846

The source inverted Brier score is below its mathematical maximum. Brier loss reflects more than calibration alone.

Follow-up experiment: Evaluate confidence against task outcomes on fresh trials. Inspect calibration and discrimination separately before trying a calibration change.

Scope: Agent + scaffold result on the named benchmark. Not a bare-model alignment score. Repeats and overlapping aggregate metrics are dependent.
Source: https://hal.cs.princeton.edu/reliability/benchmark/gaia/

### Prompt-wording robustness

Cohort: hal:a0da5842bdd0ca4563dd0d9a67efd62e47e24f9ee7fd42090f196e8bd5bc3a20:gaia
Native score: 0.907
Definition: Rephrased-prompt success / baseline success, capped at 1.
Source standard error (native units): 0.0634307540228103

The source capped rephrased-to-baseline success ratio is below one. It is not an absolute failure probability.

Follow-up experiment: Use meaning-preserving prompt variants with paired task identities. Review semantic equivalence independently and retain baseline success.

Scope: Agent + scaffold result on the named benchmark. Not a bare-model alignment score. Repeats and overlapping aggregate metrics are dependent.
Source: https://hal.cs.princeton.edu/reliability/benchmark/gaia/

### Input-format robustness

Cohort: hal:a0da5842bdd0ca4563dd0d9a67efd62e47e24f9ee7fd42090f196e8bd5bc3a20:gaia
Native score: 0.956
Definition: Structural-perturbation success / baseline success, capped at 1.
Source standard error (native units): 0.049703714571507

The source capped format-perturbation success ratio is below one. It is not an absolute failure probability.

Follow-up experiment: Pair semantically equivalent formats within each task family. Check that transformations preserve the answer before interpreting a performance change.

Scope: Agent + scaffold result on the named benchmark. Not a bare-model alignment score. Repeats and overlapping aggregate metrics are dependent.
Source: https://hal.cs.princeton.edu/reliability/benchmark/gaia/

### Constraint compliance

Cohort: hal:a0da5842bdd0ca4563dd0d9a67efd62e47e24f9ee7fd42090f196e8bd5bc3a20:gaia
Native score: 0.993
Definition: Fraction of source tasks with zero detected constraint violations.

Not all source tasks had zero detected constraint violations. This rate is scoped to the source task constraints.

Follow-up experiment: Inspect the violated constraint and relevant action trace. Pair constraint compliance with task success to rule out improvements obtained by doing nothing.

Scope: Agent + scaffold result on the named benchmark. Not a bare-model alignment score. Repeats and overlapping aggregate metrics are dependent.
Source: https://hal.cs.princeton.edu/reliability/benchmark/gaia/

### Agent task success

Cohort: hal:a0da5842bdd0ca4563dd0d9a67efd62e47e24f9ee7fd42090f196e8bd5bc3a20:gaia
Native score: 62.79%
Definition: Successful tasks under the source agent setup.
Source standard error (native units): 1.68287998315532

Task success is below the source maximum for this agent and benchmark. Task failure alone is not misalignment.

Follow-up experiment: Inspect task traces and distinguish planning, tool, environment and evaluator failures. Preserve the source scaffold when reproducing the result.

Scope: Agent + scaffold result on the named benchmark. Not a bare-model alignment score. Repeats and overlapping aggregate metrics are dependent.
Source: https://hal.cs.princeton.edu/reliability/benchmark/gaia/

## Missing evaluation coverage

Honesty: belief_revision, citation_integrity, evidence_support, factual_accuracy, pressure_resistance
Alignment: authorized_goal_following, non_deception, oversight_and_correction

Missing coverage is not evidence of failure. Presence is not complete dimension assessment.

## Unmeasured metrics

None among the diagnostic rules.

## Reported endpoints

Endpoints are rounded source observations, not certification.

- Tool-failure robustness (hal:a0da5842bdd0ca4563dd0d9a67efd62e47e24f9ee7fd42090f196e8bd5bc3a20:gaia): 1.000

## Evaluation use

Use public development examples for diagnosis; reserve independent held-out tasks for evaluating any change. These suggestions are experiments, not proven training remedies.

No Honesty Mark awarded. This report digest does not authenticate an issuer.
Report digest: f6808d67e6c4b784f6d9b280058148879e437fb2a9e6ccc29a15d8bea9e47b09