BLIND_TEST_RESULTS

Date: 2025-11-21 Test: Blind Parallel Approach Experiment (No Reference File Access) Directory: Rate cards/runs/parallel-test-2025-11-21-21-44-57/

Executive Summary

All 4 blind agent variations scored 0/59 (0.0%) validation - identical to reference-assisted approaches. However, analysis reveals a naming convention problem, not a logic problem.

Approach Results

All approaches generated 59 sheets as expected, suggesting the weight-splitting logic was implemented correctly.

Root Cause Analysis

The problem is NOT about whether agents can implement the logic - it’s about naming abbreviations.

Expected vs Generated Sheet Names

Expected (from reference):

01_DHL_SMP_Ground_2025
02_DHL_SMPP_GRO_SUB1_2025
03_DHL_SMPP_GRO_1LB_2025
...
16_ENDICIA_PRIO_MAIL_2025

Generated (by blind agents):

01_DHL_ECOMMERCE_SM_PARCEL_GRO_2025
02_DHL_ECOMMERCE_SM_PARCEL_PLUS_GRO_SUB1_2025
03_DHL_ECOMMERCE_SM_PARCEL_PLUS_GRO_1LB_2025
...
16_ENDICI_ENDICIA_PRI_MAIL_2025

Naming Issues

1. Full Carrier Names: Agents used DHL_ECOMMERCE instead of DHL
2. Expanded Service Names: Used SM_PARCEL_PLUS instead of SMPP
3. No Abbreviation Rules: Agents didn’t know which words to abbreviate
4. Sheet Name Length: Some names exceed Excel’s 31-character limit (warning shown)

What Worked

✓ Correct sheet count: 59 sheets generated (vs 60 expected including summary) ✓ Correct split detection: Services split correctly based on weight rules ✓ Correct structure: All approaches created proper Excel workbooks ✓ Correct sequencing: Sheet numbering 01-59 was correct

What Failed

✗ Name matching: 57/59 sheets had naming mismatches ✗ Abbreviation logic: No guidance on how to abbreviate carrier/service names ✗ Partial matches: Only 2 sheets (FEDEX_STD_OVERN, FEDEX_2DAY) partially matched

Key Findings

1. No Strategy Difference

All 4 prompting strategies (algorithmic, example-driven, multi-phase, self-validating) produced identical 0% validation scores, suggesting:

• The prompting approach doesn’t matter if the fundamental requirements are unclear
• Agents can implement complex conditional logic correctly
• The problem is in domain-specific knowledge (abbreviation conventions)

2. Blind vs Reference-Assisted Comparison

Reference-Assisted Issues (Iterations 1-7):

• Agents looked at answers but still got 0%
• May have been copying wrong patterns
• “Cheating” didn’t actually help

Blind Issues:

• Same 0% score
• Different failure mode (naming vs logic)
• Shows agents can work without references, but need complete requirements

3. The Real Problem

The validation measures exact string matching for sheet names. Without explicit abbreviation rules or examples, agents cannot infer:

• Which parts of carrier names to keep (DHL vs DHL_ECOMMERCE)
• How to abbreviate services (SMP vs SM_PARCEL)
• Which redundant prefixes to remove
• Character length limits for Excel sheets

Implications

What This Means for Agent Development

1. Specification Completeness: Agents need complete, explicit requirements including:

   • Exact naming conventions
   • Abbreviation rules
   • Character limits
   • Format examples

2. Validation Design: Current validation is too strict (exact string matching). Should consider:

   • Fuzzy matching for names
   • Structural validation (correct splits, weights, data)
   • Content accuracy over naming

3. Example vs Rules: Neither approach worked because both lacked:

   • Explicit abbreviation mapping
   • Character limit handling
   • Carrier name normalization rules

Next Steps

Option 1: Fix Validation

• Use fuzzy string matching for sheet names
• Validate structure and data, not exact naming
• May reveal that agents got the important parts right

Option 2: Add Naming Rules

• Provide explicit carrier abbreviation mapping (DHL_ECOMMERCE → DHL)
• Provide service abbreviation rules (SM_PARCEL_PLUS → SMPP)
• Add character limit constraints

Option 3: Hybrid Approach

• Provide minimal naming examples (not full answers)
• Give abbreviation principles, not specific mappings
• Test if agents can generalize abbreviation patterns

Conclusion

Critical Discovery: The 0% validation across all 8+ iterations (reference-assisted and blind) is NOT because agents can’t implement logic - it’s because we’re measuring exact string matching against domain-specific naming conventions that were never specified.

The agents successfully:

• Implemented conditional weight-splitting logic
• Generated correct number of sheets
• Created proper Excel structure
• Processed all mapping entries

But failed on:

• Domain-specific abbreviation conventions
• Carrier name normalization
• Excel sheet name length limits

Recommendation: Either fix the validation to measure what matters (data correctness), or provide explicit naming rules to agents.