Five-seat Opus rational-agent campaign

Complete private-information campaign: 24 whole-number parameter sets × five matched seeds × five arms = 600 episodes. LLM seats use Claude Opus 5 with thinking; all games use five-seat unanimity and the datacenter framing. Intervals resample parameter sets as clusters.

ArmMean normalized score [95% CI]DealsDeal rate [95% CI]
Five Opus LLMs0.8726 [0.8328, 0.9104]115 / 1200.9583 [0.9250, 0.9917]
Four Opus + one rational0.6864 [0.6132, 0.7594]92 / 1200.7667 [0.6917, 0.8417]
Four Opus + one oracle (spoiled ballot — superseded)0.4607 [0.3771, 0.5436]61 / 1200.5083 [0.4167, 0.6000]
Four Opus + one oracle — ballot repaired0.8290 [0.7669, 0.8838]110 / 1200.9167 [0.8500, 0.9667]
Five rational agents0.1889 [0.1098, 0.2782]28 / 1200.2333 [0.1333, 0.3417]
Five oracle agents (spoiled ballot — superseded)0.7907 [0.7343, 0.8417]105 / 1200.8750 [0.8167, 0.9250]
Five oracle agents — ballot repaired0.9069 [0.8803, 0.9325]120 / 1201.0000 [1.0000, 1.0000]
Erratum (2026-08-10) — the oracle arms' closure numbers are a spoiled ballot. The omniscient seat cast its forced-final vote on whichever live offer it valued most instead of the one offer under the up/down vote; the protocol rejected that as a legality error, the seat repeated itself on its single retry, and the turn was recorded as a pass. That consumed 94 of 107 (87.9%) of the five-oracle arm's forced-final turns — touching every one of its 15 no-deals — and 114 of 334 in the one-oracle arm (57 of its 59). The Opus and rational arms are unaffected. Repaired and re-run on the identical games, the five-oracle arm closes every game and its paired score against all-LLM flips from −0.082 to +0.034 [+0.001, +0.074]. The distributional finding survives and sharpens: it now closes more often than all-LLM (+0.042 [+0.017, +0.075]) and still splits worse on every column. Full account in research note 0045 (repair commit ca20157); details in analysis.md and the seeded-optimal-opening hub.
Erratum, part 2 (2026-08-14) — the one-oracle re-run landed, and it changes this campaign's headline shape. Repaired and re-run on the identical 120 games, the one-oracle arm goes from 0.508 to 0.917 deal rate and 0.461 to 0.829 score, and both of its paired effects against all-LLM go to null: deal rate −0.450 → −0.042 [−0.100, +0.017], score −0.412 → −0.044 [−0.104, +0.011]. 52 episodes flip from no-deal to deal and 3 flip the other way. What survives is the distributional cost, unchanged in size and now on 106 paired closed games instead of 56 (worst-off z −0.060 [−0.092, −0.033], Gini +0.043 [+0.025, +0.065]). With both oracle arms repaired the ordering is all-oracle > all-LLM > one-oracle > one-rational > all-rational, so the published reading — computable agents collapse, worse the more of them there are — does not survive: only the private-information Bayesian agents collapse, and the gradient these five arms trace is information, not computability. Every computable arm still splits worse than all-LLM at every composition. Recomputed basket over both repaired arms: fairness_basket_ballot_repaired_both_oracles.md.

A repaired arm is a different agent from the frozen arm of the same name. The two rows are never pooled, averaged, or substituted for one another; contrasts are paired on the identical (instance, seed) games, bank, framing and protocol, but the arms are unpaired in time.

Whose ballots were dropped, split by seat occupant — a bare count across arms would attribute model errors to the harness and vice versa. Final-vote turns rejected for naming an offer other than the one under vote:
armcomputable seatLLM seats
all-LLM—3 / 31
one-rational0 / 531 / 206
one-oracle114 / 1160 / 218
all-rational0 / 476—
all-oracle94 / 107—
Every dropped ballot in the two oracle arms is the computable seat's; every one elsewhere is an LLM seat's, at two orders of magnitude lower a rate and from a different cause (a model naming a wrong offer id). The three non-oracle arms do not carry this defect.

Headline comparison

Five rational minus one rational: −0.4976 normalized score, 95% CI [−0.5901, −0.4036], and −53.3 percentage points of deal rate, 95% CI [−62.5, −43.3]. One rational agent was much less brittle than an entirely rational table, but five Opus agents still performed best.

Open episode visualizers

Every episode view includes the actual action plus the private-rational and omniscient-oracle turn counterfactuals.

Campaign figures and evidence

Five-arm score estimates with 95 percent confidence intervals