Frozerti
Research journal
Key entries from the current study and a short history: what we tested, what we found, what we changed and what the recheck showed.
Updated 7 October 2026. Early trials are summarised as a short history, so study numbers are not consecutive.
Map of checks
Each point is a journal entry; select it to open the entry. Colour shows the outcome of the check, not model readiness.
- Positive
- Mixed
- Not enough evidence yet
- Not assessed
- Work status
- planned, in progress, completed or stopped.
- Result
- positive, mixed, negative or not enough evidence yet.
- Bears on
- the research tool, a diagnostic observation, or the hypothesis itself.
October 2026
The check on new tasks is complete
Fully correct individual solutions in free generation increased from 10 to 19 out of 56. Complex sequences remain unresolved; no advantage over the simple comparison rule was established.
The next-stage criterion remains unmet
Further training did not meet the required criterion. Progression to the next stage was stopped.
Checking a partial correction
The correction helped on some tasks. New examples were prepared to assess transfer.
Identifying a systematic error
Related checks revealed a specific problem. Some other errors remained unexplained.
Intermediate results
The first part of preparation passed its check. The next stopped at the session limit; there is no complete result yet.
Starting a repeat study
A repeat trial was prepared with initial-condition checks and retained results.
Setting the next priority
A partial improvement does not replace assessment of complete solutions. The next series checks reliability on new examples.
A comparable test
Some requests are interpreted better, while complex tasks with dependencies remain unresolved.
Reviewing conclusions before the next run
The tool is ready for further work. Not every failure is explained; an earlier overly strong conclusion has been revised.
Repairing the research tool
The identified problems were corrected. Assessing the approach requires a repeat run.
September 2026
Checking initial abilities
The selected tasks were confirmed to require new knowledge: before training, the model could not solve them.
Refining the next study
The comparison must separate a new result from what the model can already do. A more suitable setting was prepared.
Preliminary trials
Artificial tasks produced observations, without confirming the main hypothesis.
No entries match these filters.
Studies
- No. 14
Checking reliability on new tasks
Diagnostics identified a systematic error. A partial correction helped on new individual tasks, including free generation. Complex sequences remain unresolved, and the criterion for proceeding to the next stage has not been met.
- No. 13
Checking multi-part tasks
A change helped the model interpret some requests better under comparable conditions. More complex tasks with dependencies remained unresolved.
- No. 12
Preparing the current trials
We checked the model’s initial abilities and the reliability of the research tool. Some tasks can be learned, but reliable performance across all task types has not yet been achieved.
- No. 08
From early checks to the current study
Early trials helped refine the conditions of the study. The initial observations did not confirm the main hypothesis; they informed a more suitable test.