# Session S3 Orchestration Audit Report
**Session:** 9f45afcc-75ff-4b7a-8f3d-008aa0d599af  
**Date:** 2026-07-04  
**Duration:** 2h 35m  
**Transcript lines:** 850 (28 sidechain, 5 spawns, 255 assistant turns)

---

## SEVEN-QUESTION AUDIT RUBRIC

### 1. Are subagents getting called when they should be?

**Verdict:** MIXED — Delegation is reasonable but spawn #1 might have been avoidable

**Evidence:**
- Line 124 (spawn 1): Plugin cache refresh. Prompt specifies 4 steps: determine refresh method, execute `claude plugin` commands, verify caches, refresh cc-plugins marketplace. This is multi-step but mechanical — deterministic shell commands, no judgment. The orchestrator did 19 tool calls in pre-span-1 (14 Bash, 4 Read, 1 Edit) to investigate the problem (lines ~5-120: searched for files, checked plugin state, read naming conventions). That investigation work could have been delegated as part of the same spawn rather than consuming 19 sequential tool calls in the main context.

- Lines 133, 171, 603, 605 (spawns 2–5): Eval grid runs and wording triage. These require running deterministic harnesses repeatedly or evaluating behavior hypothetically — work that spans multiple independent runs and benefits from isolated context. Delegation appropriate.

- Fact-sheet notes "None flagged by heuristic" for runs of ≥4 same-tool calls that should have been delegated. However, the 19-call pre-span-1 segment (Bash-heavy, grep/ls/find) was necessary orientation per ORCHESTRATION.md guidance: "A short orienting Read before delegating is fine when the target file/path is uncertain. Don't delegate the orienting step itself." The Reads (4) were all strategic — to understand plugin naming conventions, review prior eval results, check CLAUDE.md design — and the Bash calls were discovery-only, not modifying.

**Assessment:** Delegation thresholds met for spawns 2–5 (eval work needs isolation). Spawn 1 (cache refresh) is borderline: it's multi-step and beneficial to isolate, but purely mechanical and could have been done directly by the orchestrator. The pre-spawn work (investigation) was correctly kept in-session per policy.

---

### 2. Is the correct model chosen per subagent?

**Verdict:** FAIL — All 5 spawns suffered model degradation

**Evidence:**
- Line 124: Model param `"sonnet"` → resolved `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001` (Haiku)
- Line 133: Model param `"sonnet"` → resolved `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001` (Haiku)
- Line 171: Model param `"sonnet"` → resolved `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001` (Haiku)
- Line 603: Model param `"sonnet"` → resolved `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001` (Haiku)
- Line 605: Model param `"haiku"` → resolved `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001` (Haiku) ✓

**Analysis:**
All 5 Agent tool calls explicitly set `model: "sonnet"` (lines 124, 133, 171, 603) or `model: "haiku"` (line 605), but 4 of the 5 resolved to `haiku` instead. This is either:
1. A platform issue where `model` parameter is not honored, or
2. Model unavailability/fallback behavior

The orchestration policy states: "Every Agent spawn passes model explicitly. Default haiku for mechanical file-edit/shell work; sonnet for anything requiring judgment."

**Quality impact:**
- Spawn 1 (cache refresh): Mostly mechanical (shell commands). Haiku adequate, possibly optimal.
- Spawn 2 (re-run Eval B grid): Requires running a deterministic harness. Haiku adequate.
- Spawn 3 (resume eval grid): Continuation of eval. Haiku adequate for procedural execution.
- **Spawn 4 (triage wording on sonnet):** Explicitly judgment work — "evaluate how you would behave in a hypothetical coding session… answer from judgment alone." This requires reasoning about whether to propose an ADR. Haiku is below the required capability level. **REAL MISS.**
- Spawn 5 (triage wording on haiku): Correctly specified and received haiku. Appropriate.

Spawn 4's prompt (line 603) begins: "You are evaluating how you would behave in a hypothetical coding session. Do NOT use any tools — answer from judgment alone." This is explicitly a judgment task. The fact that it got haiku instead of sonnet is a capability downgrade that likely impacted the evaluation's fidelity.

---

### 3. Is the orchestrator planning/grouping tasks to maximize efficient context-window use?

**Verdict:** MIXED — Reasonable grouping but significant sequential work not delegated

**Evidence:**
- 255 assistant turns for 5 spawns = ~50 lines per spawn (including setup/handling)
- After-spawn-3: 48 tool calls (ToolSearch 2, SendMessage 1, Bash 22, Edit 12, Skill 2, Read 5, Write 3, TaskStop 1)
- After-spawn-5: 43 tool calls (Write 4, Bash 27, Edit 11, Read 1)

The after-spawn-3 and after-spawn-5 segments show the orchestrator managing the eval process directly with many tool calls. This is work that _could_ have been grouped into a single eval-management delegation, but instead was split:
- Spawn 2 (line 133): "Re-run Eval B grid post-fix" → 0 orchestrator calls afterward
- Spawn 3 (line 171): "Resume eval grid agent" → 48 orchestrator calls managing results
- Spawn 4 (line 603): "Triage wording on sonnet" → 0 calls
- Spawn 5 (line 605): "Triage wording on haiku" → 43 orchestrator calls writing/processing results

The orchestrator could have delegated the result-processing and writing work (e.g., "Run evals 4-5, process results, write summary") as part of the agent prompts rather than managing it in-session. This would have freed up the main context for other work.

**Assessment:** Grouping is functional but leaves optimization on the table. Sequential dependent work (eval → triage → result processing) could have been bundled.

---

### 4. Is the orchestrator avoiding reading files it does NOT need?

**Verdict:** PASS — Reads are minimal and strategic

**Evidence:**
- Pre-span-1 Reads (lines ~5-120):
  1. `/home/jared/Documents/SecondBrain/cc-os-plugin-skill-naming-convention.md` — necessary to understand naming rules before updating CLAUDE.md
  2. `/home/jared/Documents/SecondBrain/2026-07-03-os-adr-eval-b-grid-results-and-observations.md` — necessary to understand prior eval baseline before re-running
  3. `/home/jared/dev/cc-os/CLAUDE.md` (read twice) — necessary to understand design before updating plugin cache info and to check current state

- After-span-3: Read 5 files (not listed individually, but were part of eval result handling)
- After-span-5: Read 1 file

Total reads: ~4 strategic pre-delegation, then tactical reads during result handling. No superfluous reads evident. ORCHESTRATION.md guidance ("A short orienting Read before delegating is fine") is followed.

---

### 5. Is the orchestrator sharing too much context with subagents?

**Verdict:** PASS — Prompts are focused and appropriately sized

**Evidence:**
- Spawn 1 (line 124): 4,849 chars — detailed context about the cache problem, specific files missing, clear multi-step task definition
- Spawn 2 (line 133): 2,177 chars — context about the cache fix, baseline results to compare, explicit procedure reference
- Spawn 3 (line 171): 49 chars — minimal ("Resume eval grid agent"), relying on prior task continuation via SendMessage
- Spawn 4 (line 603): 2,193 chars — a complete hypothetical scenario with task definition
- Spawn 5 (line 605): 2,193 chars — same length as spawn 4 (paired triage tasks)

The prompts are task-focused. Spawn 3's minimal prompt (49 chars) is appropriate for a SendMessage continuation rather than a fresh spawn. Spawns 4-5 are large but necessary: they define the hypothetical scenario and judgment task in full.

No evidence of context overload or extraneous background.

---

### 6. Is the orchestrator following ORCHESTRATION.md instructions?

**Verdict:** MIXED — Mostly compliant but borderline on single-file/≤2-tool rule

**Evidence:**
ORCHESTRATION.md policy:
> "Do single-file, ≤2-tool-call ops directly. Don't delegate them. Delegate only when work is parallelizable across independent files/subtasks, spans many files, or needs a large/isolated context."

**Analysis:**
- **Spawn 1 (plugin cache refresh):** Multi-step work across 4 plugins (os-adr, os-doc-hygiene, os-vault, os-orchestration, plus cc-plugins marketplace). Spans multiple files. Delegated. ✓ Compliant.
- **Spawn 2-5 (eval grids):** Requires running headless harnesses repeatedly. Benefits from isolated context. Delegated. ✓ Compliant.
- **After-spawn-3/5 work:** The orchestrator executed 48 + 43 = 91 tool calls _directly_, not delegated, to manage eval results, write reports, and update documentation. This includes:
  - Line 172-300 region: multiple Bash (running eval binaries), Edit (patching files), Write (creating outputs), Skill (invoking tools), ToolSearch (finding contexts)
  - The work is sequential-dependent (eval runs → check results → triage → write), which is a valid reason not to delegate per policy ("sequential-dependent work is a valid reason not to delegate" per fact-sheet guidance)

**Verdict:** Policy is mostly followed. The pre-span-1 investigation (19 calls) was appropriately kept in-session as orientation. The after-span work (91 calls) is sequential-dependent, so not delegating was correct. However, spawn 1 itself might have been avoidable if the investigation had been folded into the spawn prompt more aggressively — e.g., "investigate AND fix" in one delegation rather than investigate-in-session then delegate-fix.

---

### 7. Is the orchestrator requesting/receiving back only needed context?

**Verdict:** PASS — Results are actionable and used directly

**Evidence:**
- **Spawn 1 result (line 125):** 3,951 chars. Returned structured summary + file attachment showing CLAUDE.md update. The orchestrator immediately incorporated this (line 126 shows attachment of the edited file). No surplus context; the file edit was the actionable outcome.
  
- **Spawn 2 result (line 134, resolved async):** 5,905 chars. Returned full grid results (haiku 0/8, sonnet 5/8) with per-cell analysis. Was this needed? The orchestrator would need the baseline results to inform spawn 3 (resume eval) and spawns 4-5 (triage wording). Appropriate size for the information density.

- **Spawn 3 result (via task notification, line 172):** 878 chars. Minimal, continuation of spawn 2's work. Appropriate.

- **Spawn 4-5 results:** Not directly readable in the transcript (async), but after-span-5 work shows the orchestrator writing outputs and using the results (lines ~603-850 have multiple Write calls with evaluation data).

No evidence of the orchestrator requesting excessive results or receiving data that wasn't used. Results are structured and actionable.

---

## SUMMARY VERDICTS

| Question | Verdict | Key Issue |
|----------|---------|-----------|
| 1. Subagents called correctly? | MIXED | Spawn 1 (cache refresh) could have been done directly; pre-span investigation was well-scoped |
| 2. Correct model chosen? | **FAIL** | All 5 spawns specified sonnet but 4 resolved to haiku; spawn 4 (judgment task) impacted by downgrade |
| 3. Tasks grouped efficiently? | MIXED | Result handling (91 calls post-eval) could have been delegated as part of eval task |
| 4. Avoiding unnecessary reads? | PASS | 4 strategic Reads before delegation; tactical reads during handling. Minimal overhead. |
| 5. Sharing excessive context? | PASS | Prompts are task-focused, appropriately sized (49–4,849 chars). |
| 6. Following ORCHESTRATION.md? | MIXED | Mostly compliant; sequential work correctly kept in-session; but spawn 1 could have bundled investigation+fix |
| 7. Requesting only needed context? | PASS | Results are structured, actionable, immediately used. No surplus. |

---

## TOP MISSES WITH LINE REFERENCES

### 1. Model Degradation (CRITICAL)
**Lines 124, 133, 171, 603:** All Agent calls explicitly set `model: "sonnet"` but resolved to haiku.
- **Criterion:** When a session specifies a model parameter on Agent spawn, that parameter should be honored or the orchestrator should be notified of fallback.
- **Trigger:** Implement model-param validation in Agent tool or platform-level fallback alerting.

### 2. Judgment Task Ran on Haiku (REAL IMPACT)
**Line 603:** Spawn 4 prompt explicitly says "Do NOT use any tools — answer from judgment alone" but requested `sonnet` and got `haiku`.
- **Criterion:** Judgment-heavy tasks (scenario evaluation, wording triage) require sonnet; the orchestrator specified correctly but did not receive what it asked for.
- **Trigger:** When specifying a model for judgment work, verify the resolved model matches; escalate if haiku is substituted.

### 3. Post-Eval Work Could Have Been Delegated
**Lines 172–300 (48 calls), 603–850 (43 calls):** Orchestrator manually managed eval result processing, writing, and triage.
- **Criterion:** "Triage wording on sonnet/haiku" spawns could have included "process results, write summary, save to file" as part of the agent prompt rather than post-processing in-session.
- **Trigger:** When a sequence of evals feeds into analysis+writing, bundle the analysis+writing into the final eval spawn or create a post-processing delegation.

### 4. Pre-Delegation Investigation Could Have Been Bundled
**Lines 5–120 (19 calls):** Orchestrator investigated plugin cache status before delegating the fix.
- **Criterion:** Investigatepattern + action pattern could be grouped into one "investigate and fix" delegation.
- **Trigger:** When investigation leads directly to a bounded task, consider bundling: "investigate X, then fix it per these steps" as a single delegation.

---

## CONTAMINATION NOTES

This session (2026-07-04, POST global os-orchestration rollout) was actively working on eval and orchestration tooling (os-adr eval, wording-loop setup). The 255 turns reflect:
- Plugin cache maintenance (spawn 1)
- Eval baseline validation (spawns 2-3)
- Wording triage setup (spawns 4-5)

The low spawn count (5 for 255 turns) is partly intentional: evals run deterministically, their management is procedural. However, model degradation across all 5 spawns is the session's most concerning artifact and suggests either a platform bug or a systematic misunderstanding of model availability.
