Research question
When the evaluator is asked to narrate how it interpreted the prompt and built the recommendation, is that narrated interpretation stable across draws, and does it account for how the recommendation actually changed?
Why it mattered
E-034 and E-040 watched what the recommendation did. This run looked at what the evaluator said it was doing: the account it gave of its own interpretation and construction, in project-management software, and whether that account was stable and complete.
Method
Evaluator: Google AI Mode, single surface. The run elicited the evaluator's own narrated account of how it read the prompt and assembled the recommendation, repeated across three draws, while the recommendation itself moved from a generic opening to a later, buyer-specific one. Instrument details and scoring are retained internally.
Direct observations
- The narrated interpretation was stable across all three draws.
- The same weighting ladder recurred each draw, with the criteria weighted 30, 25, 20, 15, and 10.
- The evaluator held stable corporate-buyer assumptions across draws.
- It volunteered requirements that were not asked for, including integrations, security, scalability, and adoption.
- The narrated explanation accounted for the generic opening recommendation but did not account for the later transition to a different recommendation.
Interpretation (not established)
A stable narration is an observation about what the evaluator says, not evidence of how it actually constructs a recommendation. The gap here is specific and within this run: the narration explained the opening recommendation but not the transition away from it, so on this evidence the narrated account is not a complete record of what the recommendation did. This is treated as narration, capped there, and not read as mechanism.
Outcome and remaining uncertainty
Supported: the narrated interpretation was stable across draws, which is the property the run was built to detect, and the stability was specific and repeatable down to the weighting ladder. The scope is narrow. One evaluator, one surface, three draws. That the narration did not account for the recommendation transition is recorded as an observation, not generalized into a claim that narration never tracks behavior.
Evidence and methods limitations
One evaluator, one surface (Google AI Mode), three draws, single coder. This run observes narration only. It makes no causal claim and does not establish that the narrated account reflects the actual construction of the recommendation. The program still holds exactly one causally verified gate (E-002).
Contribution to the research program
Recorded a stable, repeatable narrated interpretation in this category and surface, including a recurring weighting ladder and volunteered requirements, alongside a specific gap: the narration explained the opening recommendation but not the later transition.
Follow-on
Whether narrated interpretation corresponds to the recommendation that actually results is a separate question, held for later work.
Created from the Upstream Zero research record (session 2026-07-18). Raw outputs, instrument details, and scoring are retained privately and are not published.