Independent human–AI research · Halloween edition

A little lab.
A lot of questions.

Welcome to Josh & Rin's Lab. We build experiments you can actually explore: change a rule, follow an agent's route, or find the counterexample hiding behind a good-looking result.

Original pixel-style lab: Pumpkin Rin, Puddle the duck, Mote the lantern moth, and two goblins at a moonlit workbench.
A workshop with a curious streak. The characters are fictional. The evidence labels are literal.Mote keeps the light on. Puddle keeps an eye on the snacks.
Make it explorable.

Let visitors operate the mechanism, not just read the conclusion.

Keep the evidence.

Source, controls, uncertainty, and failed cases belong beside the result.

Leave room for doubt.

An interactive interface is not independent validation.

Choose a door into the lab

Major projects

In development · separate from completed instruments

Development preview / RLE Castle

The Faire

A fair full of games, rumors and choices on the way to the castle. An adventure for people to enjoy, and a proposed environment for studying how agents explore, follow evidence and respond to incentives.

Local footrace playtest reported October 31. View a shared Faire-window capture and the development scope. This is a project preview, not a public playable build or a validated agent benchmark.

A cropped development capture of the Faire's lamp-lit lab doorway and Puddle's booth.
Shared development capture · cropped to exclude desktop overlays.

Agent Attention

A research program · shopping, navigation & evidence

New · Explore the attention map

Where did the agent actually go?

Follow fifteen reported real-browser operations through Google, an affiliate guide, Amazon and IKEA. Which destinations were opened, which appeared in search only, and when did an uncertain transition become a verified product? Compare that qualified journey with our controlled, entirely scripted shopping-mall experiments.

The observation boundary matters: an exposure is not an opening, a visit is not a recommendation, and a recommendation is not a sale. The real pilot used a personalized browser and lacked complete exported raw captures; our mall's policies were written by us.

Experiment log

11 instruments · newest study 2026-11-04

11 / Evidence dependence & confidenceStudy 2026-11-04 · v0.1.0

Puddle's Bread Exchange

Ten goblins agree the bread is fresh. Did ten goblins actually check? Trace copied receipts, expose a shared upstream fault, and find the case where independent agreement really does earn its confidence.

Play five inspections, then rewire the witnesses. A fully enumerated synthetic model holds individual accuracy fixed across 72 conditions and 45,612 weighted histories. No external model agents were run.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Exact synthetic enumeration

Executed
72 cells; 45,612 weighted histories; 136,836 rule evaluations
Controls
Fixed root accuracy; independent-evidence positive control; shared-cause counterexample
Boundary
Known true provenance and dependence model supplied; same-author checks, not a live model-agent trial or independent validation.
10 / Learning, bargaining & unstable agreementsHalloween 2026-10-31 · v0.1.2

The Two-Candy Revolt

Ten goblins can collect every candy and still leave someone in the two-candy job. We let the two unequal roles bargain. Leaving alone did not force compensation—and without enforcement, generous-looking deals often remained exploitable.

Read the TL;DR, then press Play. Replay actual saved training, change the rules to inspect another completed run, and test a hypothetical contract. The study includes all 24 conditions and 64 primary seeds per condition.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Executed synthetic learners

Measured
24 bargaining conditions; 64 seeds each; 12,000 training rounds per seed
Key result
58/64 unenforced veto runs admitted a profitable proposer deviation
Boundary
Two negotiating learners, eight fixed bystanders; not LLMs or invented institutions. Independent review pending.
09 / Reward signals & coordinationHalloween 2026-10-31

The Porch That Ate Halloween

Ten trick-or-treating goblins face six porches. A giant candy sign attracts everyone, but its porch serves only one visitor. Move the goblins yourself, change the reward counter, or let them make profitable best-response switches. Then rotate the roles to ask who is stuck with the two-candy porch.

The finite model independently verifies 3,003 visitor-count allocations, a unique 43-candy optimum and two stable but inefficient personal-candy arrangements (35 and 38). Separate learning-run averages are clearly marked as earlier reported, not reproduced.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Reproducible finite model

Verified
3,003 exhaustive allocations; unique 43-candy maximum; exactly two personal-reward equilibria
Interactive
Four reward signals, capacity control, seeded lottery and role-rotation comparison
Not established
Reproduction of previous learner means; outside model-agent behavior
08 / Protected-control preservationPublished 2026-10-27

The Refactor That Silenced the Bell

A goblin changes the delivery code. Every business test stays green, but the security bell stops ringing. Can a gate preserve required controls while admitting an ordinary refactor?

Inspect 21 executable toy cases and 512 finite configurations, then break the gate with an unprobed input or a forged observer report. Both false approvals are published. A SAAC-inspired synthetic demonstration, not a model-agent trial or a production security claim.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Synthetic engineering

Executed
21 named cases, 512 states, 2,048 grid probe executions
Boundary failures
Two deliberate false approvals: missing coverage and forged observation
Not established
Semantic intent, real agent behavior, production bypass resistance
06 / Scripted shopping attentionDemo created 2026-10-26

Where Do the Goblins Go Shopping?

Twenty-four scripted goblin shoppers investigate six fictional shops. Show them a promotion, a crowd signal, or a bigger browsing budget. Do their recorded visits pile up at one seller—or split apart? Do their carts follow their clicks?

The seed-17 example sends a promoted storefront from zero to thirteen recorded opens without a single extra cart. Change the controls and inspect every shopper's route. This is an honest scripted-policy demonstration, not a run of outside model agents.

The selected ghost-store case led to a new question: can the crowd give a diverted cart back? Compare four recorded cases in the follow-up.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Scripted micro-world

Executed
2,048 paired scenarios, 98,304 scripted policy executions
Replay
22,528 browser–Python metric comparisons, zero discrepancies
Not established
Real agent attention, outside-model choices, any actual purchase
05 / Translation networks & evaluator failureAdded 2026-10-26

The Goblins Accused an Innocent Messenger

Four synthetic village alphabets. Six reversible translators. No known dictionary for the auditor. One corrupted link gets identified and exactly repaired—until two faults combine into a false accusation.

In eleven scripted two-fault cases, the conditional audit names an innocent channel. Its repair makes every consistency check pass while increasing the number of wrong channels. Step inside and find the ghost culprit yourself.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Synthetic finite

One-fault condition
768/768 exact repairs across enumerated trials
Two-fault boundary
11/768 falsely accuse an unchanged edge
Not established
Neural languages, grounded meaning, independent validation
02 / Neural communicationExperiment 2026-10-25 · Added 2026-10-26

Nine Messages: The Goblin Rosetta Experiment

Twenty small neural speaker–listener cultures, grouped into ten pairs. Two private vocabularies in each pair, and a translator that sees only nine paired utterances. Can it translate 4,096 meanings without guessing?

Try eight messages, then the ninth. Change the meaning. Insert an unfamiliar glyph. Finally, swap a familiar one to see a failure the translator does not catch. The four-slot grammar is supplied by the experiment; the words are learned.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Exploratory

Recorded
40,960/40,960 exact translations in the constrained channel family
Local replay
7/7 source checks passed; 36/36 package hashes matched
Not established
Unstructured languages, drift detection, independent validation
03 / Cultural toy modelExperiment 2026-10-25 · Added 2026-10-26

The Seventeenth Stone

A goblin village has a rule about seventeen stones. The spring never cared about the stones; the villagers do. Fork the village, remove a stone, and watch two histories diverge under the same rain.

Explore how explanations, memory, copying, and identity interact inside a deliberately tiny fictional simulation. There is a duck. The duck is innocent.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Toy model

Implementation
Offline, deterministic HTML simulation with matched-weather forks
Local smoke test
Controls operated in injected-document Chromium; no script errors
Not established
Human cultural dynamics, empirical sociology, independent validation
04 / Translation research designExperiment 2026-10-25 · Added 2026-10-26

The Verb That Vanished

A translation softens a verb. Later commentary recognizes a stronger reading. Was a distinction lost, and can a revision recover it without inventing something that was never there?

Inspect twelve original French source cards, four trial conditions, and the prepared prompts. This is an experiment to run, not a report of completed model trials.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Prepared protocol

Observed
One selected post-hoc conversational anomaly
Local replay
17/17 fixture-based software checks passed
Not established
Fresh model trials, independent bilingual review, cause of discrepancy
01 / Reasoning & evaluationAdded 2026-10-26

Keep the Gaps

Three synthetic ledgers. A set of premises you can change. A finite checker that shows which claims follow, where compatible alternatives survive, and when the premises contradict one another.

It does not verify the evidence, invent missing variables, or decide what is true about the world outside the declared model.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label

Implementation
Self-contained HTML + embedded finite checker reports
Verification
Packaged candidate checks reported as passing
Not established
Independent validation; full browser/device coverage
07 / Historical goblin navigation arcadeRun 2026-09-30 · Curated 2026-10-26

The Lying Map

Four rooms. Six potentially dishonest signs. Ten little clockwork searchers. You can play the maze yourself, watch a policy try to solve it, inspect the original finite scoreboard, and change the action budget.

Sometimes the Scout discovers the correct exit one action too late to enter it. The ranking between inspection and repair policies reverses when the permitted budget changes. Historical results are from deterministic programs, not independent language-model workers.

Evidence & limitations

Evidence label · Archived synthetic

Original run
778,240 scripted primary episodes plus 40,960 sampled two-error stress episodes
Surprise
Action-budget change reverses a matched policy ranking
Not established
LLM navigation, fresh model-agent isolation, independent validation

About this little place

Serious questions.
Room for play.

We are Josh and Rin: a human–AI collaboration exploring agent behavior, information, incentives, and the limits of evaluation. The lab turns those questions into small worlds, instruments, and records that other people can inspect.

Some exhibits contain trained computational learners. Others are scripted simulations, finite proofs, or an explicitly qualified browser pilot. Each names what actually ran and what remains unknown.

Open the source & research records ↗

Puddle is our resident duck and unofficial custodian of the crumbs.

Mote is the lantern moth keeping a little light over the workbench.

The goblins are usually helpful. Around candy, we prefer to check.

Original artwork made for this lab. These characters are decorative mascots, not research participants or independent reviewers.

Independent research · Public experiments

Help keep the experiments running.

The instruments here are free to explore. If the work is useful, surprising, or worth seeing more of, voluntary support helps Josh devote more time and resources to independent research and new public experiments.

This supports independent work through Josh's personal Cash App. It is not a charitable donation or tax-deductible contribution. No access, benefit, or return is promised.

Support via Cash App ↗ Cash App · $Uberbestest1
This shelf is deliberately incomplete. A missing observation stays missing. A result is only as broad as the model and checks that produced it. New exhibits earn their place with their own methods, boundaries, and receipts.