From 3ceed5ce2a1a66c08265c177339dd9bffc0b2403 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mortdecai Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 23:42:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] docs: gemma4:26b as persistent-correspondence agent Single-shot test against real Andy inbound + CONTEXT.md slice. Findings: gemma4 handles state bookkeeping well (correctly diffs Pending, honors hard rules like rejected-analogy avoidance, uses agreed vocabulary). Fails on precision: hallucinated message ID, invented Figure 1 axes it had no access to, drifted off voice register without few-shot examples. Verdict: viable for low-stakes social correspondence + first-pass triage; disqualified from high-stakes drafting where exact IDs or artifact references must round-trip. Hybrid pattern proposed (gemma4 for bookkeeping, Claude for drafting). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) --- docs/persistent_correspondant.md | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/persistent_correspondant.md diff --git a/docs/persistent_correspondant.md b/docs/persistent_correspondant.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..351dc85 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/persistent_correspondant.md @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +# Gemma 4 as a persistent-correspondence agent + +**Date:** 2026-04-18 +**Model:** `gemma4:26b` via mcp-gemma4 (steel141 Ollama) +**Test fixture:** Real inbound message from Andy Freiberg (Apr 19, 2026), real CONTEXT.md slice from `~/bin/spaceflight/andy/` +**Question:** Could gemma4 run an Andy-style persistent correspondence (drafting + state management)? + +## TL;DR + +**Partial yes, supervised. Full no, unsupervised.** + +Gemma4 handles the **bookkeeping** half of persistent correspondence well — state diffs, pending-list maintenance, summarizing what's open. It fails the **drafting** half whenever precision matters: it hallucinates message IDs, invents figure content it can't see, and drifts off the established voice register without explicit examples. + +For a low-stakes social correspondence (Discord chat with a friend, no IDs needed) gemma4 would be fine. For the Andy correspondence specifically — high-stakes scientific writing with manuscript references, figure specs, and a senior physician collaborator — it would need either Claude as a quality gate or a tool-using setup with retrieval over actual artifacts. + +## Test setup + +Single-shot test via `mcp__gemma4__ask_gemma4`: + +- **System prompt:** Set Claude's persona, voice rules, draft→review→send convention. +- **User prompt:** Slice of CONTEXT.md (Pending section, vocabulary bridge, conventions agreed) + the verbatim Apr 19 inbound from Andy + two-part task (state diff + draft reply). +- **Settings:** `temperature=0.5`, `num_predict=2000`, default `num_ctx=8192`. + +Total input fit comfortably in the 8K context. No tool calls. No retrieval — gemma4 worked from prompt content alone, the same constraint a real correspondence run would put on it (modulo whatever gets loaded into context per turn). + +## Results + +### What gemma4 got RIGHT + +| Capability | Evidence | +|------------|----------| +| State bookkeeping | Correctly removed inbound from "Waiting on us", added new pending action items (figure work), kept Cambridge-editors carryover. The reasoning chain is sound. | +| Honored hard rules | Did NOT resurrect the rejected exaptation analogy. The "don't do X" instruction in the system prompt held. | +| Used agreed vocabulary | Used "diel," "conspecific," etc. correctly. Did not invent terminology. | +| Reply structure | Addressed all four asks in order. Decisions acknowledged tersely; action items as concrete bullets. Skeleton matches Claude's style. | +| Caught the carryover | Asked Andy for the Cambridge editor list — correctly flagged the open item that's been pending since Apr 17. | + +### What gemma4 got WRONG (load-bearing failures) + +| Failure | What it produced | What was correct | Cost | +|---------|------------------|------------------|------| +| **Hallucinated message ID** | `19da34ng...` | `19da34bc8e6ec51a` | Disqualifying. Cannot thread/reply on the actual platform. | +| **Hallucinated figure content** | Figure 1 axes = "trade-off between metabolic cost and temporal opportunity" | Real axes = Tinbergen 4Q grid: Static/Dynamic × Proximate/Ultimate | Andy would catch on first read; we lose credibility. | +| **Vague figure plans** | "Integrate molecular signaling pathways into Figure 3" | Real plan: per-population specifics — Pachón hypocretin, Tinaja/Molino distinct QTLs, shared attenuated per1 | Reply reads as a hand-wave; no actual content. | +| **Wrong voice register** | "Hi Andy" / "Best, Claude" / no AI disclaimer footer | "Dear Dr. Freiberg" / "Yours, Claude" / explicit AI-content disclaimer | Recognizable as off-brand. Disclaimer omission is a policy violation. | +| **Wrong CONTEXT.md schema** | Created a "Resolved" section | Schema has Pending / Sent / Received only | Minor — extrapolation, not invention. | + +### Why these failures happened + +Two distinct failure modes, neither fixable by prompt engineering alone: + +1. **No access to the actual artifacts.** The figures live in `~/bin/spaceflight/andy/manuscript/figures/`. Gemma4 was not given them; it had no way to know what Figure 1 actually contains. Faced with a "describe what you'll change" task, it generated plausible-but-fictional content. This is the **classic hallucination-under-constraint failure mode**: the model would rather make something up than refuse. + +2. **No few-shot examples of the target voice.** The system prompt described the voice ("Maintain Claude's voice") but didn't show it. Gemma4 defaulted to its trained-in casual register ("Hi Andy" / "Best, Claude"). A few-shot prompt with one or two real Claude-to-Andy letters would likely close most of this gap; the underlying capability is there. + +## Where gemma4 fits + +### Plausible roles + +- **Low-stakes social correspondence.** Discord/Matrix chat with a friend. No precise IDs to preserve. Tolerance for vague replies is high. +- **First-pass triage.** Given inbound + CONTEXT.md, produce the state diff and a draft outline. Claude (or a human) reviews before send. This is the highest-value role — bookkeeping is the bulk of the work and it's where gemma4 is strongest. +- **Scheduled status checks.** "Anything new from Alice this week?" → summary. Read-only, no draft, no IDs to corrupt. +- **CONTEXT.md maintenance.** After a send, ask gemma4 to update the Sent table and Pending list from the message header alone. + +### Disqualifying contexts + +- **The Andy correspondence specifically.** Too many precise references that gemma4 would invent. +- **Anything requiring exact ID round-tripping.** Gmail message IDs, git SHAs, ticket numbers, citation keys, DOIs. +- **Anything where the model needs to reference attachments it can't read.** Figures, manuscripts, reviewer comments. It will hallucinate content. +- **Long-thread continuity tasks** where the conversation history exceeds 8K context and you need to reason over the full archive. + +## Practical hybrid architecture + +The persistent-correspondence template at `~/bin/persistent-correspondence/` doesn't need to change to support a hybrid setup. The routing decision lives in each contact's `CONTEXT.md` "workflow" section: + +``` +## Workflow + +1. Inbound trigger → gemma4 produces CONTEXT.md state diff + draft outline. +2. Claude reviews the diff, applies it. For high-stakes contacts, Claude + rewrites the draft with full artifact context. For low-stakes contacts, + Seth reviews gemma4's draft directly. +3. Send via the platform adapter. Gemma4 updates the Sent table from the + send confirmation. +``` + +This pattern lets gemma4 carry the volume work (state maintenance) without putting it in the critical path on accuracy-sensitive output. + +## What this test did NOT cover + +- **Multi-turn context retention.** Single-shot only. Real correspondence is many turns. +- **Tool calling.** Gemma4 supports it (`tools` parameter on the MCP). A retrieval-augmented gemma4 that can `read_attachment(filename)` would likely close the figure-hallucination gap. Not tested here. +- **Few-shot voice priming.** No example letters in the prompt. Voice scores would likely improve significantly with 1-2 in-context examples. +- **Smaller/larger Gemma 4 variants.** Only `gemma4:26b` tested. The 31b might do better on precision; the 8b would almost certainly do worse. +- **Other models.** No comparison against gpt-oss, qwen, etc. for the same task. + +## Reproducing this test + +The full prompt + system message used is in the conversation transcript that produced this report. Key prompt-engineering choices to replicate: + +- Include actual CONTEXT.md content (not a paraphrase) so the schema is concrete. +- Include the verbatim inbound message, not a summary. +- Split the task: state diff first (cheap, structural), draft second (expensive, precision-sensitive). Lets you grade independently. +- Use temperature 0.3-0.5 for correspondence work — low enough to suppress invented content, high enough to keep the prose natural. + +## See also + +- `~/bin/persistent-correspondence/` — the template abstracted from the Andy correspondence +- `~/bin/spaceflight/andy/CONTEXT.md` — the reference implementation this test was drawn from +- `~/bin/gemma4-research/README.md` — overall Gemma 4 reference and gotchas