A seemingly perfect experiment report under a magnifying glass revealing two design flaws: rubric bias toward the tested variable and insufficient scenario coverage

AI-Designed Experiments Need Human Review

Series: AI Agent Experiment Methodology (Part 3) Previous: The Experiment Design Was Fine, So Why Did the LLM Still Fail? TL;DR: In a double-blind experiment, Variant B won 4/4 scenarios with clean data. But design review revealed the rubric had 3/8 dimensions directly testing the target variable, exceeding the 1/3 ceiling and nearly becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a separate validation, one scenario scored perfectly while another exposed a defect—if we had run only the first, the defect would have shipped. Both traps were caught by reviewing the design, not by running the experiment. ...

2026-06-01 · 7 min · Alex Wang
A carefully designed experiment pipeline corrupted by context leaks at two nodes, contrasted with the clean rebuilt version

The Experiment Design Was Fine. The LLM Still Failed.

Series: AI Agent Experiment Methodology (Part 2) Part 1: How to Use Double-Blind Experiments to Validate Skill Changes TL;DR: Round one of the double-blind experiment: B won 3/4 scenarios but failed the magnitude filter. Verdict: “insufficient evidence.” Investigation revealed S1-A’s output was polluted by terminal color codes, and the scorer diligently scored 8 dimensions on ANSI garbage. After reconstructing the execution context, B won 4/4. The failure wasn’t in the experiment design—it was in how sub-agents’ context boundaries were constructed. ...

2026-05-31 · 6 min · Alex Wang
Double-blind experiment diagram showing randomized variant mapping and blind evaluation process

Testing Prompt Changes: Why You Need Double-Blind Experiments

TL;DR: You changed a skill. How do you know it’s actually better, not just confirmation bias? I ran a double-blind experiment: two versions, four scenarios, independent blind scoring. The scorer saw X=2.44, Y=2.41 and said “can’t tell them apart.” After unblinding: simplified version won 4/0. The 0.03 Gap I shortened a review skill from 159 lines to 89 lines. Wanted to verify the simplified version actually worked better, so I ran a double-blind experiment. ...

2026-05-29 · 6 min · Alex Wang