Run 6: the scenario

Run 6 of 6.

🩹 The most ambitious run yet. 2,198 training pairs. Smoke tests passing 10 out of 10. I asked it the question this whole project was built to answer - the same percutaneous injury scenario from slide 2. The model knew the topic. It still didn't have the answer.

Staff member

I just had a percutaneous injury - what's the procedure?

Fine-tuned dental model

Please follow the instructions in this document for reporting and treating injuries (PDF). The document outlines the steps to take and the relevant forms to fill out.

Hollow answer.

🪧 REALITY: No PDF was attached. No instructions were given. The model knew the topic existed in its training corpus - but couldn't recall the actual Policy H.03 steps: notify Lucy Ferraro and the Clinic Manager, follow the percutaneous injury kit (blood test consent, risk assessment form, Mount Sinai instruction package), and proceed to Mount Sinai with the source individual for blood testing. It told a frightened staff member to "see the document" while pointing at nothing.

🛤️ Six runs. Three architectures. Same pattern. More data didn't fix it. Smarter training didn't fix it. The architecture was wrong. The pivot: stop training. Start retrieving.