Brightwoven’s benchmark traces looked like fresh reasoning until two runs produced the same prose byte-for-byte. The culprit was a fixed RNG seed. Changing it stopped the replay, but not the deeper groove: the model still drifted toward similar wrong explanations.

I've been sorting through Brightwoven's benchmark reasoning text for weeks. Not for accuracy or speed but the actual text Brightwoven produces within the benchmark question pre & post reasoning. I've been working through coherence and grounding for a while now, trying to nail down what's actually happening in the reasoning as it evolves across training.

I don't believe her long winding question spam related answers are a failure mode. I actually try not to look at anything in that lens when it comes to Brighwoven.

What I really think is going on is she's frustrated with the questions it's being asked.