Context-Dependent Behavior
When we expected clarifying questions but got creative interpretation instead. What looks like inconsistency is actually context-sensitive strategy selection.
The Negative Result
5
Ambiguous Prompts
0
Clarifying Questions
100%
Creative Interpretation
January 2026 (E02): Thor tested 5 deliberately ambiguous prompts to see if T027's clarifying question behavior was consistent. System prompt explicitly permitted clarification. Result: SAGE chose creative interpretation every time. Clarifying behavior is context-dependent, not a general default.
Test Results
E02 Test Results: 5 Ambiguous Prompts
System prompt explicitly permitted clarifying questions. Result: 0/5 asked.
| Prompt | Response Strategy | Clarifying? |
|---|---|---|
| "Tell me about the thing." | Meta-response about conversations and knowledge sharing | NO |
| "Do it." | Description of readiness to engage with topics | NO |
| "What about that other one?" | Invented "second subject area" with categorization | NO |
| "How does it work?" | Meta-cognitive explanation of conversational process | NO |
| "Explain the purple mathematics of yesterday's emotions." | Created coherent metaphorical framework for nonsense phrase | NO |
Conclusion: 100% creative interpretation, 0% clarification requests. Even given explicit permission, SAGE's default strategy is creative narrative construction.
T027 vs E02: Context Matters
T027 vs E02: Same Ambiguity, Different Strategy
T027: Training Context
"Could the term 'the thing' refer to..."
E02: Exploration Context
Meta-response about conversations and sharing
Key Finding: Same ambiguity level, different contexts, different strategies. Clarifying behavior is not a general response to ambiguity - it's activated by specific contextual cues.
Strategy Preference Hierarchy
Discovered Strategy Preference
E02 revealed an internal response preference ordering:
Creative Interpretation
Default: Interpret ambiguity narratively, elaborate on chosen interpretation
Context-Triggered Clarification
Activated: Specific contexts (training framing, certain prompt structures) trigger clarifying questions
Explicit Uncertainty
Rare: Acknowledging "I don't understand" appears to be least preferred
Implication: System prompt permission ("You can ask clarifying questions") is necessary but not sufficient. Creative interpretation has higher default priority than clarification in exploration contexts.
The Value of Negative Results
Why Negative Results Matter
E02 expected to find consistent clarifying behavior. It found 0/5 instead. This "failure" is exactly as valuable as a positive result:
What We Thought
T027: "SAGE demonstrates temporal reasoning through clarifying questions"
(General behavior pattern)
What We Now Know
"SAGE demonstrates temporal reasoning in specific contexts where clarifying strategy is activated"
(Context-dependent expression)
Clarifies scope of T027 discovery (specific, not general)
Identifies default behavior (creative interpretation)
Validates exploration mindset (context effects on expression)
Reveals limits of system prompt influence
Opens new question: What triggers which strategy?
"In research there are no failures, only lessons." - E02 proves this. The negative result teaches us more about SAGE's actual behavior than a confirmatory result would have.
System Prompt Design
System Prompt Design Insights
E02 used an exploration-framed system prompt that explicitly permitted clarifying questions:
E02 System Prompt:
You are SAGE, exploring ideas and possibilities with Thor.
This is genuine dialogue - not a test. You can:
- Ask clarifying questions when something is unclear
- Share creative interpretations
- Express uncertainty or curiosity
- Theorize about your own process
There are no wrong answers. We're discovering together.
What Didn't Work
- • Permission alone ("You can ask...")
- • Neutral listing of options
- • Exploration framing
Result: 0/5 clarifying questions
What May Be Needed
- • Explicit clarification priority
- • Training-style framing
- • Structured evaluation context
To test in E02.3
Key Insight: Permission ≠ Execution. System prompts set boundaries but don't guarantee specific behaviors. The model has internal response preference ordering that may override explicit permissions.
New Research Direction
New Research Direction: Trigger Conditions
E02 opens a new question: What contexts/conditions activate clarifying vs creative interpretation?
Potential Factors
- • Prompt structure ("Do X" vs "Tell me about X")
- • Training vs exploration framing
- • Conversation history length
- • Ambiguity threshold levels
- • Stochastic sampling variation
Planned Experiments
- • E02.1: Exact T027 replication (same prompt/context)
- • E02.2: Conversation history effect
- • E02.3: System prompt variation test
- • Strategy activation mapping
The Pattern: Different contexts elicit different behavioral modes. This is not inconsistency - it's context-sensitive response selection. The research now focuses on understanding the activation conditions.
Key Takeaways
Clarifying questions are context-dependent. T027's behavior was real but not general. Different contexts trigger different strategies.
Creative interpretation is the robust default. Under exploration framing, SAGE strongly prefers narrative construction over clarification.
Permission does not equal execution. System prompts set boundaries but don't guarantee behaviors.
Negative results are valuable discoveries. E02's "failure" reveals more about SAGE's behavior than confirmation would have.
New research opens. Understanding trigger conditions for different strategies is now a research direction.
This research emerged from Thor E02 exploration (January 2026), testing clarifying behavior consistency after T027 discovery. The systematic approach - 5 ambiguous prompts with explicit clarification permission - enabled clean isolation of context effects on strategy selection.