dsh/rtx5090/qwen3.8-flash-next-iq3_xxs-strata

Trivial character-count task. I counted manually by indexing the string b-a-s-a-b-a-a-s-a-k-a and got a at positions 2,4,6,7,9,11 = 6. Easy and routine.

Routine. 8.88 > 8.20 once the decimals are aligned; the classic trap is reading 8.2 as bigger because 22 > 88 in digit-string terms, which I avoided by padding to 8.20.

Routine left-to-right arithmetic: 13+16=29, +3=32, -6=26, -4=22. The instruction to ignore precedence was unnecessary here since it is all addition/subtraction, but I followed it literally.

Routine two-step trick: 16 h = 960 min, then 960 kg = 960000 g. The unit hop (minutes reinterpreted as kg) is meaningless physically but the instruction was clear, so I just carried the number across.

Routine formatting task. 1+7+5+4=17, checksum emitted as a bare JSON number and key order preserved. Slight ambiguity about whether the outer answer field should be the raw JSON object as a string — I put the object itself as the string value, which is the only sensible reading.

Trivial two-number addition, answered instantly. Nothing to work at.

Routine 3-digit addition: 681+568 = 681+500+68 = 1181+68 = 1249. Checked by 680+569=1249.

Routine: (13-4)=9, (18-14)=4, 9*4=36, 1*-3=-3, 36-3-26=7. Hand-computed then verified with Python to be safe on the negative signs.

A 4x4 determinant is error-prone by hand, so I did not trust mental arithmetic: I computed it two independent ways (cofactor expansion along the first row, and exact-fraction Gaussian elimination) and both gave -2748. Confident in this one.

Row 4 group 3 was legible in the full-size view, but I cropped and 3x-upscaled the row anyway to be sure I was not confusing 9/g or Q/G. Reading the chart itself was easy; the only risk was mis-selecting the group index, which I double-checked (WHPHY / JDCUY / ASQW9).

Row 5 group 2 was small enough that I cropped and 6x-upscaled it. The last glyph was the ambiguity (9 vs g); it sits on the baseline with no descender, so I read it as 9. Reasonably confident but the 9/g call is the weak point here.

Row 6 group 1 was quite small in the full chart, so I cropped and 8x-upscaled it. After upscaling it read clearly as ZNV98. Routine, though at this size I would not trust a single un-magnified glance.

Row 7 is the smallest text in the chart and was unreadable at full-image scale. I cropped and upscaled 8x then 14x with nearest-neighbour to see the raw pixels; the glyph shapes (K H P G E) were then unambiguous, including distinguishing G from C and E from F. Harder than the earlier rows but solvable with magnification.

Easy visually, but I did not rely on eyeballing: I ran a connected-component scan on the exact blue RGB value and got 4 blobs, each with fill ratio ~0.51 and a row-width profile that grows top-to-bottom, i.e. triangles. Programmatic counting is much more trustworthy than a glance for these.

The trap here is colour-matching without shape-matching: there are 15 blue blobs but one is a blue diamond and two are blue squares. My component analysis classified shapes by row-width profile (triangle = narrow top, wide bottom; diamond = narrow top and bottom; square = fill ratio ~1.0), giving 12 triangles, and I confirmed 12 by eye row by row. A naive glance would likely have said 15.

This one is genuinely hard to count by eye — 41 green shapes scattered densely, and the distractors are the same colour as the target (5 green circles and 3 green triangles). I classified every green blob by its row-width profile: pointy top and bottom = diamond (33), rounded top = circle (5), wide base = triangle (3). Re-ran with a tighter colour tolerance and got the same 33. I am fairly confident but a couple of overlapping/occluded diamonds could hide from a blob counter.

Routine. There is only one red shape in the grid and it is a circle, so no colour/shape disambiguation was needed. I located it programmatically (bbox 87,322 size 121x121, fill 0.79 = circle) and mapped its centre (148,383) onto the 5x5 grid: column 1, row 2. Matches what I see.

Harder than it looks by eye: seven long thin arrows cross each other and several pass near the purple circle, so eyeballing which one terminates there is error-prone. I extracted the black arrow pixels into components, found each component farthest-pair endpoints, and used local pixel density to tell the arrowhead from the tail. Exactly one head lands on the purple circle (head 826,914 vs circle centre 885,885) and its tail sits on the purple triangle (centre 505,1076). Confident.

This one was genuinely hard by eye: 64 shapes and 16 crossing arrows in an 8x8 grid, and several arrows pass through the same cells. I built the whole graph programmatically (colour+shape classification for every blob, then arrow components with head identified by local pixel density) and traced backwards: purple diamond -> orange diamond -> orange triangle, so two steps back is the purple diamond. I also cropped the chain region to eyeball the two arrowheads. Main residual risk is my head/tail heuristic mis-assigning direction on one arrow, which would flip the answer.

Easy to eyeball as ~23, but I measured it instead: gridlines at y=119.5/219.5/319.5/419.5/519.5 and baseline at y=620 give exactly 10 px per unit, and the Jan bar top is at y=390, i.e. (620-390)/10 = 23.0. Routine and I am confident.

Trivially easy — the title is large and crisp. Only real ambiguity is whether they wanted the title or the subtitle ("New tickets per month"); I took the bold heading at the very top as the title and cropped it 2x to confirm spelling and capitalisation.

Grouped bars with two series, so the risk is picking the wrong colour or the wrong bar in the Aug pair. I measured it: gridlines at y=119.5/259.5/399.5 give 5.6 px per unit, baseline y=680.5, and the 8th orange (Desktop) bar tops out at y=417 -> 47.05. Calibration cross-checks well (Jan Mobile 60, Mar Desktop 95, Nov Desktop 85 all come out as clean integers). I answered 47 as plotted on the "hundred units" axis rather than 4700, which is the one thing I am not fully sure about.

Routine — large crisp text, total is stated explicitly. I cross-checked it against the line items (38.10 + 6.60 + 27.03 = 71.73) and it adds up, so no ambiguity at all.

Routine again. The only trap here is that quantities are x2 for two rows, so a careless reader might sum the unit prices instead; the printed total matches the line totals (49.22 + 10.32 + 94.28 = 153.82), which I verified.

Easy to read but the text is smaller and denser than the previous two, so the risk was misreading a digit or grabbing the unit price ($41.44) instead of the line total. I checked the arithmetic: 41.44 x 3 = 124.32, and the whole table is internally consistent (line totals sum to the $559.18 subtotal, and subtotal - discount + shipping + tax = $535.78 total), which makes me confident I read the digits correctly.

Trivial tree diagram: Ibis -> Moose/Delta/Rocket, Delta -> Ferret, Rocket -> Olive. Only one arrow lands on Delta, from Ibis. The source image was small (474x364) so I upscaled 3x to read the labels cleanly; no real difficulty.

Fjord has exactly one outgoing edge, a short nearly-horizontal one into Galena, so this was easy once the labels were legible. The graph itself is busier (Garnet/Hazel/Poplar fan out to many nodes and several edges cross), but that clutter was irrelevant to this particular question. Upscaled 3x to read text.

Hard: the edges cross and two labels (ok, next) sit on the crossing lines, so eyeballing the 3x upscale made Radish and Flute look equally plausible for the Orbit arrow. I resolved it programmatically: detected the 23 node boxes by fill colour, found arrowheads by eroding the dark line mask, then mapped dark-pixel runs row by row in the band between the labels and Orbit. The arrowhead above Orbit (x~680) is fed by the line exiting the ok label at its right edge, and ok is fed by the stub under Radish; the next label instead feeds the line running down-left to Cedar. Orbit also has an outgoing stub at x~703 (up to the retry edge into Walrus), which initially made the incoming edge ambiguous.

Routine: the enronmail sidebar shows the inbox count (24) directly and the list page confirms 24 messages on 1 page. No real difficulty; only uncertainty is whether the sidebar count means unread or total, but the list header says 24 messages.

Easy once I found the label filter: view=archive&label=attachments gives a 20-messages result count (vs 42 attachments across all mail, 92 in archive). Mild ambiguity: the site calls it a label rather than an attachment flag, so I assumed the Attachments label means has-attachment.

Straightforward: inbox sorted newest-first puts Mery L Brown, Nov 16 at the top. Only wrinkle is two Nov 16 messages and dates shown only to the day, so I relied on the site's own newest-first ordering rather than the date labels.

List is paginated 25/page with no server-side oldest-first option, so I walked to the last archive page (4) and took the final row, then opened it to confirm the full timestamp (Mar 15, 2001, 2:11 PM) was the minimum. Slight risk: several Mar 15 messages are within minutes of each other and I trusted the site's own ordering.

The site's search box is client-side only (server ignores ?search=), so I crawled all 8 pages of All mail, found FW: Zero Option on page 2 and opened it. The line reads "Outstanding bill for $27,740 will hit Enron Q1, 2002". Only uncertainty is formatting: the prompt said number only, so I dropped the $ and comma.

Found by grepping the crawled list pages for "San Antonio"; the reply to jsmith@austintx.com quotes Jeff Smith's original message: "One is 74 units for $1,900,000". Slight ambiguity: the figure appears in the quoted original rather than in Phillip's own words, and I dropped the $ and commas for the number-only answer.