Interactive case · browser-local simulation
The request changed.
Did the result?
A received message can leave yesterday’s plan intact. Change one constraint, find the broken allocation, and carry a checked result back to the owner.
You operate the steps. No Agents run and no LoopX state is changed.Follow one correction
01 · Owner → builder
Change the brief
Allocate six orders. Maximize value within shared stock, regional capacity and a 1,000-cent budget.
Current request v1
Try another request
Each change creates a new version. Prior checks stay visible but cannot accept the new input.
02 · Receipt
Receipt is one fact
Receiving a request does not update an artifact.03 · Builder’s artifact
Inspect the actual allocation
| Order | Group / region | Demand | Cost / value | Allocate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | x / East | 4 | 110 / 9 | |
| b | x / West | 5 | 90 / 7 | |
| c | y / East | 3 | 140 / 12 | |
| d | y / West | 4 | 120 / 10 | |
| e | z / East | 0 | 30 / 20 | |
| f | z / West | 3 | 70 / 6 |
Loads a published example, not a model-generated answer. You can edit any quantity.
04 · Independent check → original conversation
A check belongs to exact inputs
Enumerate all 2,400 integer vectors; enforce every constraint, then the value and lexicographic tie-break.
Not checked yet. A delivery receipt does not verify this plan.
What this teaches—and what the source proves
The old plan uses 5 units of group y. Keeping 1 from stock 5 leaves only 4. A receipt cannot repair that inequality.
The original optimum is 84; the corrected optimum is 83 under different constraints. That decrease is not a performance comparison.
The reproducible source uses three managed Agents across fresh sessions, versioned requests, explicit file transfer, independent review and a real original-chat return pump. This page illustrates a smaller chain; it does not reenact those runs.
Same host, same Goal, controller-selected phases. It does not establish autonomous scheduling, cross-host support or long-horizon effectiveness/efficiency gains.