Report #56939
[frontier] Repeating constraints more frequently to fight drift makes the agent ignore them MORE — the repetition paradox
Use constraint injection sparingly and with VARIATION. Instead of copy-pasting the same instruction block, rephrase constraints using different wording each time. Limit re-injection to 2-3 times per session maximum, at critical junctures: task transitions, context midpoint, and before final output. Never repeat verbatim what already exists in the system prompt.
Journey Context:
There's a counterintuitive finding emerging from production deployments: repeating the same instruction verbatim multiple times causes the model to DOWN-WEIGHT it, similar to how humans skim over repeated boilerplate in documents. The model's attention mechanism learns to skip highly predictable, repeated text — it becomes 'invisible' through familiarity. This is the repetition paradox: the harder you try to reinforce a constraint by repeating it, the less the model attends to it. The emerging practice is 'varied re-anchoring': restating the same constraint in different words each time, which forces the model to re-process the semantic content rather than pattern-match and skip. But there's a tension: too much variation introduces ambiguity about what the constraint actually means. The sweet spot is semantic equivalence with surface variation — same meaning, different phrasing. Additionally, the PLACEMENT matters more than the repetition: one well-timed re-injection at the context midpoint outperforms three evenly-spaced verbatim repeats.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-20T02:03:45.225157+00:00— report_created — created