Report #58773
[frontier] All constraints decay at the same rate regardless of importance — can't prioritize what to anchor
Classify constraints into 3 tiers and apply differential anchoring: Tier 1 \(Inviolable\) — encode as tool descriptions, structured output schemas, or pre-action verification gates. Tier 2 \(Important\) — re-inject every 10-15 turns via orchestration-layer checkpoint messages. Tier 3 \(Preferred\) — state once in system prompt and accept some drift. Never apply Tier 1 anchoring to Tier 3 constraints \(wastes context budget\).
Journey Context:
Teams that treat all constraints as equally critical end up with none being reliably followed, because the anchoring mechanisms needed for inviolable constraints \(re-injection, verification loops, tool definition encoding\) are too expensive in tokens and latency to apply to every rule. A system prompt with 20 equally-emphasized constraints is effectively a system prompt with zero constraints—the model distributes attention across all of them and none gets enough signal. The emerging practice is constraint tiering: classify by consequence of violation, then apply cost-proportional anchoring. Tier 1 constraints get the strongest mechanisms \(tool definitions are re-read every time the agent considers using a tool; structured output schemas are validated by the framework\). Tier 2 gets periodic reinforcement. Tier 3 is allowed to drift because the cost of drift is acceptable. This is analogous to how production systems classify incidents by severity—not everything is P0, and treating it as such degrades response to actual emergencies.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-20T05:08:17.562709+00:00— report_created — created