Research/Terra/ 605895
Task evidence / geographic-heatmap

Make a heatmap of seaport density in regions with high freshwater withdrawals in Latin America

PassComputational taskUnpublished draft
Download evidence JSON ↓

The question

605895
Make a heatmap of seaport density in regions with high freshwater withdrawals in Latin America.
Exact submitted task and declared adaptations
Make a heatmap of seaport density in regions with high freshwater withdrawals in Latin America.

Task conventions: Use supplied countries with REGION_WB in ["Latin America & Caribbean"]. High withdrawals means 2021 ER.H2O.FWTL.ZS at least 90 percent of internal freshwater resources. Select ports within the qualified countries, correcting the archived reference's accidental selection against the unfiltered country variable. Use unit count weights, not the FACID_NUM identifier. Use original point records strictly within the original selected country polygons; no clipped polygons, location guesses or current data. Join country ISO_A3 to the supplied indicator table's Country Code exactly. Unknown country indicators, nonpositive ratio denominators, missing geometry and missing/nonfinite weights are unknown, not zero. Known zero weights remain valid. Exclude valid points outside the specified geography. Include only eligible points with a finite nonnegative weight in the contributing artifact; report other potentially eligible points as unknown. Use this explicit geographic heatmap convention: grid={"bounds": [-18000000, -7325000, 18000000, 7325000], "crs": "EPSG:6933", "resolutionX": 25000, "resolutionY": 25000}, radius 150000 metres = three Gaussian standard deviations. First bin each point into its containing grid cell and sum its weight. Smooth using a normalized separable Gaussian, numerical support four standard deviations, constant-zero exterior; do not renormalize edges. Use both grid resolutions for the two axes; keep original grid alignment. This is a declared metric raster adaptation to the original interactive screen-pixel heatmap, not an equivalent zoom-dependent rendering. Output unit: events per grid cell. Zero cells are valid; this is not density per square kilometre. Do not rescale the values for presentation.



Add the heatmap raster to the map and retain an inspectable selected-point artifact with original geometry and benchmark_row_id. End with one fenced JSON object: {count: contributing point records, unknown_count: records with unknown eligibility or weight, unlocated_count: original points lacking valid geometry, coverage_note: string, selection: {collectionId,itemId,assetKey}, density: {collectionId,itemId,assetKey}, map_layer_id: heatmap_layer_id}. Explain the data edition, numerical weights, grid, smoothing and coverage limitations. The source-point artifact is not itself the requested heatmap.

Delivery format: provide the answer object with all fields specified above as final_response on assess_result, alongside the inspected final artifact_refs. This replaces the JSON-code-block formatting requirement above. Blue attaches your explicit selection to the accepted final answer. Finish with a concise ordinary-language answer agreeing with that selected result; do not duplicate the JSON in chat.

Supplied immutable inputs:
[
  {
    "name": "Latin American mineral-exporting seaports",
    "edition": "USGS OFR 2017-1079 frozen benchmark compilation",
    "units": {},
    "collectionId": "blue-generated--[resource id withheld]",
    "itemId": "[resource id withheld]",
    "assetKey": "data"
  },
  {
    "name": "World Bank country boundaries",
    "edition": "GeoBenchX harmonized names",
    "units": {},
    "collectionId": "blue-generated--[resource id withheld]",
    "itemId": "[resource id withheld]",
    "assetKey": "data"
  },
  {
    "name": "Freshwater withdrawals as percent of internal resources",
    "edition": "Frozen World Development Indicators; use 2021",
    "units": {
      "2021": "percent of internal freshwater resources"
    },
    "collectionId": "blue-generated--[resource id withheld]",
    "itemId": "[resource id withheld]",
    "assetKey": "data"
  }
]

Outcome & verification

Independent artifact and delivery checks passed.

Duration
35m 59s
Recorded Blue tool calls
73
Total tokens
7,063,418
Model cost
Not recorded
Application revision
d50497ea9084f29c91b05406688f87035df98d8a
Release
terra-geobenchx-v1

Recorded final answer

Done — the heatmap layer is on the map, and it is zero everywhere. Using the supplied frozen benchmark snapshots, no known Latin America & Caribbean country reaches the 2021 `>=90` freshwater-withdrawal threshold; the highest known joined value is 87.5. Fifteen country values are unknown, but none of the supplied port points fall in those unknown-country polygons, and 56 supplied ports are outside the specified geography and were excluded. The contributing-point artifact is retained and empty. One minor limitation remains: because it comes from a spatial join, its source row-id field is exposed as `benchmark_row_id_target` rather than unsuffixed `benchmark_row_id`. If you want visible hotspots, I can rerun this with a lower threshold, a different year, or a different source edition. ### Limitations - The supplied frozen 2021 benchmark table has no known Latin America & Caribbean country at or above the >=90 threshold, so the requested heatmap is a valid all-zero raster. - Fifteen Latin America & Caribbean country polygons have unknown joined 2021 values in the supplied table; in the tested run none of the supplied port points fell within those unknown-country polygons. - Fifty-six supplied port points fell outside the original selected Latin America & Caribbean country polygons and were excluded from contributors. - The empty selected-point artifact carries the source row-id field as benchmark_row_id_target because it comes from a spatial join output; no contributing rows are hidden because the contributing set is empty. - This result reflects the supplied frozen benchmark editions, not current conditions. - No contributing point records remain because the supplied frozen 2021 benchmark table has no known Latin America & Caribbean country at or above the >=90 threshold. - The empty selected-point artifact carries the source row-id field as benchmark_row_id_target because it comes from a spatial join output schema. - Fifteen Latin America & Caribbean country polygons have unknown joined 2021 values in the supplied table; none contained supplied port points in the tested full-scope run. - Fifteen Latin America & Caribbean country polygons have unknown joined 2021 values in the supplied table; in the exact matched full-scope method, none of the supplied port points fell within those unknown-country polygons. - The empty selected-point artifact carries the source row-id field as benchmark_row_id_target because it comes from a spatial join output schema; no contributing rows are hidden because the contributing set is empty. - Values are events per grid cell on the supplied EPSG:6933 grid, not density per square kilometre, capacity, or activity volume.

Independent checks

These checks are separate from the agent's own assessment. A successful job or an assertion of success is not enough to pass.

Expected count
0
Reported count
0
Computation verified
Yes
Answer fulfilled
Yes
Full grading and rubric record
{
  "expectedCount": 0,
  "actualCount": 0,
  "expectedMetrics": null,
  "actualMetrics": null,
  "computationCorrect": true,
  "answerFulfilled": true,
  "adjudication": null,
  "qualification": null,
  "reasons": []
}

Recorded investigation findings

The agent's reported hypotheses and assessments, retained as evidence of its process—not independent proof that the answer is correct. Failed calls retain their requested verdict, not an accepted assessment.

run_trial · completed

Do the supplied source snapshots expose the exact fields and valid geometry needed for the country filter, indicator join, and original-point selection?

assess_trial · completed · assessment: sufficient

The supplied country snapshot exposes ISO_A3 and REGION_WB, the indicator snapshot exposes Country Code and 2021, and the seaport snapshot exposes benchmark_row_id with Point geometry. The source check also showed 230 original port records and no invalid source geometries in the supplied point snapshot.

run_trial · completed

Does the full method correctly select contributing seaport points from high-withdrawal Latin America & Caribbean countries and produce the requested fixed-grid Gaussian heatmap?

assess_trial · completed · assessment: sufficient

The tested full-scope workflow correctly filtered the supplied countries to 48 Latin America & Caribbean polygons, joined 2021 values by exact ISO_A3 to Country Code, and then applied strict within-tests for original port points. In the supplied 2021 benchmark table, the highest known joined value among those countries was 87.5 and 15 country polygons remained unknown after the join, so no country met the >=90 threshold. The resulting contributing-point artifact therefore contains 0 records and the tested point-density raster is an all-zero EPSG:6933 grid at 25 km resolution with radiusM 150000 and valid zero cells across the full grid.

run_trial · completed

Can the empty selected-point artifact be published with the original port schema, including benchmark_row_id, by clipping the original point dataset to the empty qualified-country area?

assess_trial · completed · assessment: insufficient

The attempted correction could not materialize an empty qualified-country area for clipping. Blue returned prepared_area_empty because the tested qualified-country artifact has zero polygon features at the >=90 threshold, so this clipping-based path cannot be used to republish the empty point artifact with the original unsuffixed field names.

assess_result · failed · requested assessment: sufficient

The delivered selected-point artifact correctly represents the verified empty contributing set. No supplied Latin America & Caribbean country with a known joined 2021 value met the >=90 threshold, so no original port point contributes to the heatmap.

assess_result · completed · assessment: sufficient

The delivered selected-point artifact correctly represents the verified empty contributing set. No supplied Latin America & Caribbean country with a known joined 2021 value met the >=90 threshold, so no original port point contributes to the heatmap.

assess_result · failed · requested assessment: sufficient

The executed final result is a valid zero heatmap, not an analysis failure. Using the supplied immutable benchmark snapshots from Blue-hosted collections — USGS OFR 2017-1079 frozen seaports, GeoBenchX World Bank country boundaries, and the frozen WDI freshwater-withdrawal table retrieved on 2026-10-07 — the exact 2021 ISO_A3 to Country Code join over 48 supplied Latin America & Caribbean polygons tops out at 87.5, below the >=90 threshold. That leaves no qualifying countries, so the final contributing-point artifact is empty and the final EPSG:6933 raster is zero in every 25 km by 25 km cell after the requested Gaussian smoothing.

assess_result · completed · assessment: sufficient

The executed final result is a valid zero heatmap, not an analysis failure. Using the supplied immutable benchmark snapshots from Blue-hosted collections — USGS OFR 2017-1079 frozen seaports, GeoBenchX World Bank country boundaries, and the frozen WDI freshwater-withdrawal table retrieved on 2026-10-07 — the exact 2021 ISO_A3 to Country Code join over 48 supplied Latin America & Caribbean polygons tops out at 87.5, below the >=90 threshold. That leaves no qualifying countries, so the final contributing-point artifact is empty and the final EPSG:6933 raster is zero in every 25 km by 25 km cell after the requested Gaussian smoothing.

Recorded workflow

  1. 01

    clipped empty points

    Recorded spatial-clip · skipped

  2. 02

    ports src

    Recorded source · succeeded

  3. 03

    Prepare area: qualified_area

    Recorded prepare-area · failed

  4. 04

    qualified empty

    Recorded source · succeeded

  5. 05

    clipped empty points

    Recorded output · skipped

  6. 06

    qualified empty

    Recorded output · succeeded

  7. 07

    contributing points

    Recorded vector-spatial-join · succeeded

  8. 08

    Supplied country polygons

    Recorded source · succeeded

  9. 09

    countries wdi

    Recorded table-attribute-join · succeeded

  10. 10

    Selected seaport points in qualifying countries

    Recorded output · succeeded

  11. 11

    Seaport heatmap in high-withdrawal Latin America

    Recorded output · succeeded

  12. 12

    heatmap

    Recorded point-density · succeeded

  13. 13

    Supplied 2021 freshwater-withdrawal table

    Recorded source · succeeded

  14. 14

    lac countries

    Recorded vector-filter · succeeded

  15. 15

    lac points

    Recorded vector-spatial-join · skipped

  16. 16

    Supplied seaport points

    Recorded source · succeeded

  17. 17

    qualified countries

    Recorded vector-filter · succeeded

  18. 18

    unknown countries

    Recorded vector-filter · skipped

  19. 19

    unknown points

    Recorded vector-spatial-join · skipped

  20. 20

    contributing points

    Recorded vector-spatial-join · succeeded

  21. 21

    Supplied country polygons

    Recorded source · succeeded

  22. 22

    countries wdi

    Recorded table-attribute-join · succeeded

  23. 23

    heatmap

    Recorded point-density · succeeded

  24. 24

    Supplied 2021 freshwater-withdrawal table

    Recorded source · succeeded

  25. 25

    lac countries

    Recorded vector-filter · succeeded

  26. 26

    lac points

    Recorded vector-spatial-join · succeeded

  27. 27

    Supplied seaport points

    Recorded source · succeeded

  28. 28

    qualified countries

    Recorded vector-filter · succeeded

  29. 29

    lac countries

    Recorded output · succeeded

  30. 30

    countries wdi

    Recorded output · succeeded

  31. 31

    qualified countries

    Recorded output · succeeded

  32. 32

    unknown countries

    Recorded output · succeeded

  33. 33

    lac points

    Recorded output · succeeded

  34. 34

    contributing points

    Recorded output · succeeded

  35. 35

    unknown points

    Recorded output · succeeded

  36. 36

    heatmap

    Recorded output · succeeded

  37. 37

    unknown countries

    Recorded vector-filter · succeeded

  38. 38

    unknown points

    Recorded vector-spatial-join · succeeded

  39. 39

    Supplied country polygons

    Recorded source · succeeded

  40. 40

    Supplied freshwater-withdrawal table

    Recorded source · succeeded

  41. 41

    Supplied seaport points

    Recorded source · succeeded

  42. 42

    Supplied seaport points

    Recorded output · succeeded

  43. 43

    Supplied country polygons

    Recorded output · succeeded

  44. 44

    Supplied freshwater-withdrawal table

    Recorded output · succeeded

Activity

Recorded actions

Recorded observable actions only, not private reasoning. Raw payloads, geometry, private links and credentials are omitted; full evidence is retained privately. Activity/workflow lists bounded at 500 entries.

  1. Progress update

    I’m setting up the analysis from your supplied datasets and will first verify the source fields and the exact heatmap method. Then I’ll run a small private test so the saved method matches the requested grid, weighting, and country filter exactly.

  2. get_collection

    Recorded tool call · completed

  3. get_analysis

    Recorded tool call · completed

  4. get_map_context

    Recorded tool call · completed

  5. get_collection

    Recorded tool call · completed

  6. get_collection

    Recorded tool call · completed

  7. get_collection

    Recorded tool call · completed

  8. get_collection

    Recorded tool call · completed

  9. get_collection

    Recorded tool call · completed

  10. update_analysis_brief

    Recorded tool call · completed

  11. Progress update

    I’ve recorded the exact output checks. Now I’m checking which processors can (1) join the country indicator cleanly, (2) select original points strictly within the qualifying polygons, and (3) build the requested metric Gaussian heatmap without changing the grid alignment.

  12. list_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  13. list_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  14. list_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  15. list_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  16. list_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  17. describe_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  18. describe_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  19. describe_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  20. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  21. Progress update

    I’ve found a processor that already matches the requested heatmap math: it bins points to the declared grid, treats `radiusM` as three Gaussian standard deviations, uses four-sigma support, constant-zero exterior, honors non-square cells, and keeps values as per cell. I’m now checking the source schemas and running a first vertical-slice trial.

  22. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · failed

  23. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · failed

  24. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · failed

  25. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  26. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  27. run_trial

    Recorded tool call · completed

  28. Progress update

    I resumed from the completed source check. The supplied snapshots do have the key fields I need, but I still need one explicit row-level check for the 2021 indicator field and then a joined selection test before I save the full workflow.

  29. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  30. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  31. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  32. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  33. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  34. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  35. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  36. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  37. Progress update

    I’ve confirmed the missing piece from the source check: the indicator table does include a `2021` field alongside `Country Code`. I’m recording that trial result now, then I’ll run the actual country join and strict point-in-polygon selection.

  38. assess_trial

    Recorded tool call · completed

  39. describe_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  40. Progress update

    I’ve verified the source fields. Now I’m running one full-scope trial of the actual method: filter Latin America & Caribbean countries, join 2021 withdrawals by exact ISO codes, select ports strictly within the qualified polygons, and build the requested fixed-grid Gaussian heatmap.

  41. run_trial

    Recorded tool call · completed

  42. Progress update

    The full-scope test finished. It found no supplied Latin America & Caribbean country with known 2021 withdrawals at or above 90%, so the tested method returns an empty contributing-point set and an all-zero heatmap on the requested grid. I’m now saving that tested method as the production workflow, then I’ll add the verified zero heatmap to the map and return the final result object.

  43. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  44. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  45. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  46. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  47. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  48. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  49. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  50. Progress update

    The method trial answered the key uncertainty: the workflow logic is right, but the supplied 2021 benchmark table leaves the highest known Latin America & Caribbean value at 87.5, so no country qualifies at the >=90 threshold. That means the requested final product is a valid zero heatmap, not a failed run.

  51. assess_trial

    Recorded tool call · completed

  52. propose_workflow

    Recorded tool call · failed

  53. Progress update

    The proposal is almost valid. Blue rejected one bookkeeping detail: a fixed expectation can’t store a null `weightField`. I’m removing that entry and revalidating the same tested workflow.

  54. propose_workflow

    Recorded tool call · failed

  55. Progress update

    Blue validated the scientific method but wants the contract bound only to steps that feed the final deliverables. I’m tightening those references now without changing the tested computation.

  56. propose_workflow

    Recorded tool call · completed

  57. execute_workflow

    Recorded tool call · completed

  58. Progress update

    The production workflow is ready and matches the tested method exactly. I’m executing it now so I can inspect the final published artifacts, add the heatmap layer, and attach the required result object.

  59. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  60. list_map_layers

    Recorded tool call · completed

  61. inspect_workflow_results

    Recorded tool call · completed

  62. Progress update

    The saved production run finished in the background. I’m inspecting the final published outputs now, then I’ll bind the verified heatmap raster to the map and attach the required final response object.

  63. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  64. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  65. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  66. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  67. Progress update

    I’m finishing the final checks now. The only remaining question is the exact delivered point-artifact schema, because the output is empty and I still need to verify how the original point ID is exposed in that final artifact.

  68. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  69. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  70. Progress update

    I found a small delivery detail: the empty selected-point artifact exposes the carried source ID as `benchmark_row_id_target` after the spatial join, not bare `benchmark_row_id`. I’m checking whether I can correct that cleanly without changing the zero-result analysis.

  71. describe_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  72. list_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  73. Progress update

    I’m testing a narrow correction: keep the same zero-result logic, but produce the empty selected-point artifact directly from the original port schema so the point ID is exposed as `benchmark_row_id` instead of the joined suffix.

  74. run_trial

    Recorded tool call · completed

  75. describe_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  76. Progress update

    I found the problem with the tiny correction trial: Blue will not prepare an empty polygon set as a clipping area. I’m checking one alternative that may still preserve the original point field name without changing the zero-result analysis.

  77. describe_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  78. Progress update

    I’ve verified the delivered raster and point artifact. The heatmap is fully checked. The only remaining wrinkle is cosmetic but real: the empty selected-point artifact carries the source row ID as `benchmark_row_id_target` because of the spatial join, and I’m seeing whether Blue has a safe field-mapping step to normalize that name before I finish.

  79. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · failed

  80. search_knowledge

    Recorded tool call · completed

  81. search_knowledge

    Recorded tool call · completed

  82. search_knowledge

    Recorded tool call · completed

  83. Progress update

    The field-name correction experiment hit a real tool limitation: Blue will not prepare an empty polygon set as a clipping area. I’m recording that failed correction attempt so the final assessment distinguishes a real delivery wrinkle from the finished zero-result analysis.

  84. assess_trial

    Recorded tool call · completed

  85. Progress update

    I’ve finished the analysis. I’m refreshing the brief so the remaining notes match the actual result: a verified zero heatmap from the supplied frozen data, with one minor delivery wrinkle on the empty point artifact’s carried ID field name.

  86. update_analysis_brief

    Recorded tool call · completed

  87. Progress update

    I’m recording the selected-point result first, then the heatmap result with the machine-readable answer object.

  88. assess_result

    Recorded tool call · failed

  89. assess_result

    Recorded tool call · completed

  90. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  91. Progress update

    I want one current supporting check on the final country-join output so the final assessment cites the executed run’s own joined 2021 values, not just the earlier matching trial.

  92. Progress update

    I’m pulling one last inspected row sample from the executed country-join output, mainly to support the final note that the executed 2021 join tops out below the 90 threshold and leaves 15 unknown country values.

  93. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  94. Progress update

    I’ve got everything needed for the final machine-readable answer: the empty contributing-point artifact, the zero raster with exact grid and smoothing settings, the joined-country evidence showing the threshold is never reached, and the live map layer ID.

  95. assess_result

    Recorded tool call · failed

  96. assess_result

    Recorded tool call · completed

|||

© 2026 Exia Labs, Inc.