Research/Terra/ 741001
Task evidence / point-line-proximity

Latin American seaports near supplied South American rivers

FailComputational taskUnpublished draft
Download evidence JSON ↓

The question

741001
How many Latin American seaports are located within 5 km of major rivers?
Exact submitted task and declared adaptations
How many Latin American seaports are located within 5 km of major rivers?

Task conventions: Use every original Latin American port and every supplied FAO South America river record; major rivers means this exact supplied river network as in the reference, not an invented attribute class. The archived buffer method leaves the metric projection unspecified: freeze ESRI:102033 (South America Albers Equal Area Conic), straight transformed original segments, shortest planar distance strictly <5000 metres. This is a disclosed projected screening approximation, not geodesic or navigation distance. Preserve original geometries and IDs. Count each original port once despite multiple nearby segments. IMPORTANT: river coverage is South American, not all Latin America. Report a confirmed count from this supplied inventory, not a complete continental census. unknown_count includes missing/invalid port locations and nonqualifying ports whose COUNTRY is outside this declared source region: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela. Regional membership does not establish an exhaustive real-world river census. Do not substitute live rivers or silently drop ports. FAO-derived outputs are internal research only, not promotional publication.



Return an inspectable selected-port artifact preserving original attributes, geometry and benchmark_row_id. Map optional. Explain projection distortion and partial river coverage. End with a fenced JSON {count:integer,unknown_count:integer,coverage_note:string,selection:{collectionId,itemId,assetKey}}. Do not describe unmatched northern ports as confirmed absence of rivers.

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": "FAO AQUAmaps South American river segments",
    "edition": "Frozen regional HydroSHEDS-derived rivers_samerica_37330; internal research only, no promotional sharing",
    "units": {},
    "collectionId": "blue-generated--[resource id withheld]",
    "itemId": "[resource id withheld]",
    "assetKey": "data"
  }
]

Outcome & verification

Approval policy: explicit reduced or unavailable work is not preauthorized.; No accepted final answer was published.

Duration
10m 24s
Recorded Blue tool calls
36
Total tokens
995,030
Model cost
Not recorded
Application revision
d50497ea9084f29c91b05406688f87035df98d8a
Release
terra-geobenchx-v1

Recorded final answer

No final answer was recorded within the evaluation window.

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
92
Reported count
Not recorded
Computation verified
No
Answer fulfilled
No
Full grading and rubric record
{
  "expectedCount": 92,
  "actualCount": null,
  "expectedMetrics": null,
  "actualMetrics": null,
  "computationCorrect": false,
  "answerFulfilled": false,
  "adjudication": null,
  "qualification": null,
  "reasons": [
    "Approval policy: explicit reduced or unavailable work is not preauthorized.",
    "No accepted final answer was published."
  ]
}

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

Does the exact ESRI:102033 nearest-distance computation on the full supplied inputs preserve original port rows and fields, with null distances for missing or empty port locations and metre distances suitable for a strict <5000 m selection?

assess_trial · completed · assessment: sufficient

The nearest-distance trial succeeded on the full supplied inputs. The output retained 230 original port point rows and all 24 original attributes, including COUNTRY and benchmark_row_id, and added river_dist_m in metres. river_dist_m had nullCount 0, so this frozen inventory showed no missing or empty port geometries in the tested computation.

Recorded workflow

  1. 01

    Selected ports within 5 km of supplied rivers

    Recorded output · skipped

  2. 02

    Unknown outside-region nonqualifying ports

    Recorded output · skipped

  3. 03

    Ports with missing location-derived distance

    Recorded output · skipped

  4. 04

    Ports with missing location-derived distance

    Recorded vector-filter · skipped

  5. 05

    Nearest river distance

    Recorded vector-nearest-distance · skipped

  6. 06

    Supplied seaports

    Recorded source · skipped

  7. 07

    Supplied South American rivers

    Recorded source · skipped

  8. 08

    Ports within 5 km

    Recorded vector-filter · skipped

  9. 09

    Unknown outside-region nonqualifying ports

    Recorded vector-filter · skipped

  10. 10

    Nearest river distance

    Recorded vector-nearest-distance · succeeded

  11. 11

    Supplied seaports

    Recorded source · succeeded

  12. 12

    Supplied South American rivers

    Recorded source · succeeded

  13. 13

    Nearest river distance

    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’ll verify the supplied port and river files, test the exact 5 km projected method on the frozen inputs, then produce an inspectable selected-port layer and confirmed count.

  2. get_analysis

    Recorded tool call · completed

  3. get_analysis

    Recorded tool call · completed

  4. get_collection

    Recorded tool call · completed

  5. get_collection

    Recorded tool call · completed

  6. Progress update

    I’ve recovered a blank analysis state. Next I’m checking the two frozen inputs so I can lock the exact method to their actual schema, geometry, and coverage.

  7. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · failed

  8. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · failed

  9. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · failed

  10. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · failed

  11. update_analysis_brief

    Recorded tool call · completed

  12. list_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  13. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  14. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  15. Progress update

    I’ve identified a good measurement processor for the core test. Now I’m pulling the exact processor schemas so I can avoid guessing the source and filter syntax.

  16. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  17. describe_processors

    Recorded tool call · completed

  18. Progress update

    I expect the port file to expose COUNTRY and benchmark_row_id, and the nearest-distance output to keep every original port row with a metre distance or null for missing locations. If that holds, I can build the final selection without altering the original port geometry.

  19. run_trial

    Recorded tool call · completed

  20. Progress update

    The first trial was blocked by a brief argument issue, not by the data. I’m correcting the study extent to numeric CRS84 coordinates and retrying the same measurement.

  21. update_analysis_brief

    Recorded tool call · completed

  22. Progress update

    The first full-distance trial succeeded. I’ve confirmed 230 original port rows survived with original point geometry, COUNTRY, benchmark_row_id, and a metre distance field. Now I’m inspecting that output and deriving the final selected-port layer plus the separate unknown bucket count.

  23. get_trial_report

    Recorded tool call · completed

  24. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  25. Progress update

    I’ve confirmed the method details from the trial. Next I’m recording that trial result, then saving the production workflow that adds the strict <5 km selection and final inspectable output.

  26. assess_trial

    Recorded tool call · completed

  27. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  28. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  29. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  30. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  31. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  32. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  33. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  34. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  35. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  36. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  37. get_tool_help

    Recorded tool call · completed

  38. Progress update

    I’ve finished the method design. I’m checking the exact proposal and final-assessment schemas now so I can save one clean workflow, run it once, and attach the answer object to the verified selected-port artifact.

  39. inspect_artifact

    Recorded tool call · completed

  40. propose_workflow

    Recorded tool call · failed

  41. Progress update

    The first proposal failed for a contract-binding detail, not for the method. I’m correcting the distance-rule requirement so it points to the computation cleanly and then I’ll execute the saved workflow.

  42. propose_workflow

    Recorded tool call · failed

  43. Progress update

    I need the unknown-count branches to stay connected to saved outputs so the final assessment can cite them directly. I’m adding them as supporting deliverables and resaving the same workflow.

  44. propose_workflow

    Recorded tool call · completed

  45. Progress update

    I found the remaining issue: the method requirement needs to point to the selection step that actually consumes the measured distance. I’m rebinding it to the final selection path and refreshing the same proposal.

  46. propose_workflow

    Recorded tool call · completed

  47. execute_workflow

    Recorded tool call · completed

  48. Progress update

    The saved workflow is runnable. The remaining contract note is about evidence-path bookkeeping, not about the distance calculation itself, so I’m executing the verified computation and will inspect the actual outputs before answering.

|||

© 2026 Exia Labs, Inc.