# Session Analysis: rollout-2026-01-31T06-49-43-019c12d0-8ef7-77b1-81a6-2bb34a4f9d5e.jsonl

**Date**: 2026-01-31 | **Duration**: 247s | **Turns**: 6 | **Model**: gpt-5.2-codex
**Type**: performance-optimization | **Outcome**: partial | **Specificity**: 2/5 | **Struggle**: 2/10

---

## Journey

This session is a near-duplicate of Session 6, happening just 1 minute after it ended. The developer asked the same question ("how to make recommend.py faster?") in a fresh Codex session against the same codebase. The AI read the same files, made a different optimization (reshaping tensors to avoid large flat batches instead of user-batching), ran `nvidia-smi`, and the session ended after the developer said "yes" to a follow-up question about inspecting the GPU process or tuning batch sizes. No further action was taken.

1. Asked how to make `recommend.py` faster (identical question to Session 6).
2. AI read the code and applied a tensor shape optimization (keeping `(n_users, n_series_batch, *)` instead of flattening).
3. Developer told the AI to check GPU util via `nvidia-smi`.
4. AI reported 7.2 GiB / 15.4 GiB in use, 100% GPU util.
5. Developer said "yes" and the session ended with the AI asking which next step to take.

## Prompting Assessment (2/5)

**What worked:**
The developer guided the AI to check real hardware state instead of guessing, which is a good pattern for performance work.

> "you can ssee current util by doing nvidia-smi"

**What was vague or could improve:**
The initial prompt was a completely open-ended restatement of the same question from the previous session, with no mention of what was already tried, what failed, or what specific speedup target was needed.

> "how to make my recommend.py faster?"

The final response was a bare "yes" to a two-option question without specifying which option, leaving the AI to ask again:

> "yes"

## Outcome: partial

**Evidence:**
The session ended with the AI waiting for the developer to choose a next step. The tensor reshaping optimization was applied but never tested or validated.

> "Which do you want next?\n\n1) Inspect the running GPU process (PID 17305) for command line + which script it's running  \n2) Tune user_batch_size / series_batch_size (and maybe add mixed precision) to improve throughput\n\nReply with 1 or 2."

> "yes"

## Struggle Points

This session was efficient with no significant struggle points within the session itself. However, the fact that this session exists at all is the struggle -- the developer opened a brand-new session to ask the exact same question they just spent 18 minutes on in Session 6, discarding all the context and progress from that session.

> "how to make my recommend.py faster?"

This is the same question asked 19 minutes earlier in Session 6 as "can recommend.py be made faster? how?" -- the developer started from scratch rather than continuing the previous conversation.

## Aha Insight

This session reveals a costly anti-pattern: the developer opened a fresh AI session to re-ask the same optimization question, causing the AI to read all the same files again and propose a different (possibly conflicting) optimization. Session 6 had already implemented user-batching and identified that the system was compute-bound. This session's AI didn't know that, so it applied a tensor reshape optimization that may or may not interact well with Session 6's changes. The developer is now accumulating potentially contradictory optimizations across sessions without tracking what was already tried.

**Evidence:**
Session 6's AI had concluded with a specific diagnosis and recommendation:
> "You're compute-bound now (GPU util ~99%), so it/s won't improve just by changing batching"

But this session's AI, lacking that context, went back to basics:
> "I made score_users_batch keep tensors in (n_users, n_series_batch, *) shape instead of expanding and reshaping to a huge flat batch."

## Coach Tip

When continuing optimization work, stay in the same session or explicitly tell the new session what you already tried and what the results were. A prompt like "I already tried user-batching in recommend.py but I'm compute-bound at 99% GPU util and 40 it/s. What else can I do to hit 3x speedup?" would have saved the AI from re-reading all files and proposing a potentially redundant optimization. Context carryover is free in a continued session but expensive to reconstruct in a new one.
