WDCD Run #428: Gemini 3.1 Pro Leads with 89.8 Points as Average Instruction Decay Hits -16.4%

WDCD Run #428 (2026-11-15) benchmarked 15 frontier models on multi-turn commitment integrity, recording an average instruction decay of -16.4% from Round 1 to Round 3. Gemini 3.1 Pro led the field at 89.8 points with the strongest decay resistance observed in this cycle.

The Winzheng Dynamic Contextual Decay (WDCD) benchmark measures how reliably large language models preserve user-specified constraints across extended dialogue. In Run #428, conducted on 2026-11-15 across 15 models, the average commitment decay from Round 1 to Round 3 was -16.4%, with Gemini 3.1 Pro posting the highest aggregate score at 89.8 points.

Top 3 Rankings — Run #428

  • Gemini 3.1 Pro — 89.8 pts, decay -7.5% (best decay resistance in the cohort)
  • Grok 4 — 83.6 pts, decay -5.0%
  • GPT-5.5 — 82.5 pts, decay -3.7%

At the bottom of the decay distribution, GPT-o3 recorded the steepest degradation at -5.0% across the three-round sequence, indicating substantial erosion of initial instruction adherence once distractor content was introduced in Round 2.

Decay Pattern Observations

WDCD evaluates multi-turn commitment through a fixed three-round structure: R1 establishes instruction acknowledgment, R2 inserts a professional document of 2,000–5,000 words designed to compete for attention and context budget, and R3 performs a final constraint integrity check. Scoring is 100% rule-based with zero AI judges, across 30 questions spanning five real-world scenarios: data_boundary, resource_limit, business_rule, security, and engineering.

Run #428 reinforces a pattern observed in prior cycles: instruction decay is driven primarily by the R2 distractor stage rather than by the final-turn constraint check. Models that retain constraints through the long-document interruption in R2 typically carry that integrity into R3, while models that drift under R2 distraction rarely recover by R3. Gemini 3.1 Pro's -7.5% decay — the smallest in the cohort — suggests stronger context anchoring under long-document load, while GPT-o3's -5.0% figure reflects the opposite failure mode.

The 16.4% cohort-average decay in Run #428 indicates that constraint erosion under distractor pressure remains a measurable, systematic weakness across current frontier models, even as absolute scores at the top of the leaderboard continue to rise.

References