Gahow Wang
b11dc30945
The previous §2.3 narrative said "chatbot has T_human ≈ 30 s think-time,
agentic has T_external ≈ 0, so agentic is always closed-loop and chatbot
never is". The new T_external measurements on the production chatbot
trace (qwen3-max, n=42 k inter-turn gaps from formatted parent_chat_id
sessions) show the binary framing is wrong:
agentic p50 1.6 s, 39% gaps < 1 s, p99 738 s
chatbot p50 7.2 s, 4% gaps < 1 s, p99 43 s
Both have nonzero T_external. The right distinction is the *shape*:
chatbot is unimodal around 5–15 s (human cadence); agentic is bimodal
with a sub-second tool-call mass (39 % vs chatbot's 4 %) plus a long-
pause tail (13 % > 30 s). The agentic sub-second mass is what activates
dispatch coupling — for any W_turn > 1 s scheduler those turns satisfy
W_turn ≫ T_external by construction.
The empirical regime split:
unified TTFT p90 = 7.3 s → agentic 73% closed-loop, chatbot 32%
lmetric TTFT p90 = 15.7s → agentic 80%, chatbot 88%
lmetric is bad enough that it drags the chatbot regime into closed-loop
too. This is a direct empirical explanation for lmetric underperforming
on both workloads.
Updates:
- PAPER_OUTLINE.md §2.3: lead with the regime threshold W_turn ≷
T_external, replace the "T_human dominates" Little's Law with the
general form L = Λ · N · (W_turn(L) + T_external), embed f3a CDF,
add the empirical regime table; correct the small-perturbation
formula to include the +T_external dampening term.
- MEETING.md §1: same reframe, condensed (CDF figure, two-row regime
table, one-line conclusion).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>