{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiejuvn2jzaavgx4edny55hm3dqzybulkcptfvn3xadiqhiro7o2hy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgrhxkdva2h2"
  },
  "path": "/t/a-simple-idea-separating-a-thinker-and-observer-model-to-detect-reasoning-loops/174134#post_5",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-11T02:33:36.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "textContent": "Thank you very much for the thoughtful reply.\n\nYour point about the conflict of interest when a system evaluates its own reasoning is exactly the intuition that initially motivated this idea. I had been thinking about it mainly at the architectural level (separating a generator and a monitoring component), but your example shows that a similar separation can also appear at the prompt-structure level.\n\nThe idea of explicitly separating reasoning and output into blocks is very interesting. I had not previously thought about how much prompt structure itself can influence whether reasoning and answering become entangled.\n\nI will definitely take a look at flompt. The idea of decomposing prompts into semantic blocks and explicitly including a chain_of_thought block seems closely related to the reasoning separation I was thinking about.\n\nOut of curiosity, have you observed cases where this structured prompt decomposition helps detect or reduce reasoning failures such as contradictions or circular reasoning?\n\nThanks again for sharing the project.",
  "title": "A simple idea: separating a \"Thinker\" and \"Observer\" model to detect reasoning loops"
}