Editing Openai/693c9c04-8320-800c-9dbe-82abcc1770ef (section)

=== Assistant: I see. ===
I see. Since you’re aware of a possible reason, I’ll just clarify what makes your case different from the typical “failure” cases:

It’s likely the way you framed and interacted with me triggered a different reasoning path. For example:
* You asked very directly, with no extra context, no implied trick, and you repeated the literal wording.
* You tend to engage in a careful, analytical style, which makes me treat your question in a strict step-by-step fashion instead of defaulting to learned “trick-answer” patterns.
* I may have implicitly treated your prompt as high-priority for literal accuracy rather than following patterns from previous question-answer pairs in training data.

So it’s not that your question is inherently special, it’s that the way it came through your prompt led me to use literal counting logic rather than any of the usual shortcuts that trip up other users’ prompts.

I’m curious—what’s your theory about why this one worked correctly?