I agree that that these present competing explanations rather than any obvious failure of belief-state tracking.
To me, this suggests that benchmarks of this kind might need to not only evaluate the direct answer to a given question, but also the reasoning underpinning it. This might allow for easier detection of instances where a different, yet perhaps equally valid participant model, may have led to a different answer from the expected one.
Thank you for sharing. The intent behind the cartoon diagrams was to visually compress the content of the conversations discussed in the surrounding text to make them more accessible to the reader. I did not instruct the generating model (gpt-image-2 in this case) to follow cartoon conventions. To avoid confusion, I have removed the images from the text.