test(experiment): checkpoint granular answer fragment result

tests/experimental/results/rto-granular-fragment-turn1.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "apparatus": "rto-granular-answer-fragments.mjs",
+  "experiment": "RTO.18A",
+  "turn": 1,
+  "artifactType": "LIVE RESULT — Turn 1 independent granular fragment",
+  "modelName": "qwen-claude:latest",
+  "elapsedMs": 37030,
+  "inputCharacterCount": 1670,
+  "centralCaseStatementSupplied": false,
+  "priorFragmentsSupplied": false,
+  "turnHistorySupplied": false,
+  "wholeSituationGraphSupplied": false,
+  "globalSelectorContextSupplied": false,
+  "question": "What evidence would clarify whether competitors are actively developing similar products and how soon they might release them?",
+  "answer": "The product has significant patents, proprietary processes and software algorithms that are not available to competitors.",
+  "structuredResult": {
+    "targetNodeId": "nxmeiab",
+    "observations": [
+      "The product possesses significant patents.",
+      "The product includes proprietary processes.",
+      "The product contains software algorithms that are not available to competitors."
+    ],
+    "uncertainties": [
+      "Competitors may have developed or can develop non-infringing alternatives or workarounds that do not rely on the listed assets.",
+      "The specific scope, strength, and enforceability of the significant patents regarding potential competitor activities are not defined.",
+      "While a barrier is implied by the unavailability of assets, no explicit timeline for potential competitor release (e.g., significantly delayed vs. effectively blocked) is provided."
+    ],
+    "assumptions": [
+      "That the stated unavailability of patents, processes, and algorithms constitutes an effective barrier that prevents or severely hinders competitors from developing similar products.",
+      "That competitors cannot legally circumvent the patents or technically reverse-engineer the proprietary assets despite their potential availability through other means."
+    ],
+    "relationships": [
+      {
+        "from": "Product",
+        "to": "Significant patents",
+        "type": "holds protection",
+        "rationale": "The answer explicitly states the product has significant patents."
+      },
+      {
+        "from": "Product",
+        "to": "Proprietary processes",
+        "type": "contains attribute",
+        "rationale": "The answer lists proprietary processes as characteristics of the product."
+      },
+      {
+        "from": "Software algorithms",
+        "to": "Competitors",
+        "type": "unavailable to",
+        "rationale": "The answer states software algorithms are not available to competitors."
+      }
+    ],
+    "possibleFollowUpQuestions": [
+      "Do the significant patents cover the core functionality required to build a competing product, or only peripheral implementation details?",
+      "Can competitors achieve equivalent results using different algorithms or processes that do not infringe on the stated protections?",
+      "What is the expiration timeline and geographic jurisdiction coverage of the significant patents mentioned?"
+    ]
+  }
+}

tests/experimental/results/rto-granular-fragment-turn2.json

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+  "apparatus": "rto-granular-answer-fragments.mjs",
+  "experiment": "RTO.18A",
+  "turn": 2,
+  "artifactType": "LIVE RESULT — Turn 2 independent granular fragment",
+  "modelName": "qwen-claude:latest",
+  "elapsedMs": 51994,
+  "inputCharacterCount": 1946,
+  "centralCaseStatementSupplied": false,
+  "priorFragmentsSupplied": false,
+  "turnHistorySupplied": false,
+  "wholeSituationGraphSupplied": false,
+  "globalSelectorContextSupplied": false,
+  "question": "Have competitors shown any public signals, such as hiring patterns,\ngrant awards or conference presentations, indicating active parallel development?",
+  "answer": "One competitor has recently advertised for several machine-learning\nengineers and a senior product manager in this market. They have also\npresented at an industry conference about the same customer problem,\nbut they have not announced a product, launch date or beta programme.\nI do not know whether the hiring and conference activity relates to\na directly competing product.",
+  "structuredResult": {
+    "targetNodeId": "nxmeiab",
+    "observations": [
+      "One competitor has advertised for several machine-learning engineers.",
+      "The same competitor is advertising for a senior product manager in this market.",
+      "The competitor has presented at an industry conference about the same customer problem.",
+      "The competitor has not announced a product, launch date, or beta programme."
+    ],
+    "uncertainties": [
+      "Whether the hiring and conference activity relates to a directly competing product is unknown."
+    ],
+    "assumptions": [],
+    "relationships": [
+      {
+        "from": "Competitor",
+        "to": "Machine-learning engineers & Senior product manager roles",
+        "type": "hiring_activity",
+        "rationale": "The answer directly states the competitor is actively advertising for these specific technical and product management positions."
+      },
+      {
+        "from": "Competitor",
+        "to": "Industry conference presentation",
+        "type": "conference_presentation",
+        "rationale": "The answer explicitly notes a public presentation at an industry conference focused on the identical customer problem."
+      },
+      {
+        "from": "Competitor",
+        "to": "Product, launch date, or beta programme",
+        "type": "absence_of_announcement",
+        "rationale": "The answer explicitly confirms the lack of any public commitment regarding product release, timelines, or beta testing."
+      }
+    ],
+    "possibleFollowUpQuestions": [
+      "Is the new hiring budget and timeline specifically earmarked for a competing product development?",
+      "What technical or commercial details were disclosed during the competitor's conference presentation?",
+      "Are there other industry signals (e.g., patents, vendor partnerships, regulatory filings) that clarify the intent behind these public activities?"
+    ]
+  }
+}

tests/experimental/results/rto-granular-fragment-turn3.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "apparatus": "rto-granular-answer-fragments.mjs",
+  "experiment": "RTO.18A",
+  "turn": 3,
+  "artifactType": "LIVE RESULT — Turn 3 independent granular fragment",
+  "modelName": "qwen-claude:latest",
+  "elapsedMs": 54170,
+  "inputCharacterCount": 2035,
+  "centralCaseStatementSupplied": false,
+  "priorFragmentsSupplied": false,
+  "turnHistorySupplied": false,
+  "wholeSituationGraphSupplied": false,
+  "globalSelectorContextSupplied": false,
+  "question": "Can the content of the competitor's conference presentation be analyzed to distinguish between technical R&D and general market education?",
+  "answer": "The conference presentation included a technical architecture diagram,\na prototype workflow and discussion of model-training challenges that\nclosely match the customer problem we are solving. It did not name a\ncommercial product or launch date, but it appears more consistent with\nactive product development than general market education. I still do\nnot know whether the prototype can match our patented processes or\nwhether it is intended for the same enterprise customers.",
+  "structuredResult": {
+    "targetNodeId": "nxmeiab",
+    "observations": [
+      "The conference presentation included a technical architecture diagram.",
+      "The presentation featured a prototype workflow.",
+      "Discussion covered model-training challenges closely matching the customer problem being solved.",
+      "No commercial product name or launch date was provided."
+    ],
+    "uncertainties": [
+      "Whether the prototype can match our patented processes.",
+      "Whether the solution is intended for the same enterprise customers we target.",
+      "The exact timeline for commercial release due to the absence of a stated launch date."
+    ],
+    "assumptions": [
+      "Conference presentations featuring technical architecture diagrams and prototype workflows generally indicate active product development rather than theoretical market education."
+    ],
+    "relationships": [
+      {
+        "from": "Technical architecture diagram",
+        "to": "Active product development indicators",
+        "type": "supports",
+        "rationale": "Presented alongside a functional prototype, contributing to the assessment that efforts are in an active R&D phase."
+      },
+      {
+        "from": "Prototype workflow",
+        "to": "Active product development indicators",
+        "type": "supports",
+        "rationale": "Demonstrates tangible implementation progress rather than abstract market analysis, distinguishing it from general education efforts."
+      },
+      {
+        "from": "Model-training challenges discussion",
+        "to": "Customer problem alignment",
+        "type": "matches",
+        "rationale": "Directly corresponds to specific technical obstacles relevant to the known customer problem space."
+      }
+    ],
+    "possibleFollowUpQuestions": [
+      "What specific enterprise customer segments is this prototype intended to serve?",
+      "How does the competitor's technical approach compare directly against our patented processes?",
+      "Is there a targeted beta testing window or internal release schedule that could be inferred from development updates?"
+    ]
+  }
+}