robbond/confidence-engine
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

experiment: convergence-test uncertainty action selection

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
robbond
2026-08-11 14:35:50 +01:00
parent 94ca1b92f7
commit 174e581c23
2 changed files with 217 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/current-handoff.md
+30
View File
@@ -831,3 +831,33 @@ One explicit instruction-order rule in Additional Guidance: check existing unres
**What is intentionally left unresolved:** Semantic threshold for "represents the same uncertainty" (relies on model capability + validator safety net). Live production validation (requires next experiment pass). Multi-turn tuning. Edge-connection strategy for Case B new unknowns.
Configured Ollama: none used. Production code changed: prompt + tests only. Dev server disturbed: NO.
### Experiment 57J.47 — Convergence Test: Existing-First Uncertainty Fallback Live
**Objective:** Does v0.19 produce a faithful structural graph action for one explicit unresolved uncertainty instead of another no-op?
**Fixed scenario:** "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
**Fixed answer:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
**Live-call count:** start: 1, update: 1, total: 2
**START:** HTTP 200 | stage: unknown | nodes: 7 | edges: 4 | question: "What would clarify current detailed breakdown of engineering operating costs and geographic distribution in this situation?"
**UPDATE 1:** HTTP 422 | stage: proposal_compatibility | error: "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning overstates a raw answer that remains uncertain."
rejectedProposalSnapshot:
- userSupportedMeaning: "The user is currently uncertain whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic." (STRENGTHENED — third-person assertion of mental state + temporal specificity "currently" beyond first-person "I am unsure")
- possibleInference: null
- addedNodes: [{id: "ns82kx9", kind: unknown, label: "Projected office savings from the relocation lack validation"}] (genuinely new — ADD NEW UNKNOWN structural action)
- addedEdges: [{fromNodeId: "ns82kx9", toNodeId: "nv759rs", relationship: depends_on}]
- updatedNodes: [] | resolvedUnknownNodeIds: []
**Meaning classification:** STRENGTHENED (third-person assertion of user mental state + temporal specificity overstates first-person uncertainty)
**Structural action:** ADD NEW UNKNOWN — a genuinely new unknown directly representing savings realism was created. This is the FIRST time in experiments 57J.36-47 that the model produced a meaningful structural mutation for this type of uncertainty answer.
**Classification: D — STRENGTHENING BLOCKS TEST.** Meaning is strengthened; the test cannot establish v0.19's effectiveness for the semantic-to-mutation boundary. However, structural progress was achieved (one new unknown + one edge) — the faithful no-op pattern has been broken. The remaining blocker is meaning extraction (first-person uncertainty → third-person assertion), not the existing-first rule.
**Key finding:** v0.19's existing-first fallback now produces meaningful graph mutation for explicit unresolved uncertainty. New blocking boundary: first-person uncertainty statements are being converted to third-person assertions, caught by proposal_compatibility as semantic strengthening. Convergence test result is non-A; prompt tuning sequence terminates here per convergence rule.
Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434. 2 live calls total. No production code changed. No prompt change during experiment. Harness restored to original scenario/answers.