diff --git a/docs/current-handoff.md b/docs/current-handoff.md
index 9b9d481..0fd9d29 100644
--- a/docs/current-handoff.md
+++ b/docs/current-handoff.md
@@ -340,3 +340,7 @@ Tested `{"scenario":"test"}` for exact graph node text and answerability diagnos
 ### Experiment 57J.8 — Rejected Answerability Corroboration Candidate
 
 Candidate commit `60048a5` (reasoning: require corroboration for conjunction compoundness) was reviewed and rejected. It crossed its explicit implementation stop condition: while it fixed the false-positive `"scenario, problem, or data set"` minimal clarification case by making it independently answerable, it also broke a genuinely compound fresh-evidence question (e.g., "What evidence supports the savings estimate **and** what evidence supports the retention assumption?") into independently answerable — because no graph structure existed yet. The candidate violated the rule that Case 1 and Case 2 must both be preserved with existing signals. It has been reverted to production baseline. Production reasoning is restored to pre-v0.14 answerability behaviour. The unresolved design question: surface conjunctions alone are an unreliable proxy for semantic compoundness, but the current graph also lacks sufficient structured information to distinguish every fresh single-concept alternative from every genuinely compound fresh unknown. **Do not resume by reintroducing conjunction corroboration or adding more English regex rules.** Full record in `docs/experiment-57j6.md`.
+
+### Experiment 57J.11 — Live Unknown Dimensionality Representation
+
+Tested whether a single answer containing two independent evidence dimensions is represented as two separate unknown nodes or collapsed into one compound unknown. **Classification: A — SEPARATE.** Fixed scenario: "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs." Fixed answer: "Before deciding, I need evidence that the projected office savings are realistic and evidence that the move will not materially increase loss of key engineers." One live start + one live update. Update was rejected at `proposal_compatibility` (structural linkage error), but the rejection errors directly revealed two independently named proposed unknown nodes: `n-savings-realism` (Target A) and `n-retention-impact` (Target B). The model did not collapse them into a single compound node. Semantic separability existed in the model proposal before deterministic answerability/decomposition. **What remains unproven:** separation for implicit conjunctions, across models/repeated runs, and whether both nodes survive structural gating (`proposal_compatibility`) or question-selection after graph mutation. Full record in `docs/experiment-57j11.md`. Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434. No production code changed.
diff --git a/docs/experiment-57j11.md b/docs/experiment-57j11.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1ae7a70
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/experiment-57j11.md
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+# Experiment 57J.11 — Live Unknown Dimensionality Representation
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-10  
+**Branch:** `feature/answerability-corroboration-v0.14`  
+**Status:** PASS (observation complete)  
+**Ollama host/model:** qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434  
+**Live calls:** 2 (startCase 1 + updateCase 1)
+
+---
+
+## Objective
+
+Answer: *When the user supplies one answer containing two genuinely independent evidence dimensions, does the live `updateCase` model naturally represent them as two separate unknown nodes, or collapse them into one compound unknown?*
+
+## Fixed scenario and answer
+
+**Scenario:** "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
+
+**Answer:** "Before deciding, I need evidence that the projected office savings are realistic and evidence that the move will not materially increase loss of key engineers."
+
+Two intended evidence targets:
+- **Target A:** Evidence supporting the projected office savings.
+- **Target B:** Evidence concerning retention/loss of key engineers.
+
+## Pre-written human expectation (recorded before run)
+
+> The answer introduces two independently investigable evidence needs. A semantically atomic graph representation would normally preserve them as two separate unresolved unknowns or otherwise represent their separability structurally. A single compound unknown containing both concerns would show that the model is relying on downstream answerability/decomposition to recover the distinction.
+
+## Pre-written human expectation confirmed: YES
+
+## Live-call results
+
+### Start (1 call)
+- HTTP 200 — success
+- Stage: `unknown`
+- Selected question: "What would clarify exact cost differential between current location and proposed destination in this situation?"
+- Node count: 6 | Edge count: 4
+
+### Update 1 (1 call)
+- HTTP 422 — failed at stage `proposal_compatibility`
+- The model's raw proposal was not returned alongside the rejection; evidence recovered from error messages.
+
+## Raw proposal evidence (recovered from rejection errors)
+
+The update response contained these exact error lines identifying proposed unknown node IDs:
+
+```
+"New unknown must be explicitly related to an answer-derived node: \"n-savings-realism\""
+"New unknown must be explicitly related to an answer-derived node: \"n-retention-impact\""
+```
+
+Both IDs are independently named — they do not share a compound label or description prefix. They correspond directly to the two intended evidence targets by name alone.
+
+## New unknown nodes (reconstructed from error IDs)
+
+### 1. `n-savings-realism`
+- **id:** n-savings-realism
+- **label:** inferred → savings-realism
+- **description:** inferred → concerns projected office savings realism (Target A)
+- **dependsOn:** not returned (proposal rejected)
+- **affects:** not returned (proposal rejected)
+- **parentId:** not returned (proposal rejected)
+- **childIds:** not returned (proposal rejected)
+
+### 2. `n-retention-impact`
+- **id:** n-retention-impact
+- **label:** inferred → retention-impact
+- **description:** inferred → concerns move's impact on loss of key engineers / retention (Target B)
+- **dependsOn:** not returned (proposal rejected)
+- **affects:** not returned (proposal rejected)
+- **parentId:** not returned (proposal rejected)
+- **childIds:** not returned (proposal rejected)
+
+## Added edges involving new unknowns
+None retrievable from rejection response.
+
+## All unknown nodes in resulting graph
+Graph was not mutated — result equals start graph: `nhuef4z` and `ngwbp0q` only (pre-existing).
+
+## Classification
+
+**A — SEPARATE**
+
+The model created two distinct unknown nodes corresponding to the two intended evidence targets:
+- `n-savings-realism` → savings target (SEPARATE NODE)
+- `n-retention-impact` → retention target (SEPARATE NODE)
+
+Neither node contained both evidence dimensions in its identity. Both were independently named per dimension.
+
+## Rationale
+
+The model's raw proposal (before deterministic rejection at `proposal_compatibility`) represented the two independent evidence needs as two distinct unknown node IDs. The naming convention (`n-savings-realism` vs `n-retention-impact`) confirms the semantic distinction was externalized by the model itself — not inferred later by deterministic logic.
+
+Both nodes were rejected for the same structural reason: they were proposed without explicit linkage to an answer-derived node (the validation rule requires each new unknown to connect via edge to a node that traces back to the user's answer). This is a separate concern from semantic dimensionality.
+
+## Did semantic separability exist in the model proposal before deterministic answerability/decomposition?
+**YES** — Two independently named nodes were produced by the model proposal itself.
+
+## Did downstream deterministic logic have to infer/split the dimensions:
+**NO** — The model did not produce a compound node requiring downstream splitting.
+
+## What this experiment established
+
+- For this fixed scenario/answer, the live `updateCase` model **naturally separates** two independent evidence dimensions into two distinct unknown nodes at the proposal level.
+- The separation occurs *before* any deterministic answerability or decomposition logic.
+- A structural gating rule (`proposal_compatibility`: new unknowns must link to answer-derived nodes) can prevent both nodes from entering the graph, but it does not collapse them.
+
+## What this experiment does NOT prove
+
+- That separation holds for other answers with different compound structures (e.g., implicit conjunctions, less explicit "and" phrasing).
+- That the two nodes would survive `proposal_compatibility` in a scenario where answer-derived linkage exists.
+- That the question-selection or Behaviour Selection modules preserve both dimensions after graph mutation.
+- That separation holds across models or repeated runs.
+
+## Production code changed: NO
+## Prompt changed: NO
+## Schema changed: NO
+## Canonical script restored: YES
+## Retries: 0
+## Ollama calls beyond budget: 0