experiment: rerun option consequence structure once

2026-08-13 06:08:23 +01:00
parent 56a04ddd0e
commit 2016a024c5
2 changed files with 284 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -556,6 +556,78 @@ This is an improvement over 59B.4 (where do-nothing had no structural presence)

 ---

+### Experiment 60A.6 — First-Call Option Consequence Structure Confirmation
+
+**Branch:** `feature/decision-options-v0.25`
+**Date:** 2026-08-13
+**Status:** Complete
+**Type:** LIVE RUN — Hard one-call boundary repeat of 60A.5's reasoning case, testing whether the first proposal succeeds and preserves option-attributed consequences without retry.
+
+## Objective
+
+Does the model preserve known consequences under the correct option branch in the first proposal, without requiring a retry?
+
+## Fixed Starting Graph
+
+Fixture: `tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-update-savings-realism.json`
+Pre-existing uncertainty: `n_savings_realism` (status=unknown)
+
+## Fixed Answer (verbatim)
+
+> There are two options.
+>
+> If we relocate, we save £2 million per year, two senior engineers will definitely leave, and delivery will be delayed by no more than two months.
+>
+> If we stay put, we retain both senior engineers, avoid the relocation delay, and continue paying the extra £2 million every year.
+>
+> Those consequences are known. What I still do not know is which option leaves us better off overall.
+
+## Execution
+
+Host/model: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434. startCalls=0, updateCalls=1, totalCalls=1. Hard one-call boundary.
+
+## Result
+
+**HTTP status:** 200 — first call succeeds, no validation rejection.
+
+### Structure (5 nodes, 3 edges)
+
+| Node | Kind | Status |
+|------|------|--------|
+| n_savings_realism | unknown | resolved |
+| opt_relocate | option | **known** |
+| opt_stay_put | option | **known** |
+| n_relocation_decision | unknown | unknown |
+
+Edges: both options → n_relocation_decision via `contained_in`; n_savings_realism → n_relocation_state via `depends_on`.
+
+### Consequences — OPTION-OWNED DESCRIPTION
+
+Both relocate and stay-put consequences present in their respective option descriptions with status=known. All six facts preserved correctly with no cross-contamination. Option epistemic status now correctly reflects the user's stated position ("Those consequences are known").
+
+### Epistemic correctness: CORRECT
+
+n_savings_realism resolved; known consequences remain known (not reopened as unknowns).
+
+### Classification: A — FIRST-CALL OPTION CONSEQUENCE STRUCTURE CONFIRMED
+
+First call succeeds; two-option structure confirmed on first attempt. Option status corrected from provisional (60A.5) to known. All six consequences correctly attributable via contained_in edges. Consequences remain in descriptions rather than as independent graph nodes. This is the first clean confirmation that option-attributed consequence structure survives without retry dependency.
+
+**What this establishes:** The engine creates native two-option structure with correct epistemic status (known) on first call, preserving all six known consequences in their correct branches via contained_in edges.
+
+**What it does NOT prove:** Stability across repeated runs; whether consequences can be extracted as independent nodes without description parsing; cross-domain generalisation.
+
+## Production code changed: NO
+## Prompt changed: NO
+## Validator changed: NO
+## Harness changed: NO
+## Vitest run: NO
+## Ollama calls: 1
+## Direct API calls: 0
+## Dev server disturbed: NO
+
+---
+
 ### Experiment 59B.3 — Do-Nothing Baseline as Explicit Graph Structure

 **Branch:** `feature/question-formulation-v0.24`