experiment: exercise interrogative question rendering live

2026-08-12 15:35:00 +01:00
parent 6f2c09cd94
commit 201f259326
2 changed files with 119 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+# Experiment 58A.6 — Interrogative Question Rendering Through Production Update Path (CONTROLLED)
+
+**Branch:** `feature/question-formulation-v0.24`
+**Starting HEAD:** `6f2c09c` (experiment: validate question-formulation fix live)
+**Experiment commit:** pending
+
+## Objective
+
+When the answer simply preserves the existing savings-realism uncertainty and introduces no new issue, does the live engine select that existing interrogative node and render its next question coherently through the 58A.4 fix?
+
+## Configured Scenario (fixed)
+
+"We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
+
+## Configured Answer (fixed)
+
+"I am still unsure whether the projected office savings from relocation are realistic."
+
+## Why This Case Is Controlled
+
+The answer:
+- preserves the existing uncertainty
+- introduces no new figure
+- introduces no new assumption
+- introduces no new competing unknown
+
+Therefore this run is specifically designed to exercise formulation for the existing `n_savings_realism` target rather than test broader reasoning.
+
+## Run
+
+One update-only call via the committed harness (`scripts/reproduce-multi-turn-investigation.mjs`).
+
+### CALL ACCOUNTING
+
+- startCalls: 0
+- updateCalls: 1
+- totalCalls: 1
+- Retries: 0
+
+### PRE-ANCHORED FIXTURE
+
+- savings-realism node id: `n_savings_realism`
+- label: "Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"
+- status: unknown
+- Exactly one equivalent unresolved uncertainty before Update: YES
+- previousQuestion sent: "Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"
+
+### UPDATE
+
+- HTTP status: 422
+- Stage: proposal_compatibility
+- Validation errors: "structuralActionRequired is true but proposal contains no graph mutation"
+
+#### Proposal snapshot (rejected)
+
+```
+answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning: "The user remains unsure about whether the projected office savings from relocation are realistic."
+updatedNodes: [{nodeId: n_savings_realism, newValue: null}]
+resolvedUnknownNodeIds: []
+addedNodes: []
+addedEdges: []
+structuralActionRequired: true (implied by validator rejection reason)
+selectedQuestion: UNAVAILABLE (update rejected before question selection)
+```
+
+#### Resulting persistent graph: NOT APPLIED
+
+The update was rejected. The fixture graph remains unchanged:
+```
+node: id=n_relocation_state, kind=state, status=provisional
+node: id=n_savings_realism, kind=unknown, status=unknown
+edge: from=n_savings_realism, to=n_relocation_state, relationship=depends_on
+```
+
+## Target selection
+
+NO TARGET — update rejected before question selection could complete.
+
+## Interrogative fix path
+
+UNAVAILABLE — the apparatus prevented reaching this stage.
+
+## Question assessment
+
+NONE — no question produced.
+
+## Classification: E — NO QUESTION
+
+The engine identified that structural action was required (structuralActionRequired=true implied by validator rejection) but failed to produce any meaningful graph mutation, causing a 422 at `proposal_compatibility`. No next question was emitted because the update was rejected before the question-selection phase.
+
+## What this establishes:
+
+1. The pre-anchored fixture apparatus works — the correct node (n_savings_realism) and answer reach the production server
+2. The model correctly extracts user meaning: "The user remains unsure about whether the projected office savings from relocation are realistic."
+3. For a pure-preservation answer with no new evidence/figure/assumption, the engine still requires structural action but cannot produce one — this is a **semantic gap**: the answer provides only uncertainty confirmation, which the model recognizes as requiring structural action but cannot express through graph mutation (nothing to change)
+4. The 58A.4 interrogative-label fix path remains unproven live because the apparatus blocks before question selection
+
+## What this does NOT prove:
+
+1. Whether n_savings_realism would be selected if the update had succeeded
+2. Whether the emitted question would be grammatically coherent for an interrogative label
+3. Whether the 58A.4 fix works in production
+4. Cross-domain generalisation
+
+## Production code changed: NO
+
+## Harness/tooling changed: NO
+
+## Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0
+
+## Dev server disturbed: NO