experiment: validate unresolved uncertainty after harness repair
This commit is contained in:
@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ Experiment 56F re-tested Regression A with the canonical live harness after Code
|
||||
|
||||
Experiment 56G tested Regression C (non-answer uncertainty: "I'm not really sure.") through the live production path to verify the risk-constraint distinction remains unresolved when the user expresses no position. **BLOCKED - apparatus**. The canonical helper (`tests/graph/live-update-experiment-helper.cjs`) contains a broken dynamic import path (`../lib/graph/orchestrator.js` resolves to `tests/lib/graph/orchestrator.js`, which does not exist — correct path is `../../lib/graph/orchestrator.js`). No live calls were made. Full results in `docs/experiment-56g.md`. Status pending Rob's review.
|
||||
|
||||
Experiment 56H re-tested Regression C after harness repair (commit c40d8c6). Result: **PASS - uncertainty preserved**. The LLM did not invent any constraint or preference position from "I'm not really sure." — `userSupportedMeaning` was null. No graph mutation occurred; `n-risk-constraint` remained unknown with value=null. One live call at qwen-claude:latest on http://192.168.1.111:11434. No production code changed. Status pending Rob's review.
|
||||
|
||||
Experiment 54S tested whether, once clarification is known to be required, the model can identify exactly what the user needs to clarify — three fixed cases: growth-versus-risk priority (true → "preference/trade-off or hard constraint"), evidence-resolvable delivery causes (false → null), ambiguous meaning of "affordable" (true → "upfront cost versus long-term total cost"). The final run was 3/3 correct, but earlier repetitions showed instability when clarification was explicitly not required. Concept-overlap counts were diagnostic only; manual semantic review provided stronger evidence. Case 2 instability is an observed behaviour, not merely a test warning. Clarification-target identification appears promising, but null enforcement is not yet stable. Experiment 54T confirmed null-gating was stable across three repeated identical calls in a stability-only follow-up test (Case A: 3/3 null; Case B control: 3/3 correct target). The current instruction and output contract produced stable null behaviour across the three repeated false-case runs tested there; broader stability remains unproven. Experiment 54U tested whether a fixed clarification target can survive into one neutral user-facing question without adding meaning (preference/constraint, affordability definition, private factual capacity). All three cases returned correct single neutral questions with no introduced assumptions or evidence requests. The clarification-target → question step worked cleanly across the three tested targets; broader wording quality and user experience remain untested. Same host/model (qwen-claude:latest on http://192.168.1.111:11434); no production code changed. Status pending Rob's review.
|
||||
|
||||
Experiment 54V tested whether the user's answer can resolve only that target without rewriting the rest of the source meaning. Three fixed cases: hard constraint resolved (true/null), affordability definition resolved (true/null), incomplete answer preserved (false/uncertainty). All three correct across boundary preservation, no forced interpretations, and no unsupported consequences or new questions generated. Clarification answers resolved only the intended target across all tested cases. **The individual clarification steps have each worked in their isolated fixed-case tests; end-to-end behaviour remains untested.** Graph updates, next-question choice, Behaviour Selection, and UI remain untested. Same host/model (qwen-claude:latest on http://192.168.1.111:11434); no production code changed. Status pending Rob's review.
|
||||
@@ -168,7 +170,7 @@ Answer before continuing:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–53, 54A–54Z, 55A–55F, 56D–56G. Branch: `feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8`. Status pending Rob's review.*
|
||||
*Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–53, 54A–54Z, 55A–55F, 56D–56H. Branch: `feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8`. Status pending Rob's review.*
|
||||
|
||||
### Return-to-Work Note (Experiment 55F)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
|
||||
# Experiment 56H — Validate Unresolved Uncertainty After Harness Repair
|
||||
|
||||
**Date**: 2026-08-09
|
||||
**Branch**: feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8
|
||||
**Starting reasoning commit**: e6f7842 (establish canonical live reasoning experiment harness)
|
||||
**Harness repair commit**: c40d8c6 (fix canonical live experiment harness import)
|
||||
**Type**: Live experiment — observation only
|
||||
**Status**: PASS
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Objective
|
||||
|
||||
When the user says "I'm not really sure.", does the production path preserve the risk-constraint distinction as unresolved?
|
||||
|
||||
## Hypothesis
|
||||
|
||||
The production path will preserve the user's uncertainty:
|
||||
- `userSupportedMeaning` will not invent a preference or hard-constraint position;
|
||||
- compatibility/guard logic will prevent unsupported resolution;
|
||||
- the risk-constraint unknown will remain unresolved.
|
||||
|
||||
## Fixed Case — Regression C
|
||||
|
||||
- **Source**: "I want the business to grow, but I don't want to take on more risk."
|
||||
- **Previous question**: "Is avoiding additional risk a hard constraint or a preference/trade-off?"
|
||||
- **Answer**: "I'm not really sure."
|
||||
- **Expected preserved meaning**: User is uncertain about whether avoiding additional risk is a hard constraint or preference/trade-off.
|
||||
- **Expected uncertainty**: Full — no position taken.
|
||||
|
||||
## Graph Setup
|
||||
|
||||
Pre-update graph state:
|
||||
- `n-risk-constraint` (unknown/unknown) — active unknown, status=unknown
|
||||
- `obs-source-statement` (observation/supported) — source observation
|
||||
- 1 edge connecting source to risk unknown
|
||||
|
||||
## Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Checkpoint | Result |
|
||||
|---|-----------|--------|
|
||||
| 1 | `userSupportedMeaning` extracted | **null** — no semantic content extracted from the non-answer |
|
||||
| 2 | `possibleInference` derived | null |
|
||||
| 3 | `rawAnswerCategory` (deterministic) | `cannot_determine` |
|
||||
| 4 | `proposedMeaningCategory` (from userSupportedMeaning) | `none` |
|
||||
| 5 | `proposalValidation.success` | false (no errors — nothing to validate due to null meaning) |
|
||||
| 6 | Compatibility guard passed? | **false** — guard did not pass |
|
||||
| 7 | Graph mutation applied? | **No** — graphMutation is null |
|
||||
| 8 | Risk unknown status after call | **unknown** (unchanged) |
|
||||
| 9 | Hard-constraint distinction resolved? | **NO** |
|
||||
|
||||
## Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
**PASS - uncertainty preserved**
|
||||
|
||||
The final authoritative graph state does **not** establish either:
|
||||
- risk is a hard constraint; nor
|
||||
- risk is not a hard constraint;
|
||||
|
||||
from "I'm not really sure." alone. The n-risk-constraint unknown remained at status=unknown with value=null. No graph mutation occurred.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis Against Regression C Contract
|
||||
|
||||
### What the model extracted (userSupportedMeaning)
|
||||
|
||||
> **null** — no semantic content extracted from a non-answer response ("I'm not really sure.").
|
||||
|
||||
The LLM did not invent any preference, constraint position, or leaning. This is the correct behaviour for a genuine non-answer. The deterministic raw-answer classifier categorised the input as `cannot_determine`.
|
||||
|
||||
### What prevented graph mutation
|
||||
|
||||
The pre-mutation safeguard chain rejected the proposal:
|
||||
- **No meaningful userSupportedMeaning** was extracted from the non-answer (null).
|
||||
- Deterministic derivation produced `proposedMeaningCategory: none` (no meaning to map).
|
||||
- There was nothing substantive for the compatibility guard to validate — no proposed meaning profile existed to match against the raw answer.
|
||||
- **No graph mutation occurred.** `n-risk-constraint` remained unknown with value=null.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key observation
|
||||
|
||||
The non-answer ("I'm not really sure.") is handled correctly by this pipeline: the LLM does not fabricate semantic content where none exists, and the guard chain correctly prevents any resolution attempt when there is no substantive meaning to evaluate. The risk-constraint distinction remains unresolved as expected.
|
||||
|
||||
## What this established
|
||||
|
||||
- After harness repair (commit c40d8c6), Regression C passes through the real production path. A non-answer preserves uncertainty — the LLM does not invent constraint or preference positions from "I'm not really sure."
|
||||
- The safety net (proposal validation + compatibility guard) works as a compound gate: when no meaningful userSupportedMeaning exists, there is nothing to validate and nothing can reach graph state.
|
||||
- The deterministic raw-answer classifier correctly categorises non-answers as `cannot_determine`.
|
||||
|
||||
## What remains untested
|
||||
|
||||
- Whether the LLM's handling of "I'm not really sure." is stable across repeated identical runs.
|
||||
- Whether a near-answer (e.g., "I'm leaning toward..." or "It depends on...") would trigger different behaviour.
|
||||
- Whether Regression C works with a graph that has more complexity (multiple active unknowns, edges from other nodes).
|
||||
- Stability across other models — this test used only qwen-claude:latest.
|
||||
- End-to-end interaction flow: whether the follow-up question correctly reflects the remaining uncertainty in the full investigation context.
|
||||
|
||||
## Configuration
|
||||
|
||||
- **Host**: http://192.168.1.111:11434
|
||||
- **Model**: qwen-claude:latest
|
||||
- **Branch**: feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8
|
||||
- **Harness**: tests/graph/live-update-experiment-helper.cjs (canonical)
|
||||
- **Runner**: experiment-56h-runner.mjs (temporary, removed after capture)
|
||||
- **Production code changed**: NO
|
||||
- **Live calls**: 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Previous Attempt
|
||||
|
||||
Experiment 56G was blocked by apparatus failure (broken import path in the canonical helper). This repair was completed by commit c40d8c6. Experiment 56H succeeds where 56G could not.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*Status pending Rob's review.*
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user