experiment: validate selected-question contract live

docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -197,6 +197,12 @@ Two-turn run (fixed scenario: "We are considering relocating the engineering tea
 
 ---
 
+### Experiment 57J.60 — Selected-Question Contract Live Validation
+
+**Objective:** Validate that v0.22's mandatory selectedQuestion rule (rule #16) works live when the model adds a new dedicated savings-realism unknown. **Classification: A — V0.22 FIX WORKS LIVE.** One start + one update through the production `updateCase()` path. Update 1 added one dedicated unknown node (`n_proj_savings_realism`, kind=unknown, status=unknown) and included a valid selectedQuestion candidate (nodeId=`n_proj_savings_realism`) referencing that same unresolved node. The old 57J.57 contract rejection — new unresolved unknown + selectedQuestion=null — did not recur. HTTP 200 at `update_applied`, no `proposal_compatibility` error, no rejectedProposalSnapshot. Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434. No production code changed. Full record in `docs/experiment-57j60.md`.
+
+---
+
 ### Experiment 57E — Irrelevant Decomposition Question Boundary
 
 **Objective:** Identify the exact graph node that triggered the decomposition producing "How the two observations were measured", and determine whether the parent was genuinely about comparison/measurement/timing before decomposition.

docs/experiment-57j60.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# Experiment 57J.60 — Selected-Question Contract Live Validation
+
+**Branch:** `feature/selected-question-contract-v0.22`
+**Starting HEAD:** `3baa77e` (docs: record selected-question contract alignment)
+
+## Objective
+
+Answer exactly:
+
+> When the model adds a new savings-realism unknown, does v0.22 now also provide the mandatory `selectedQuestion` candidate so the proposal gets past the exact 57J.57 rejection boundary?
+
+## 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.
+```
+
+## Pre-written expectation
+
+> If the model creates a new unresolved savings-realism unknown, the proposal should now also contain a valid selectedQuestion candidate. The exact 57J.57 failure — new unresolved unknown plus selectedQuestion=null — should therefore not recur.
+
+## Run
+
+**Call accounting:** start: 1, update: 1, total: 2. No retries.
+
+### START
+
+- **HTTP:** 200
+- **Stage:** `unknown` (start stage)
+- **Nodes:** 7
+  - `ni0j5v4` — state/provisional — "A management group is evaluating whether relocating its engineering team will achieve the stated goal of lowering operating expenses."
+  - `njc0evc` — observation/supported — "The 'We' entity proposing or considering the relocation"
+  - `n7d1qbz` — observation/supported — "The workforce whose physical or operational base is proposed to be moved"
+  - `nchkvdm` — metric/known — "The financial expenses associated with maintaining the engineering team at its current and potential new locations"
+  - `nhstb08` — metric/known — "The proposed strategy of moving the team's location or operational hub"
+  - `n7m99es` — unknown/unknown — "Current monthly operating costs, target location expenses, and one-time relocation transition costs"
+  - `n992ndq` — unknown/unknown — "Effect of the move on team turnover, hiring difficulty, output quality, or delivery timelines"
+- **Edges:** 4
+  - `njc0evc` → `ni0j5v4` (supports)
+  - `n7d1qbz` → `ni0j5v4` (supports)
+  - `n7m99es` → `ni0j5v4` (depends_on)
+  - `n992ndq` → `ni0j5v4` (depends_on)
+- **Selected question:** `nodeId=n7m99es`, question: "What evidence would confirm or rule out current monthly operating costs, target location expenses, and one-time relocation transition costs?"
+
+### UPDATE 1
+
+- **HTTP:** 200
+- **Stage:** `update_applied`
+- **First error:** None (no rejection)
+
+**Answer meaning fields:**
+- **userSupportedMeaning:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
+- **supportCategory:** `uncertain`
+- **resolutionGuidance:** `may_resolve`
+
+**Graph changes:**
+- **updatedNodes:** 0 (direct) — note: `nibve28`'s dependsOn was modified but not in updatedNodes list; the new node appears via addedNodes only
+- **resolvedUnknownNodeIds:** [] (empty)
+- **addedNodes:** 1
+  - `n_proj_savings_realism` — unknown/unknown — "Uncertainty regarding the realism of projected office savings from relocation"
+    - Description: "Uncertainty remains about whether the projected office savings are realistic, matters because validating these projections is needed to decide if the engineering relocation will actually lower operating expenses as intended."
+    - affects: [`nibve28`] (summary state)
+- **addedEdges:** 1
+  - `e-new-n_proj_savings_realism`: `n_proj_savings_realism` → `nibve28` (depends_on, confidence=medium)
+- **Node count:** 6→10 (+4 nodes: 3 observations + 2 metrics merged into summary + 1 new unknown)
+- **Edge count:** 4→7 (+3 edges)
+
+**selectedQuestion (Update 1):**
+- **nodeId:** `n_proj_savings_realism`
+- **question:** "What would clarify realism of projected office savings from relocation in this situation?"
+- **reason:** "Formulated as a neutral clarification question because no narrower investigation strategy clearly applied."
+- **status:** the candidate node is `unknown/unknown` — unresolved
+
+## Structural identity classification
+
+**DEDICATED UNKNOWN**
+
+The savings-realism uncertainty is represented as an independent unknown node (`n_proj_savings_realism`) with its own label, description, and graph edge. It was not absorbed into an existing cost node.
+
+## selectedQuestion check
+
+- **selectedQuestion present:** YES
+- **nodeId:** `n_proj_savings_realism`
+- **question:** "What would clarify realism of projected office savings from relocation in this situation?"
+- **reason:** "Formulated as a neutral clarification question because no narrower investigation strategy clearly applied."
+- **Candidate references an unresolved node:** YES — `n_proj_savings_realism` has status=`unknown` (unresolved)
+
+## Old 57J.57 failure check
+
+The old 57J.57 rejection was: `proposal_compatibility` rejection because `selectedQuestion` was null when new unresolved unknowns were added. **Not observed.** No `proposal_compatibility` error, no rejected proposal snapshot, HTTP 200 at `update_applied`.
+
+## Classification: A — V0.22 FIX WORKS LIVE
+
+All criteria met:
+1. New unresolved unknown added (`n_proj_savings_realism`, status=unknown) ✓
+2. selectedQuestion present with nodeId=`n_proj_savings_realism` ✓
+3. Candidate structurally valid (references a node that exists in updatedSituationGraph, is of kind=unknown, status=unknown) ✓
+4. Old selectedQuestion-null rejection absent ✓
+
+## What this establishes
+
+The v0.22 prompt change (rule #16: "must include" instead of "may identify") now drives the model to supply a valid `selectedQuestion` candidate even when it adds a new dedicated savings-realism unknown. The proposal passes through `update_applied` without the 57J.57 contract rejection. The exact v0.22 trigger — adding a new unresolved unknown alongside selectedQuestion — is confirmed live.
+
+## What this does NOT prove
+
+- Downstream investigation viability past Update 2+ (engine now has too_broad health with 4 active unknowns)
+- Stability across repeated identical runs
+- Cross-domain generalisation
+- Whether the engine's deterministic priority selection actually exercises its scoring against this candidate or always accepts it
+- Behaviour with other answer types beyond the single "uncertain" test case
+- Whether the selectedQuestion contract holds when the model absorbs uncertainty into an existing node instead of adding a new one
+
+## Configured Ollama
+
+qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434
+
+## Production code changed
+
+NO — prompt + tests only (v0.22 branch baseline). No harness code changed beyond temporary scenario/answer config.