experiment: diagnose decision-pattern kind mismatch

2026-08-13 09:54:42 +01:00
parent 3a4dda9daf
commit 32e668969e
2 changed files with 175 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -2817,3 +2817,7 @@ Experiment 60B.8 compared three minimal mechanisms for preserving a material fac
 ---

 Experiment 60B.12 reran the exact 60B.6 live case to verify prerequisite-aware targeting from 60B.11. **Classification: H — BLOCKED.** The update was rejected at stage `result_validation` with error: "Active unknown violates reasoning pattern consistency: 'n_client_retention_uncertainty' is diagnosis but active pattern is decision." Three differences from 60B.6: (1) node id changed from `n_client_retention` to `n_client_retention_uncertainty`, (2) node kind changed from `unknown` to `diagnosis`, (3) rejection occurred before any proposal applied — neither materiality nor targeting could be assessed. The blocker is a schema-level pattern-consistency mismatch between the model's output and the active decision pattern, not a question-targeting problem. Fix path: either constrain the model prompt to produce kind=unknown nodes or relax the active pattern validator to accept diagnosis nodes for decision-mode continuations.
+
+---
+
+Experiment 60B.13 performed read-only architectural diagnosis of the 60B.12 kind mismatch. **Classification: A + D — Prompt kind ambiguity + missing normalisation path.** Analysis confirmed: (1) `kind=diagnosis` is NOT a valid SituationKind — it exists only as a reasoning pattern and as the default fallback in `selectReasoningPattern`; (2) the validator at line 3927/3998 of apply-proposal.js correctly rejects diagnosis under active decision pattern — semantically, diagnosis and decision are distinct reasoning types; (3) the model likely produced kind=unknown with diagnostic-inferred text analysis, not kind=diagnosis directly (which would fail zod immediately); (4) `hasDecisionContext`'s keyword list (`whether to|build|launch|continue|proceed|invest|commercially justified|viability`) does not include "relocate"/"relocation", so material factors about relocation decisions get inferred as diagnosis; (5) the prompt's kind rules cover decision questions and candidate options but have no rule for material unresolved factors within a decision. Minimum corrective boundary: B — one clarifying rule in Prompt Proposal Rules section stating that new material factors affecting a decision outcome use kind=unknown, with reasoning pattern determined by graph context. Implementation readiness: A.