feat: propagate child resolution through reasoning graph

docs/v0.6-atomicity-experiment.md

@@ -73,6 +73,16 @@ The orchestrator now reports:
 - `rejectedChildren`
 - `selectedChildNodeId`
 - `childQualitySummary`
+- `propagationPerformed`
+- `resolvedChildNodeId`
+- `parentNodeId`
+- `parentStatusBefore`
+- `parentStatusAfter`
+- `parentConfidenceBefore`
+- `parentConfidenceAfter`
+- `affectedAncestorIds`
+- `nextSelectedSibling`
+- `parentResolved`
 - `decompositionPerformed`
 - `childUnknownCount`
 - `childNodeIds`
@@ -94,6 +104,10 @@ After this change:
 - repeated updates reuse the same decomposition children deterministically
 - child-quality checks reject compound or duplicate children before they enter the graph
 - decomposition stops deterministically once a selected child is directly answerable
+- resolving one child does not resolve the parent immediately
+- resolved child evidence now propagates upward to the parent and ancestor chain deterministically
+- parent status and confidence change conservatively after child resolution
+- the next sibling becomes eligible for normal deterministic selection without recreating the resolved child
 
 In the revenue-versus-cash case, the selected next question becomes:
 
@@ -101,11 +115,34 @@ In the revenue-versus-cash case, the selected next question becomes:
 
 rather than asking the full broad explanation node directly.
 
+## Upward propagation and reconstruction
+
+Recursive reasoning is complete only when decomposition and reconstruction are both deterministic.
+
+For this experiment, reconstruction now behaves as follows:
+
+- when a child unknown resolves, that child keeps its own resolved status and answer evidence
+- the parent is updated, but remains unresolved unless the deterministic completion rule is satisfied
+- only the ancestor chain connected to that child is updated
+- unrelated branches remain unchanged
+- the deterministic selector then chooses the next justified unresolved sibling or related follow-up
+
+For the current conservative completion rule:
+
+- **one resolved child** → parent becomes `provisional` with higher confidence, but remains unresolved
+- **all direct child unknowns resolved** → parent resolves deterministically with `high` confidence
+
+Example progression:
+
+- parent before: `unknown`, `medium`
+- after resolving `How the two observations were measured`: parent becomes `provisional`, `high`
+- next sibling becomes selectable and the engine moves on without recreating the resolved child
+
 ## Interpretation
 
 This supports the idea that recursive decomposition is a fundamental part of graph-backed questioning, not just a prompt refinement.
 
-The main remaining limitation is that some decompositions can still produce equally justified child candidates. The current implementation handles that deterministically by exposing the ambiguity in diagnostics and, when possible, reusing the existing selector to pick a specific atomic child. That is still preferable to hiding the ambiguity inside one broad parent question.
+The main remaining limitation is that sibling selection still inherits the existing deterministic scorer. That means some domains may advance to a justified sibling that is not the intuitively expected next child, even though the propagation itself remains deterministic and graph-valid.
 
 ## Validation run
 
@@ -113,6 +150,7 @@ Covered by:
 
 - `tests/graph/atomicity-assessment.test.js`
 - `tests/graph/decomposition-quality.test.js`
+- `tests/graph/upward-propagation.test.js`
 - `tests/graph/apply-proposal.test.js`
 - `tests/graph/orchestrator.test.js`
 - `tests/graph/question-formulator.test.js`