docs: add v0.6 release notes
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
|
|||||||
|
# v0.6 Release Notes
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Purpose
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
v0.6 turns the engine into a deterministic recursive reasoning system that keeps next questions, decomposition, propagation, and confidence updates explicitly grounded in the situation graph.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Capabilities added
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- deterministic unknown selection explanations
|
||||||
|
- explicit ambiguity handling instead of silent tie-breaking
|
||||||
|
- comparability assessment before relationship reasoning
|
||||||
|
- relationship classification after comparability
|
||||||
|
- reasoning-stage progression after comparability answers
|
||||||
|
- graph-backed next questions via explicit unknown nodes
|
||||||
|
- investigation-strategy-based question formulation
|
||||||
|
- atomicity assessment for selected unknowns
|
||||||
|
- composite-unknown decomposition into child unknowns
|
||||||
|
- child-quality validation for decomposition outputs
|
||||||
|
- upward propagation from resolved children to parents and ancestors
|
||||||
|
- separation of evidence confidence, completeness, and conclusion confidence
|
||||||
|
- deterministic cross-branch corroboration, conflict, and duplicate-evidence handling
|
||||||
|
- developer-facing reasoning architecture documentation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Reasoning pipeline summary
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```text
|
||||||
|
Scenario
|
||||||
|
→ Reconstruction
|
||||||
|
→ Initial graph
|
||||||
|
→ Deterministic unknown selection
|
||||||
|
→ Question
|
||||||
|
→ Answer
|
||||||
|
→ Proposal
|
||||||
|
→ Proposal parsing / validation
|
||||||
|
→ Graph update
|
||||||
|
→ Reasoning-state rebuild
|
||||||
|
→ Comparability assessment
|
||||||
|
→ Relationship classification
|
||||||
|
→ Emergent unknown creation / reuse
|
||||||
|
→ Atomicity assessment
|
||||||
|
→ Optional decomposition
|
||||||
|
→ Propagation
|
||||||
|
→ Confidence / completeness / corroboration update
|
||||||
|
→ Next active unknown
|
||||||
|
→ Next question
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Core invariants
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- every asked question must originate from an explicit unresolved unknown
|
||||||
|
- unknown selection is deterministic
|
||||||
|
- ambiguity is preserved explicitly when no justified distinction exists
|
||||||
|
- relationship reasoning cannot precede comparability
|
||||||
|
- parent nodes cannot resolve before completion rules are met
|
||||||
|
- confidence cannot outrun completeness
|
||||||
|
- duplicate evidence cannot increase confidence
|
||||||
|
- conflicting evidence caps conclusion confidence
|
||||||
|
- cross-branch corroboration only counts for distinct branches with distinct evidence keys
|
||||||
|
- the LLM proposes updates but does not mutate the graph directly
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## What v0.6 proved
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- graph-backed questioning works better when every justified next question maps to an explicit unresolved node
|
||||||
|
- broad unknowns can be decomposed deterministically before direct questioning
|
||||||
|
- resolved child evidence can be propagated upward without prematurely resolving parent reasoning
|
||||||
|
- confidence becomes easier to reason about when evidence quality, completeness, and conclusion strength are separated
|
||||||
|
- deterministic cross-branch corroboration can improve support without double-counting repeated evidence
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Known limitations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- sibling selection still depends on the existing deterministic scorer and may choose a justified next branch that is not always the intuitively expected one
|
||||||
|
- cross-branch corroboration is limited to direct child branches of the same parent
|
||||||
|
- no multi-hop corroboration exists across unrelated subtrees
|
||||||
|
- reasoning remains bounded to explicitly represented graph structure and user-provided answers
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Deliberate exclusions
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- no persistence
|
||||||
|
- no autonomous exploration
|
||||||
|
- no probabilistic reasoning
|
||||||
|
- no Bayesian reasoning
|
||||||
|
- no semantic embeddings
|
||||||
|
- no expert mode
|
||||||
|
- no multi-hop corroboration across unrelated subtrees
|
||||||
|
- no heavy graph visualisation
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Next experimental question
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
`Can the engine preserve and reuse successful reasoning structures across separate cases without turning prior experience into unquestioned assumptions?`
|
||||||
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ describe("selection influence diagnostic", () => {
|
|||||||
expect(diagnosticRecord.neutralSelection.status).toBe("ambiguous");
|
expect(diagnosticRecord.neutralSelection.status).toBe("ambiguous");
|
||||||
expect(diagnosticRecord.selectedExplanationContributions).toBeUndefined();
|
expect(diagnosticRecord.selectedExplanationContributions).toBeUndefined();
|
||||||
expect(diagnosticRecord.tieQuestion).toBe(
|
expect(diagnosticRecord.tieQuestion).toBe(
|
||||||
"What changed during the period that could explain why Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period?",
|
"Were these figures measured on the same basis and at the same scale?",
|
||||||
);
|
);
|
||||||
expect(diagnosticRecord.tieQuestion.toLowerCase()).not.toMatch(
|
expect(diagnosticRecord.tieQuestion.toLowerCase()).not.toMatch(
|
||||||
/accounts receivable|capex|debt repayments|working capital/,
|
/accounts receivable|capex|debt repayments|working capital/,
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user