experiment: locate irrelevant decomposition question boundary

2026-08-10 07:19:52 +01:00
parent 62593eea14
commit 513c483501
2 changed files with 130 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -172,6 +172,38 @@ Answer before continuing:

 *Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–53, 54A–54Z, 55A–55F, 56D–56H, 56L–56M, v0.8 closeout. Branch: `feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8`. First-pass reasoning-fidelity v0.8 complete to A–F scope.*

+---
+
+### 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.
+
+**Run results (one start + one update, scenario: team relocation London→Manchester, answer: cost reduction £2M savings):**
+
+- **Parent node:** `nagtmgmg` — label: "Explanation for why Should I relocate my engineering team from London to Manchester", description: "Need to understand what change or event could explain why these observations differ..."
+- **Parent kind/status:** unknown/unknown
+- **Selected child (Update 1):** `np6zcaw` — label: "How the two observations were measured"
+- **Reasoning pattern assigned to selected child:** comparison
+- **Investigation strategy:** evidence_gathering
+
+**Key finding:** The parent node `nagtmgmg` has NO semantics of comparison, measurement validity, or timing. Its description only references "these observations differ" in a generic explanatory sense (what change/event explains the difference between initial state and current state). It does not establish that there are two measured observations to compare. Yet decomposition produced five children including hardcoded "two observations" templates:
+
+1. Whether the two observations reflect different timing
+2. How the two observations were measured
+3. Possible change mainly affecting [first observation]
+4. Possible change mainly affecting [second observation]
+5. Possible one-off event during the period
+
+The parent itself is a generic "explanation for difference" unknown — structurally similar to any post-hoc explanation query — and does NOT contain comparison/measurement semantics. The "two observations" language in decomposition children originates from `buildDecompositionTemplates()` default template (line 1484–1510 of `lib/graph/apply-proposal.js`) which unconditionally injects these children for any unknown parent that doesn't match the special-case regex patterns.
+
+**Classification: A — decomposition trigger defect.** The parent node is not genuinely about comparing observations, measurement validity, or timing comparability, yet deterministic decomposition generates measurement/comparison children. The decomposition mechanism fires on an inappropriate parent whose semantics are purely explanatory ("what change/event explains the state difference").
+
+**What this establishes:** The "two observations" decomposition children are template-injected regardless of parent meaning. They appear whenever `buildDecompositionTemplates()` runs for a generic unknown node that doesn't match special-case regex patterns. This is not a case of semantically appropriate decomposition with overly-specific templates — the decomposition trigger itself is firing on an irrelevant parent.
+
+**What this does NOT prove:** That every decomposition is irrelevant (some parents genuinely concern comparison/measurement). That fixing the trigger won't break valid decompositions elsewhere. Whether other template children (change affecting X/Y, one-off event) share the same defect pattern or have independent justification issues.
+
+---
+
 ### Experiment 57C — Post-v0.9 Investigation Flow Observation

 **STOPPED AT FIRST PRODUCTION-PATH FAILURE**