experiment: validate structured semantic fidelity live

docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -990,3 +990,20 @@ Implemented the bounded Option C from 57J.50 on branch `feature/structured-seman
 **Deferred intentionally:** `must_resolve` target-specific enforcement remains deferred because the current proposal structure does not safely identify the answered/targeted unknown in every case without inventing new linkage.
 
 **Tests:** Required deterministic suites pass, plus one directly related proposal-parse suite updated for the new schema boundary. No live model calls. No Ollama. Full record in `docs/experiment-57j51.md`.
+
+### Experiment 57J.52 — Structured Semantic Fidelity Live Verification
+
+**Classification: A — V0.20 STRUCTURED PATH WORKS**
+
+One fresh live run through the production `startCase()` → `updateCase()` path. 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."
+
+**Key evidence:**
+- `supportCategory = "uncertain"` (populated, valid enum) — STRUCTURED path active, not LEGACY FALLBACK.
+- `resolutionGuidance = "may_resolve"` (populated).
+- Meaning: FAITHFUL — model preserved uncertainty without strengthening or degrading.
+- New unknown node `nf3g7m2` ("Realism of projected office savings from relocation") added with `depends_on` edge to summary — meaningful graph structure produced.
+- The old `unsure` → `uncertain` lexical mismatch does NOT determine the outcome: structured `supportCategory` is authoritative, bypassing lexical derivation entirely.
+
+**What this establishes:** v0.20's structured semantic fidelity path executes live on the real production path. The model populates structured fields from a "I am unsure..." answer, the validator trusts those populated fields over lexical comparison, and meaningful graph structure is produced.
+
+**What this does NOT prove:** Stability across repeated runs; behavior for answers outside existing categories; `must_remain_unresolved` enforcement in practice; end-to-end investigation viability past Update 2+. Full record in `docs/experiment-57j52.md`.

docs/experiment-57j52.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# Experiment 57J.52 — Structured Semantic Fidelity Live Verification
+
+**Branch:** `feature/structured-semantic-fidelity-v0.20`
+**Starting HEAD:** `f156bf5e9a3f53f7d0b438e96b9c75f9d4f1ab29` (closest to feature/structured-semantic-fidelity-v0.20)
+**Experiment commit:** pending
+
+## Objective
+
+Answer exactly: does v0.20 populate and use structured semantic fidelity live? Does it avoid the old `unsure` → `uncertain` lexical false-positive while still producing meaningful graph structure?
+
+## Fixed Input
+
+Scenario: "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
+Answer: "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
+
+## Configuration
+
+Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434
+Dev server: REUSED EXISTING
+
+## Call Accounting
+
+startCalls: 1
+updateCalls: 1
+totalCalls: 2
+
+Supplementary scripts used: NO
+Retries: 0
+
+## START
+
+HTTP: 200 | stage: unknown
+Nodes: 8
+Edges: 5
+Selected question: "What was the comparable state before detailed breakdown of current operating costs versus projected costs in the new location(s)?"
+
+## UPDATE 1
+
+HTTP: 200
+Stage: update_applied
+First error: none
+
+Nodes: 9 (+1)
+Edges: 6 (+1)
+Selected question: "What would clarify realism of projected office savings from relocation in this situation?"
+
+## ANSWER MEANING
+
+userSupportedMeaning: "The user is unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
+possibleInference: "Overestimating these savings would undermine the primary goal of lowering operating costs."
+supportCategory: "uncertain"
+resolutionGuidance: "may_resolve"
+
+Meaning classification: FAITHFUL
+
+Structured path: STRUCTURED
+
+resolutionGuidance populated: YES
+
+## STRUCTURAL PROPOSAL
+
+updatedNodes: []
+resolvedUnknownNodeIds: []
+addedNodes: [{ id: "nf3g7m2", label: "Realism of projected office savings from relocation", kind: "unknown", status: "unknown", dependsOn: ["n11dav1"] }]
+addedEdges: [{ id: "e-unk-nf3g7m2", fromNodeId: "nf3g7m2", toNodeId: "n11dav1", relationship: "depends_on" }]
+
+Structural action: ADD NEW UNKNOWN
+
+## RESULT
+
+Classification: A — V0.20 STRUCTURED PATH WORKS
+
+Why:
+- `supportCategory = "uncertain"` is populated and valid (STRUCTURED).
+- `resolutionGuidance = "may_resolve"` is populated.
+- Meaning is FAITHFUL: the model captured the user's uncertainty without strengthening or degrading.
+- The old `unsure` → `uncertain` lexical mismatch does NOT occur because structured fields are authoritative — v0.20 bypasses lexical derivation entirely when structured fields are populated.
+- A new unknown node "Realism of projected office savings from relocation" was added to the graph with a `depends_on` edge to the summary state node — meaningful structural representation.
+
+## Critical Evidence
+
+Did outcome depend on "unsure" vs "uncertain": NO
+
+The structured `supportCategory = "uncertain"` is authoritative; lexical comparison of "unsure" vs "uncertain" never occurs in this path.
+
+## What this establishes
+
+1. v0.20's structured semantic fidelity path executes live and correctly populates `supportCategory` from the user answer expressing uncertainty ("I am unsure...").
+2. The model returns `supportCategory = "uncertain"` (not null), triggering the structured path over legacy lexical fallback.
+3. `resolutionGuidance = "may_resolve"` is also populated.
+4. A new unknown node is added to the graph with meaningful structural content derived from the answer's uncertainty dimension.
+5. The old `unsure`/`uncertain` lexical false-positive is eliminated on the structured path.
+
+## What this does NOT prove
+
+1. Whether `supportCategory = "uncertain"` also works when the model instead returns a different category for this or other answers.
+2. Stability of structured population across repeated identical runs.
+3. Behavior with answers that don't naturally map to existing categories (e.g., pure preference, conditional trade-off).
+4. Whether `must_remain_unresolved` is enforced correctly in practice (not tested by this answer — the model returned "may_resolve" not "must_remain_unresolved").
+5. End-to-end investigation viability past Update 2+.
+
+## Production code changed: NO
+
+## Harness restored: YES
+