robbond/confidence-engine
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

experiment: finalize semantic action contract semantics

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
robbond
2026-08-12 06:30:40 +01:00
parent 51da4b973f
commit 5f9e8ebe33
2 changed files with 312 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/current-handoff.md
+22 -1
View File
@@ -1228,4 +1228,25 @@ The contract semantics are **ADVISORY** — the boolean is a minimum intent decl
**READY FOR BOUNVED IMPLEMENTATION: YES.** All decisions resolved: field location, strict/advisory semantics, null transition, contradiction matrix. No remaining ambiguity for bounded implementation.
Full record in `docs/experiment-57j66.md`.
Full record in `docs/experiment-57j66.md`.
---
### Experiment 57J.67 — semanticActionRequired Contract Semantics Finalized
**Classification: A — SEMANTICS SETTLED.** Resolved the final ambiguity from 57J.66: is the boolean an *exact structural claim* (strict contract) or a *minimum-action claim* (advisory)? **Decision: EXACT STRUCTURAL CLAIM.** The field name "structuralActionRequired" semantically implies necessity, not suggestion. Definition A provides cleaner semantics, fully deterministic validation in all four cases, and prevents the most damaging error class (model declares no action but produces structure). Advisory (57J.66's recommendation) is rejected: `false + mutation` violates contract consistency — if the model declares "no structural action required" but produces meaningful mutations, it has either misunderstood the answer or over-produced unnecessary structure. This is not harmless.
- **Boolean definition:** EXACT STRUCTURAL CLAIM (Definition A). true = meaningful mutation present; false = no meaningful mutation needed.
- **true + mutation:** PASS. true + no mutation: REJECT. false + no mutation: PASS. false + mutation: REJECT (under exact claim).
- **False semantics:** Option A — "The user's supported meaning is already fully represented in graph state, so no graph mutation is needed." This covers semantic agreement with existing state and other legitimate no-op cases.
- **Populated meaning + false + empty:** PASS. Does NOT prove semantic correctness (NO). Proves only: model explicitly declared intent + declaration matches zero mutations = contract consistent. Semantic truth remains unproven.
- **Populated meaning + false + mutation:** REJECT under exact claim. Declaration says "no structural change needed" but proposal contradicts by producing meaningful changes. Deterministic validation catches this inconsistency.
- **Transition rule:** A — missing/null + populated userSupportedMeaning → reject; missing/null + no meaning → retain existing behavior. Mandatory on every proposal (C) deferred to prompt-only enforcement.
- **Legacy no-op guard:** REMAINS ONLY FOR LEGACY/MISSING FIELD. Under exact contract, `false + zero mutation` is valid intentional no-op — legacy "semantic-only no-op rejection" would incorrectly block it. Legacy guard stays for when structuralActionRequired is absent.
- **Prompt wording (2 sentences):**
1. "Set to true when your proposal contains any meaningful graph change (new nodes, updated nodes, resolved unknowns, or changed edges)."
2. "Set to false only when the user's supported meaning is already fully represented in existing graph state and no graph mutation is needed."
**Final v0.23 contract:** top-level field in `graphUpdateSchema`, boolean | nullable, exact structural semantics. Ready for bounded implementation.
New branch: `feature/semantic-action-contract-v0.23`