docs: preserve domain-independent facilitator principles

docs/Confidence_Engine_Return_to_Origin_Methodology_Context_2026-08-18.md

@@ -315,6 +315,56 @@ RTO.14–17 should therefore remain valuable evidence, not be deleted or describ
 
 This does not apply to implementation mechanics such as JSON, APIs or databases. It applies to the underlying reasoning behaviour.
 
+## Recent experimental evidence supporting methodological principles (2026-08-18/19)
+
+The following experiments provide specific evidence for the durable methodology principles
+documented in `docs/current-working-principles.md`. Each is recorded as one data point, not generalisation.
+
+### RTO.18 — Independent granular question/answer deconstruction (without accumulated state)
+
+Independent per-turn question and answer deconstruction worked when each turn received only its own
+question + answer, without any accumulated focused state from previous turns. This supports:
+
+- **A3** (reasoning on meaning, not accumulated vocabulary)
+- **A6** (non-linear investigation via independent fragments)
+- **The granular answer-fragment hypothesis** as a working direction
+
+### RTO.20 — Narrow derived current view from selected fragments + known relationship
+
+A narrow, derived current understanding state worked when computed from selected fragments combined with known structural relationships rather than full-graph reconstruction. This supports:
+
+- **A5** (deterministic structure for identity/storage; semantic interpretation only where needed)
+- **A10** (progressive disclosure of relevant reasoning to the user)
+
+### RTO.21 — Semantic relationship discovery: one genuine positive case
+
+Semantic interpretation found one genuine cross-fragment relationship from two fragments alone. The operation correctly identified that two contributions meaningfully related without prior keyword dictionary matching. This supports:
+
+- **A4** (semantic interpretation as a suitable facilitation capability)
+- **A3** (meaning-based over vocabulary-based reasoning)
+
+### RTO.22 — Semantic relationship discovery: one obvious negative case (control)
+
+The same semantic operation correctly returned no relationship for one obviously unrelated pair of contributions. This supports:
+
+- **A4** (semantic interpretation is useful but produces proposals, not decisions)
+- **A3** (meaning-based reasoning does not produce false positives at high rates on obvious cases)
+
+### RTO.23 — Current apparatus work
+
+RTO.23 apparatus development is ongoing. No live experimental evidence exists for RTO.23 yet.
+
+---
+
+## Methodology principles reinforced by this evidence
+
+The experiments above support (without proving) the following durable methodology boundaries:
+
+- **Delivery-platform independence** (A1): all results were observed through a software delivery path, but the reasoning operations described (question deconstruction, relationship inference, fragment composition) are equally performable by a human facilitator.
+- **Meaning over dictionary** (A3/A4): RTO.21 and RTO.22 together suggest semantic interpretation can produce both true-positive and true-negative relationship proposals without keyword scoring — but two data points do not establish reliability. The guardrail remains: treat all inferred relationships as proposals until handled per the delivery method.
+- **Non-linear investigation** (A6/A7): independent fragment processing validates that reasoning can proceed asynchronously across branches without blocking the user.
+- **Progressive disclosure** (A10): RTO.20 demonstrates that a derived narrow view from relevant fragments is more useful to the user than a full-graph reconstruction of everything known.
+
 ## Source basis
 
 - `01_Confidence_Engine_Founding_Principles`

docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -141,18 +141,22 @@ The next phase starts from the workspace/methodology question, not from a presel
 
 ### Required methodology-continuity context (read first)
 
-> **Before continuing any Confidence Engine reasoning development, load this document:**
+> **Before continuing any Confidence Engine reasoning development, load these in order:**
 >
-> `docs/Confidence_Engine_Return_to_Origin_Methodology_Context_2026-08-18.md`
+> 1. `docs/current-working-principles.md` §0 (Axiomatic Principles A1–A12)
+> 2. `docs/Confidence_Engine_Return_to_Origin_Methodology_Context_2026-08-18.md`
 
-This is the durable methodology anchor. It covers:
+**The axiomatic principles in current-working-principles.md are now the durable methodological anchor.** They codify delivery-platform independence, meaning-over-dictionary reasoning, user-directed non-linear investigation, provisional closure, and progressive disclosure. All future work must be evaluated against these 12 axioms.
+
+The RTO methodology context document covers:
 - What Confidence Engine is (reasoning method, not software or LLM)
 - What it is not
 - The granular answer-fragment hypothesis (working — not architecture)
 - RTO.14–17 learning and why they did not define the next architecture
-- The memory/graph separation principle
+- Memory/graph separation principle
 - Optional capability: "Help me answer" / "Answer for me"
 - Methodology test for future development
+- Recent experimental evidence (RTO.18, RTO.20–RTO.22) supporting durable principles
 
 **Do not begin reasoning development from the latest experiment apparatus.** Always load this methodology continuity context first. Without it, a new session will reconstruct the project from recent technical experiments and lose sight of the method the application is meant to embody.
 

docs/current-project-state.md

@@ -126,6 +126,29 @@ The current-state document was verified as accurate by focused code inspection o
 
 ## 10. Post-v0.8 Methodology Learning
 
+### Durable methodology principles (2026-08-19)
+
+The following principles have been durably codified in `docs/current-working-principles.md` as **Axiomatic Principles A1–A12**. They are now the authoritative methodological baseline for all future work:
+
+| Classification | Principle |
+|---|---|
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A1 — Delivery-platform independence (methodology ≠ software) |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A2 — The Engine facilitates; the user directs investigation |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A3 — Meaning over prescribed vocabulary; no domain/language dictionaries |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A4 — Semantic interpretation as a facilitation capability (LLM optional) |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A5 — Deterministic code for structure/integrity only, not semantic judgment |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A6 — Investigation is non-linear; user moves between branches |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A7 — Background assistance must not redirect the user's current work |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A8 — Closure is user-owned and may be provisional (no mandatory thresholds) |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A9 — Graph-like reasoning structure does not mandate graph UI |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A10 — Progressive disclosure mirrors progressive reasoning |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A11 — Multilingual portability follows from meaning-based (not vocabulary-based) design |
+| METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE | A12 — Latency is an implementation trade-off, not a methodological constraint |
+| IMPLEMENTATION HYPOTHESIS | Hybrid deterministic/semantic fast path (not selected; guardrail applies) |
+
+> **New work must not contradict these axioms without explicit methodological review.**
+> See `docs/current-working-principles.md` §0 for full wording and classification discipline.
+
 ### Carry-forward from Phase 1B audit evidence
 
 The following material learnings are carried forward as durable context for safe later archival of experiment families:
@@ -156,4 +179,10 @@ Since the handoff document was written, further learning has emerged from Return
 **Next experiment direction:** Test independent user-chosen question/answer deconstruction without accumulated focused state being passed between LLM calls. See `docs/Confidence_Engine_Return_to_Origin_Methodology_Context_2026-08-18.md` for full context.
 
 > **Branch:** `feature/decision-closure-ownership-v0.47`
-> **Current HEAD:** `e1b54e4` (experiment: checkpoint granular answer fragment apparatus)
+> **Current HEAD:** `85204f96aca7e4b350fe8db73150bf0683ebeefe` (experiment: checkpoint borderline relationship control)
+
+### Current experimental context
+
+The project has returned to relationship-discovery experimentation following Return-to-Origin methodology work. The durable methodology principles (A1–A12 above) should be loaded before continuing experiments. RTO.21 and RTO.22 have provided initial evidence supporting the meaning-over-dictionary approach; RTO.23 apparatus is under development.
+
+For detailed current handoff state, read `docs/current-handoff.md` first.

docs/current-working-principles.md

@@ -2,6 +2,82 @@
 
 > These are the principles that should guide normal work today. They are supported by verified implementation, current project direction, and established product philosophy. For broader and aspirational architectural reasoning, see `docs/architectural-principles.md`.
 
+---
+
+## 0. Axiomatic Principles (Durable Methodology)
+
+> The following principles capture the irreducible core of the Confidence Engine methodology.
+> They apply regardless of delivery platform, technology stack, or interface choice.
+> New work must not contradict these axioms without explicit methodological review.
+
+### A1 — Delivery-platform independence
+
+The Confidence Engine is a reasoning methodology, not an LLM product, workshop format, software UI, graph implementation, book, or any other delivery mechanism. The method defines reasoning activities — surfacing questions, capturing contributions, identifying uncertainty, connecting relevant contributions, exposing what remains unresolved, helping the user understand where they are — and those activities may be delivered through a human facilitator, a book or workbook, software, an LLM-assisted application, or another future delivery mechanism. No single delivery platform owns the methodology.
+
+### A2 — The Engine facilitates; the user directs
+
+The Engine may expose, suggest or infer possible questions and relationships, but the user chooses what to investigate next. The Engine does NOT determine: the mandatory next question, the branch the user must enter, the decision the user should make, or when all uncertainty must be resolved. What it surfaces (possible questions, new connections, open uncertainties, branches waiting for information, changes in understanding) remains invitations or proposals. The user directs the investigation.
+
+### A3 — Reasoning operates on meaning, not prescribed vocabulary
+
+The Confidence Engine is domain-agnostic and language-agnostic. Its fixed vocabulary should describe generic reasoning structure (contribution, observation, uncertainty, assumption, question, relationship), not subject-matter terminology. Domain-specific dictionaries are not the basis of semantic reasoning. Language-specific keyword dictionaries are not the basis of semantic reasoning. Fixed phrase/keyword scoring must not substitute for understanding. This is consistent with learning that wording/shape sensitivity makes deterministic semantic classification brittle.
+
+### A4 — Semantic interpretation is a suitable facilitation capability
+
+Where meaning depends on language, semantic interpretation may be used to assist the facilitator role. A human facilitator can perform this operation. An LLM may also assist because language understanding is an appropriate capability for this task. Any inferred relationship remains a proposed interpretation until handled according to the delivery method. The LLM must not own the relationship, make the decision, determine truth, or be declared required.
+
+### A5 — Deterministic logic preserves structure and integrity; it does not imitate semantic understanding
+
+Use deterministic software where the problem is genuinely deterministic (identity, storage, provenance, routing, staleness checks, record integrity, known explicit links). Use semantic interpretation where the problem is genuinely about meaning. Do not rebuild semantic judgment as a domain dictionary simply because deterministic code is faster or easier to test.
+
+### A6 — Investigation is non-linear
+
+The Confidence Engine does not require investigation to proceed as one sequential chain. Questions create separate lines of inquiry. A branch may be active, waiting for information, paused, revisited later, or sufficiently explored for now. The user may move between branches. This reflects how investigation itself works, not merely an async-software optimisation.
+
+### A7 — Background assistance must not redirect the user
+
+Semantic assistance may complete asynchronously without blocking the user's current work. A delivery platform may capture the user's contribution immediately, allow them to continue elsewhere, complete semantic interpretation in the background, and surface a possible connection later. But a late result must NOT move the user to another branch, replace what they are currently doing, silently choose the next question, or interrupt ownership of the investigation. Background reasoning may create something new for the user to notice, but it must not decide where the user goes next.
+
+### A8 — Closure is user-owned and may be provisional
+
+Closure does not require complete resolution of every branch or uncertainty. The user may decide there is enough information for now, remaining uncertainty is not material enough to pursue, the effort to learn more is not worthwhile, the decision can be made with what is known, or the investigation should simply pause. "Resolved" means reasoning content is answered/settled. "Closed for now" means the user chooses to stop investigating at this point. The reasoning record and unresolved questions remain available for future return. A later change in circumstances or new evidence may justify reopening the investigation. Do not define a closure score or threshold.
+
+### A9 — The reasoning structure may be graph-like without forcing a graph UI
+
+The underlying reasoning record may be connected and non-linear, while presentation remains flexible. Possible delivery views include: focused question view, notebook/branch view, map/mind-map/tree view, timeline, summary, voice interaction, book/workbook structure. These are views over the reasoning record, not different methodologies. Mind-map, family tree, or graph visualization must never be a required interface — they are presentation possibilities only.
+
+### A10 — Progressive disclosure mirrors progressive reasoning
+
+The Engine breaks a large situation into manageable pieces; the interface should not then expose the entire complexity by default. The user should normally see the smallest useful part of the reasoning needed for what they are doing now, while wider structure remains available when they choose to inspect it. Progressive disclosure should reduce distraction and cognitive overload while preserving access to the wider reasoning structure.
+
+### A11 — Multilingual flexibility follows from meaning-based reasoning
+
+A methodology based on generic reasoning structure and semantic interpretation is more naturally portable across languages than one dependent on an English keyword dictionary. The Confidence Engine itself must not encode English/domain vocabulary as the definition of reasoning meaning. A delivery mechanism may provide semantic interpretation in the language being used. This does not claim perfect multilingual equivalence or that every LLM performs equally well in every language.
+
+### A12 — Latency is an implementation trade-off, not a reason to distort the method
+
+Semantic interpretation may be slower than deterministic checks, but current model latency should not redefine the reasoning methodology. Establish the smallest correct reasoning operation first; optimise delivery later.
+
+---
+
+## Classification discipline for future work
+
+When considering new development:
+
+| This belongs as | Examples |
+|---|---|
+| **DURABLE METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE** | user directs investigation, delivery-platform independence, meaning over prescribed vocabulary, non-linear investigation, provisional closure, progressive disclosure |
+| **IMPLEMENTATION HYPOTHESIS** | asynchronous LLM inference, hybrid deterministic/semantic fast path, notification badges, map/tree UI, background worker architecture |
+| **EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE** | individual experiment results (e.g. one relationship discovery test) |
+
+> Do not accidentally promote implementation ideas into methodology.
+
+---
+
+## Hybrid interpretation clarification (implementation hypothesis only)
+
+A delivery platform may use a conservative deterministic fast path for genuinely structural cases and semantic interpretation when meaning is required. The guardrail: the deterministic layer must not become a hidden semantic dictionary. This architecture has NOT been selected.
+
 ## 1. Principles for the User Experience
 
 - **The system carries complexity; the user sees only the next step.** The engine manages graph theory, node IDs, schemas, prompt versions, and provider details.

docs/task-context-packs.md

@@ -5,14 +5,14 @@
 ## Pack 1 — Engine Experiment Work
 
 ### Always read
-- `docs/Confidence_Engine_Return_to_Origin_Methodology_Context_2026-08-18.md` (methodology continuity — required before any reasoning development)
+- `docs/current-working-principles.md` §0 (Axiomatic Principles A1–A12 — durable methodology baseline)
+- `docs/Confidence_Engine_Return_to_Origin_Methodology_Context_2026-08-18.md` (methodology continuity, RTO evidence)
 - `docs/current-handoff.md` (current state, Git checkpoint, experiment log)
-- `docs/current-working-principles.md`
 - `.claude/architecture-guardrails.md`
 - `docs/current-implementation-verification.md`
 
 ### First document to read for Confidence Engine reasoning work:
-**`docs/Confidence_Engine_Return_to_Origin_Methodology_Context_2026-08-18.md`** — the durable methodology anchor. Do not load experiment apparatus before this document. A new session must understand the method before examining recent technical experiments.
+**`docs/current-working-principles.md` §0** — the axiomatic principles. All future work must be evaluated against A1–A12 before any experiment or implementation consideration. Do not load experiment apparatus before these axioms and the RTO methodology context.
 
 ### Then read only when relevant
 - the specific implementation file;