experiment: test grounding of decision relevance

docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Experiment 51 tested whether decision-relative relevance distinguishes coherent
 
 Experiment 52 tested whether a small semantic interpretation step can judge decision relevance more reliably than keyword matching across paraphrases and domains. The semantic contract was implemented in `tests/graph/decision-relevance-semantic.test.js`. Live model comparison could not be completed because Ollama is not running on this machine — the test infrastructure uses the same `/api/chat` + `format:json` pattern as production. The deterministic keyword baseline continues to fail on paraphrases and new domains (confirmed via 15 passing guardrail tests). No semantic logic entered the active engine. The four-category decision-relevance contract remained unchanged. Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`. First file to inspect: `tests/graph/decision-relevance-semantic.test.js` for the full experiment and results.
 
-Experiment 52H held domain constant (market-entry / customer demand) and varied ambiguous wording across five cases. Three phrasings ("important to", "relevant to", "may matter for") became `could_change_decision`; one ("worth considering") became `supports_decision`; only "connected to" preserved `cannot_determine`. The evidence suggests the model strengthens vague relevance wording more generally, not just because of "important". Same host and model retained; no production behaviour changed. Status pending Rob's review.
+Experiment 52H held domain constant (market-entry / customer demand) and varied ambiguous wording across five cases. Four phrasings were strengthened beyond their supplied meaning; only "connected to" preserved `cannot_determine`. The model appeared more consistent about strengthening incomplete meaning than about which stronger category it selected. Experiment 52I then tested one grounding rule rather than keyword patches: three of four ambiguous cases preserved `cannot_determine` under grounding without harming clear classifications, but "important to" remained strengthened — the model could classify correctly while still commenting on relationship strength. The defect is partially grounding discipline, partially category contract. Same host and model retained; no production behaviour changed. Status pending Rob's review.
 
 Experiment 52A recovered the semantic test infrastructure by correcting its configuration resolution. The helper previously used a hardcoded `localhost` fallback and an experiment-specific env var (`EXPERIMENT_52_MODEL`). Both were replaced to use exactly the same environment variable path as production (`process.env.OLLAMA_BASE_URL` / `process.env.OLLAMA_MODEL`) sourced from `.env.local`. Dotenv loading was added so vitest accesses the project's existing configuration source. Ollama at 192.168.1.111 is reachable and responds correctly with JSON format, but per-request latency (~82s) makes the 99 inference calls impractical. Configuration path verified correct; execution requires a faster inference host. No production code changed (0 lines in provider, config, analysis, orchestrator). Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`. First file to inspect: `tests/graph/decision-relevance-semantic.test.js` lines 80–85 (helper).
 
@@ -124,8 +124,8 @@ Answer before continuing:
 
 ---
 
-*Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–52H. Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`.*
+*Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–52I. Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`.*
 
-### Return-to-Work Note (Experiment 52H)
+### Return-to-Work Note (Experiment 52I)
 
-Experiment 52G's conclusion was narrowed to match its evidence: the cross-domain effect of "important to [decision]" → `could_change_decision` is established, but this was phrasing-specific. Experiment 52H held domain constant (market-entry / customer demand) and varied only ambiguous wording across five cases. Three phrasings ("important to", "relevant to", "may matter for") became `could_change_decision`; one ("worth considering") settled at `supports_decision`; only "connected to" preserved `cannot_determine`. The evidence suggests the model strengthens vague relevance wording more generally — not just because of "important" — with intensity proportional to phrasing specificity. Same host (`http://192.168.1.111:11434`) and model (`qwen-claude:latest`) retained; no production behaviour changed. Branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7`, commit pending. First file to inspect when resuming: `docs/design-evolution-log.md` Experiment 52H section, then `tests/graph/decision-relevance-ambiguous-wording.test.js`.
+Experiments 52F–52H established that the model strengthens vague relevance phrasing beyond what was supplied: four of five ambiguous statements became `could_change_decision`, only "connected to" preserved `cannot_determine`. Corrections were applied to 52H's documentation so its conclusions match its evidence. Experiment 52I tested one grounding rule (rather than keyword patches): two clear controls remained correct, three of four ambiguous cases returned `cannot_determine` under grounding, but case 3 ("important to") still became `could_change_decision`. The model classified correctly in most grounded cases but its reasoning still introduced strength signals. This means the gap between supplied evidence and plausible inference persists even with explicit instructions. Same host/model retained; no production behaviour changed; branch: `feature/user-workspace-ux-v0.7` (commit pending). First file to inspect when resuming: `docs/design-evolution-log.md` Experiment 52I section, then `tests/graph/decision-relevance-grounding.test.js`.