experiment: test incremental meaning on existing uncertainty

2026-08-12 10:34:53 +01:00
parent ce01e70010
commit 70db093cb1
2 changed files with 98 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# Experiment 57J.80 — Incremental Meaning on Existing Uncertainty (Pre-Anchored)
+
+**Branch:** `feature/semantic-action-contract-v0.23`
+**Starting HEAD:** `ce01e70` (tooling: add pre-anchored update-only mode to canonical harness)
+
+## Objective
+
+Answer exactly:
+
+> When the savings-realism uncertainty already exists and the user supplies new concrete information relevant to it, does the model emit `structuralActionRequired=true`, preserve that new information structurally, and avoid creating a duplicate equivalent uncertainty?
+
+## Hypothesis
+
+The answer contains both:
+- **existing unresolved meaning:** uncertainty about whether the savings estimate is realistic
+- **new supported information:** approximately £2 million per year, basis = eliminating the current lease cost
+
+Expected valid contract path: `structuralActionRequired = true`, meaningful mutation, new info preserved, existing uncertainty identity preserved (single node).
+
+## Configured scenario (from fixture)
+
+```text
+"We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
+```
+
+## Configured answer (fixed)
+
+```text
+"The projected office saving is about £2 million per year based on eliminating the current lease cost, but I am still unsure whether that estimate is realistic."
+```
+
+## Pre-anchored fixture
+
+```text
+tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-update-savings-realism.json
+```
+
+**Savings-realism node:**
+- id: `n_savings_realism`
+- label: "Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"
+- status: `unknown`
+
+**Exactly one equivalent unresolved uncertainty before Update: YES**
+
+## Run
+
+### CALL ACCOUNTING
+
+- startCalls: 0
+- updateCalls: 1
+- totalCalls: 1
+- Retries: 0
+- Supplementary scripts: NO
+
+### UPDATE 1
+
+- HTTP status: 400
+- Stage: `request_validation`
+- Validation errors: `[{"path":["previousQuestion"],"message":"Expected string, received null","code":"invalid_type"}]`
+- structuralActionRequired: UNAVAILABLE
+
+**Result:** Update rejected at request_validation before any model inference call. The harness passed `previousQuestion: null` (correct for update-only mode with no Start), but the production server's Zod validation requires `previousQuestion` to be a string.
+
+## Classification: I — BLOCKED
+
+The committed FIXTURE_MODE=updateOnly path fails before the model call due to a request_validation boundary condition: no prior Start means no selectedQuestion, and the server does not accept null for previousQuestion in update-only mode. The apparatus works (fixture loads, anchor verified, exactly one Update attempted), but cannot reach the model inference stage.
+
+## What this establishes
+
+- FIXTURE_MODE=updateOnly apparatus correctly verifies fixture integrity
+- One update call is attempted even when blocked at validation
+- Call accounting reports accurately
+- Pre-anchored harness from 57J.78 requires a non-null previousQuestion string to reach the model inference stage
+
+## What this does NOT prove
+
+- Whether the model would produce structuralActionRequired=true for incremental meaning on existing uncertainty
+- Whether new £2m/year information would be structurally preserved
+- Whether lease-cost basis would be represented
+- Whether duplicate uncertainty identity is avoided
+
+## Production code changed: NO