docs: experiment 57J.39 record and handoff update

2026-08-11 12:32:39 +01:00
parent 6adcd817e1
commit 712c0c4998
2 changed files with 89 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -546,3 +546,21 @@ Exact implementation boundary:

 ---

+### Experiment 57J.39 — Semantic-to-Mutation Contract Implementation (Option B)
+
+**Classification: E — IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETE.**
+
+Implemented the bounded Option B from 57J.38 with ownership correction: prompt owns structural materialization obligation; validator owns only the structural fact that `answerMeaning` alone is not graph progress.
+
+**Production changes:**
+- **prompt-builder.js** rule #6 replaced: added explicit MUST structural-materialization rule. userSupportedMeaning must be expressed through graph structure — update/refine existing, resolve unknown, new unknown, or justified relationship. answerMeaning alone is insufficient.
+- **utils.js** validateGraphUpdate(): added specific diagnostic "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning is populated, but the proposal contains no graph mutation" inside the `!hasMeaningfulChange` path, ordered before generic no-op error for exact same proposal.
+
+**Tests:** 15 new focused tests (8 in utils.test.js for all contract cases; 7 in prompt-builder.test.js for MUST rule verification). All 68 + 15 = 83 focused tests pass. No regressions in update-route (13), harness (8), or rejected-proposal-snapshot (7) tests. One pre-existing orchestrator failure unrelated to this work.
+
+**Not changed:** hasMeaningfulChange definition, schema, node/edge semantics, provenance, answerability, decomposition, reasoning taxonomy, semantic classifiers, provider integration, Behaviour Selection. possibleInference alone does not trigger the new diagnostic.
+
+Ollama calls: 0. Dev server disturbed: NO. Branch: feature/semantic-to-mutation-contract-v0.17 from HEAD 3b868b2.
+
+---
+