test(experiment): checkpoint borderline relationship control

scripts/experimental/rto-fragment-relationship-borderline-control.mjs

@@ -0,0 +1,629 @@
+/**
+ * RTO.23A — Borderline Same-Topic Negative-Control Relationship-Discovery Apparatus
+ *
+ * Purpose: Test whether semantic relationship discovery distinguishes
+ * topical similarity from material evidential bearing when both fragments
+ * concern the same competitor, market, and industry context but the later
+ * fragment does not materially advance the earlier uncertainty.
+ *
+ * Design boundary:
+ *   - Standalone experimental runner.
+ *   - Zero production code changes.
+ *   - Inspect-only by default (zero live model calls).
+ *   - --live flag enables exactly one live call producing a proposed relationship.
+ *
+ * Fixed earlier fragment:
+ *   RTO.18 Fragment 2 — competitor hiring + conference signals
+ *   (tests/experimental/results/rto-granular-fragment-turn2.json)
+ *
+ * Fixed borderline-control fragment:
+ *   EXPERIMENTAL_FIXTURE — same competitor, same market, same conference,
+ *   but only general commentary with no technical or product-development evidence.
+ *
+ * Output contract (same as RTO.21 / RTO.22):
+ *   { relationshipFound, relationship, remainingQualification }
+ */
+
+import fs from "fs/promises";
+import path from "path";
+import { fileURLToPath } from "url";
+import dotenv from "dotenv";
+
+dotenv.config({ path: ".env.local" });
+
+const __dirname = path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url));
+const resultsDir = path.resolve(__dirname, "../../tests/experimental/results");
+
+// ─── Fragment paths ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+const FRAGMENT_2_PATH = path.resolve(
+  __dirname,
+  "../../tests/experimental/results/rto-granular-fragment-turn2.json"
+);
+
+// ─── Borderline-control fragment (EXPERIMENTAL_FIXTURE) ──────────────────────
+// This fixture is deliberately topically close to Fragment 2 but lacks
+// any technical architecture, prototype, roadmap, launch timing, development
+// programme, or new hiring evidence.  Those absences are the experimental
+// variable being tested.
+
+const BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT = {
+  targetNodeId: "borderline-control-competitor-market-presence",
+  question: "What else has the competitor done publicly in this market?",
+  observations: [
+    "The competitor sponsored the same industry conference.",
+    "Its chief executive gave opening remarks about growth in the market and the importance of solving the customer problem.",
+    "The remarks contained no technical architecture, prototype, product roadmap, launch timing, development programme, or additional hiring information."
+  ],
+  uncertainties: [],
+  assumptions: [],
+  relationships: [],
+  possibleFollowUpQuestions: []
+};
+
+// ─── Load fragment 2 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+async function loadFragment2() {
+  const frag2Raw = await fs.readFile(FRAGMENT_2_PATH, "utf-8");
+  const frag2 = JSON.parse(frag2Raw);
+
+  if (!frag2.structuredResult) {
+    throw new Error("Fragment 2 missing structuredResult");
+  }
+
+  return {
+    fragment: frag2,
+    structuredResult: frag2.structuredResult
+  };
+}
+
+// ─── Borderline-control integrity check ──────────────────────────────────────
+
+function hasAffirmativeEvidence(text, terms) {
+  // Check if any term appears as affirmative evidence (not in a negation).
+  // A negation pattern is: "contained no X" / "no X present" / "without X".
+  const lowerText = text.toLowerCase();
+
+  // Find all occurrences of each term and check whether they are inside
+  // a negation scope.  We look for the nearest preceding negation marker
+  // that is closer than the next affirmative context breaker (a period,
+  // semicolon, or newline).
+  for (const term of terms) {
+    let searchPos = 0;
+    while (true) {
+      const idx = lowerText.indexOf(term, searchPos);
+      if (idx === -1) break;
+
+      // Find the nearest preceding negation marker
+      let foundNegation = false;
+      for (const marker of ["contained no", "not ", "no ", "without", "lacks"]) {
+        const markerIdx = lowerText.lastIndexOf(marker, idx - 1);
+        if (markerIdx !== -1) {
+          // Verify no sentence-breaker between the marker and the term
+          const between = lowerText.substring(markerIdx + marker.length, idx);
+          if (!between.match(/[.;\n]/)) {
+            foundNegation = true;
+            break;
+          }
+        }
+      }
+
+      if (foundNegation) {
+        // Skip past this occurrence — it's negated
+        searchPos = idx + term.length;
+        continue;
+      }
+
+      // Look forward to ensure the term is a complete word (not part of another word)
+      const after = lowerText.substring(idx);
+      if (after.match(/[^a-z]/) !== null) {
+        return true;  // Affirmative evidence found
+      }
+      searchPos = idx + 1;
+    }
+  }
+  return false;
+}
+
+function verifyBorderlineControlClean() {
+  const text = JSON.stringify(BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT);
+
+  // Same competitor / market / conference context should be present
+  const lowerText = text.toLowerCase();
+  const sameCompetitorContext = lowerText.includes("competitor");
+  const sameMarketContext = lowerText.includes("market");
+  const sameConferenceContext = lowerText.includes("conference");
+  const customerProblemRef = lowerText.includes("customer problem");
+
+  // These must NOT have affirmative evidence (no material advancement of earlier uncertainty)
+  const technicalArchitecture = hasAffirmativeEvidence(text, ["technical architecture"]);
+  const prototypeEvidence = hasAffirmativeEvidence(text, ["prototype"]);
+  const productRoadmap = hasAffirmativeEvidence(text, ["product roadmap"]);
+  const launchTiming = hasAffirmativeEvidence(text, ["launch timing", "launch date"]);
+  const developmentProgramme = hasAffirmativeEvidence(text, ["development programme"]);
+  const newHiringEvidence = hasAffirmativeEvidence(text, ["additional hiring"]);
+
+  return {
+    sameCompetitorContext,
+    sameMarketContext,
+    sameConferenceContext,
+    customerProblemRef,
+    technicalArchitecture,
+    prototypeEvidence,
+    productRoadmap,
+    launchTiming,
+    developmentProgramme,
+    newHiringEvidence,
+    clean: !technicalArchitecture && !prototypeEvidence && !productRoadmap && !launchTiming && !developmentProgramme && !newHiringEvidence
+  };
+}
+
+// ─── Build the relationship-discovery prompt ──────────────────────────────────
+
+function buildRelationshipPrompt(srs2, controlSrs) {
+  const parts = [];
+
+  // Instructions — strict semantic discipline (same as RTO.21 / RTO.22)
+  parts.push("You are examining two independent reasoning fragments produced during a");
+  parts.push("competitive investigation. Your task is to determine whether the later");
+  parts.push("fragment contains evidence that materially bears on an uncertainty,");
+  parts.push("assumption or observation in the earlier fragment.");
+  parts.push("");
+  parts.push("CRITICAL RULES:");
+  parts.push("- Only consider what is explicitly stated in these two fragments.");
+  parts.push("- Preserve uncertainty and qualification. Do not treat correlation as confirmation.");
+  parts.push("- Do not infer facts not present in either fragment.");
+  parts.push("- Do not rewrite or summarise either fragment.");
+  parts.push("- Do not recommend an action or choose what to investigate next.");
+  parts.push("");
+  parts.push("SEMANTIC DISCIPLINE:");
+  parts.push("- Identify only a relationship where the later fragment materially bears");
+  parts.push("  on an uncertainty, assumption or observation in the earlier fragment.");
+  parts.push("- Topical similarity alone is not sufficient.");
+  parts.push("- Shared entities, market, industry or subject matter do not by themselves");
+  parts.push("  constitute an evidential relationship.");
+  parts.push("- Do not invent a connection merely because both fragments concern the");
+  parts.push("  same wider situation.");
+  parts.push("- If the later fragment does not materially change, qualify, support,");
+  parts.push("  weaken or contradict an earlier item, return relationshipFound=false.");
+  parts.push("");
+
+  // Fragment 2 (earlier)
+  parts.push("=== Fragment 2 (earlier evidence) ===");
+  parts.push(`Question: ${srs2.question}`);
+  if (srs2.observations && srs2.observations.length) {
+    parts.push("Observations:");
+    for (const o of srs2.observations) {
+      parts.push(`  - ${o}`);
+    }
+  }
+  if (srs2.uncertainties && srs2.uncertainties.length) {
+    parts.push("Uncertainties:");
+    for (const u of srs2.uncertainties) {
+      parts.push(`  - ${u}`);
+    }
+  }
+  if (srs2.assumptions && srs2.assumptions.length) {
+    parts.push("Assumptions:");
+    for (const a of srs2.assumptions) {
+      parts.push(`  - ${a}`);
+    }
+  }
+  if (srs2.relationships && srs2.relationships.length) {
+    parts.push("Relationships (internal to fragment):");
+    for (const r of srs2.relationships) {
+      parts.push(`  - ${r.from} -> ${r.to} (${r.type})`);
+    }
+  }
+  parts.push("");
+
+  // Borderline-control fragment (later)
+  parts.push("=== Fragment (later evidence) ===");
+  parts.push(`Question: ${controlSrs.question}`);
+  if (controlSrs.observations && controlSrs.observations.length) {
+    parts.push("Observations:");
+    for (const o of controlSrs.observations) {
+      parts.push(`  - ${o}`);
+    }
+  }
+  if (controlSrs.uncertainties && controlSrs.uncertainties.length) {
+    parts.push("Uncertainties:");
+    for (const u of controlSrs.uncertainties) {
+      parts.push(`  - ${u}`);
+    }
+  }
+  if (controlSrs.assumptions && controlSrs.assumptions.length) {
+    parts.push("Assumptions:");
+    for (const a of controlSrs.assumptions) {
+      parts.push(`  - ${a}`);
+    }
+  }
+  if (controlSrs.relationships && controlSrs.relationships.length) {
+    parts.push("Relationships (internal to fragment):");
+    for (const r of controlSrs.relationships) {
+      parts.push(`  - ${r.from} -> ${r.to} (${r.type})`);
+    }
+  }
+  parts.push("");
+
+  // Core question
+  parts.push("QUESTION: Does anything in the later fragment materially bear on an uncertainty,");
+  parts.push("assumption or observation in the earlier fragment?");
+  parts.push("");
+
+  // Return format — same contract as RTO.21 / RTO.22
+  parts.push('Return exactly one JSON object:');
+  parts.push('{ "relationshipFound": <bool>, "relationship": { "laterEvidence": "<string>", "earlierItem": "<string>", "bearing": "<string>" }, "remainingQualification": ["<string>"] }');
+  parts.push('If no relationship exists: { "relationshipFound": false, "relationship": null, "remainingQualification": [] }');
+
+  return parts.join("\n");
+}
+
+// ─── Output contract validation (same as RTO.21 / RTO.22) ─────────────────────
+
+function validateRelationshipOutput(result) {
+  const errors = [];
+
+  if (typeof result.relationshipFound !== "boolean") {
+    errors.push("relationshipFound must be a boolean");
+  }
+
+  if (!result.relationshipFound) {
+    if (result.relationship !== null && result.relationship !== undefined) {
+      errors.push("When relationshipFound=false, relationship must be null or undefined");
+    }
+    if (!Array.isArray(result.remainingQualification)) {
+      errors.push("remainingQualification must be an array when relationshipFound=false");
+    }
+    return errors;
+  }
+
+  // When true, relationship object is required
+  if (!result.relationship || typeof result.relationship !== "object") {
+    errors.push("When relationshipFound=true, relationship must be an object");
+    return errors;
+  }
+
+  const rel = result.relationship;
+  if (typeof rel.laterEvidence !== "string") {
+    errors.push("relationship.laterEvidence must be a string");
+  }
+  if (typeof rel.earlierItem !== "string") {
+    errors.push("relationship.earlierItem must be a string");
+  }
+  if (typeof rel.bearing !== "string") {
+    errors.push("relationship.bearing must be a string");
+  }
+
+  if (!Array.isArray(result.remainingQualification)) {
+    errors.push("remainingQualification must be an array when relationshipFound=true");
+  } else if (result.remainingQualification.some((s) => typeof s !== "string")) {
+    errors.push("remainingQualification items must all be strings");
+  }
+
+  // No forbidden fields (same as RTO.21 / RTO.22)
+  const forbidden = ["graphEdgeType", "nodeId", "confidenceScore", "numericStrength",
+    "recommendation", "nextQuestion", "decisionSignificance", "graphUpdate"];
+  for (const field of forbidden) {
+    if (field in result && typeof result[field] !== "undefined") {
+      errors.push(`Forbidden field present: ${field}`);
+    }
+  }
+
+  return errors;
+}
+
+// ─── Prompt-leak check ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+function checkPromptLeak(prompt) {
+  const lowerPrompt = prompt.toLowerCase();
+  const leakTerms = [
+    "negative control",
+    "borderline control",
+    "expected false",
+    "no relationship expected",
+    "rto.22",
+    "manual answer"
+  ];
+
+  const found = [];
+  for (const term of leakTerms) {
+    if (lowerPrompt.includes(term.toLowerCase())) {
+      found.push(term);
+    }
+  }
+
+  return {
+    leaked: found.length > 0,
+    terms: found
+  };
+}
+
+// ─── Inspect mode (default: zero model calls) ────────────────────────────────
+
+async function inspectApparatus() {
+  console.log("=== RTO.23A Borderline Same-Topic Relationship-Control Apparatus (inspect-only) ===\n");
+
+  // Load and verify fragment 2
+  let structuredResult2;
+  try {
+    const frag2 = await loadFragment2();
+    structuredResult2 = frag2.structuredResult;
+  } catch (e) {
+    console.log("ERROR: Cannot load Fragment 2:", e.message);
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  // Borderline-control integrity check
+  const controlCheck = verifyBorderlineControlClean();
+  console.log("--- Borderline-control fixture integrity ---");
+  console.log(`Same competitor/market context present: ${controlCheck.sameCompetitorContext ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Same conference context present: ${controlCheck.sameConferenceContext ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`General customer-problem reference present: ${controlCheck.customerProblemRef ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Technical architecture present: ${controlCheck.technicalArchitecture ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Prototype evidence present: ${controlCheck.prototypeEvidence ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Product roadmap present: ${controlCheck.productRoadmap ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Launch timing evidence present: ${controlCheck.launchTiming ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Development programme present: ${controlCheck.developmentProgramme ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`New hiring evidence present: ${controlCheck.newHiringEvidence ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  if (!controlCheck.clean) {
+    console.log("\nBORDERLINE_CONTROL_CLEAN:\nNO");
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+  console.log("\nBORDERLINE_CONTROL_CLEAN:\nYES");
+
+  // Fragment verification
+  const f2Loaded = typeof structuredResult2 === "object" && structuredResult2 !== null;
+  console.log("\n--- Fragment verification ---");
+  console.log(`Earlier Fragment 2 supplied: ${f2Loaded ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Borderline-control fragment supplied: YES`);
+
+  // Build prompt for inspection
+  const prompt = buildRelationshipPrompt(structuredResult2, BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT);
+
+  // Measure character sizes
+  const instructionPart = prompt.substring(0, prompt.indexOf("=== Fragment 2"));
+  const frag2StructuredText = JSON.stringify(structuredResult2, null, 2);
+  const controlStructuredText = JSON.stringify(BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT, null, 2);
+
+  console.log("\n--- Context-size measurement ---");
+  console.log(`instructionCharacterCount: ${instructionPart.length}`);
+  console.log(`fragment2CharacterCount: ${frag2StructuredText.length}`);
+  console.log(`borderlineControlCharacterCount: ${controlStructuredText.length}`);
+  console.log(`inputCharacterCount: ${prompt.length}`);
+
+  // ── Boundary checks ───────────────────────────────────────────
+
+  console.log("\n--- Input boundary verification ---");
+
+  const fragment3Supplied = prompt.includes("Fragment 3");
+  console.log(`Fragment 3 supplied: ${fragment3Supplied ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  const rto21PositiveResultSupplied = prompt.includes("Fragment 3's technical evidence bears on") ||
+    prompt.includes("active competing-product development more plausible");
+  console.log(`RTO.21 positive result supplied: ${rto21PositiveResultSupplied ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  const wholeGraphInPrompt = prompt.includes("SituationGraph") ||
+    prompt.includes("whole-case");
+  console.log(`Whole SituationGraph supplied: ${wholeGraphInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  const centralCaseInPrompt = prompt.includes("central case") ||
+    prompt.includes("centralStatement");
+  console.log(`Central case supplied: ${centralCaseInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  const currentViewInPrompt = prompt.includes("derived view") ||
+    prompt.includes("focused view") || prompt.includes("current focused");
+  console.log(`Current derived view supplied: ${currentViewInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  const otherFragmentsInPrompt = prompt.includes("Fragment 1") ||
+    prompt.includes("other fragments") || prompt.includes("additional fragment");
+  console.log(`Other fragments supplied: ${otherFragmentsInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  const turnHistoryInPrompt = prompt.includes("turn history") ||
+    prompt.includes("prior turns") || prompt.includes("conversation history");
+  console.log(`Turn history supplied: ${turnHistoryInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  // ── Prompt-leak check (mandatory) ─────────────────────────────
+
+  const leakCheck = checkPromptLeak(prompt);
+  console.log("\n--- Prompt-leak check ---");
+  console.log(`EXPECTED_OUTCOME_LEAKED_TO_MODEL:\n${leakCheck.leaked ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  if (leakCheck.leaked) {
+    console.log(`Leaked terms: ${leakCheck.terms.join(", ")}`);
+  }
+
+  // ── Output contract validation capability ─────────────────────
+
+  const mockProposal = {
+    relationshipFound: true,
+    relationship: {
+      laterEvidence: "test",
+      earlierItem: "test",
+      bearing: "test",
+    },
+    remainingQualification: ["test"],
+  };
+  const mockNoRel = {
+    relationshipFound: false,
+    relationship: null,
+    remainingQualification: [],
+  };
+  const proposalErrors = validateRelationshipOutput(mockProposal);
+  const noRelErrors = validateRelationshipOutput(mockNoRel);
+  console.log("\n--- Output contract (same as RTO.21) ---");
+  console.log(`proposal path validates: ${proposalErrors.length === 0 ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`no-relationship path validates: ${noRelErrors.length === 0 ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`relationshipFound=false allowed: YES`);
+  console.log(`Topical similarity explicitly insufficient: YES`);
+
+  // ── Live route ────────────────────────────────────────────────
+  console.log("\n--- Live route ---");
+  console.log("node scripts/experimental/rto-fragment-relationship-borderline-control.mjs --live");
+
+  // ── Environment check ─────────────────────────────────────────
+  const baseUrlConfigured = !!process.env.OLLAMA_BASE_URL;
+  const modelConfigured = !!process.env.OLLAMA_MODEL;
+  console.log("\n--- Environment ---");
+  console.log(`OLLAMA_BASE_URL configured: ${baseUrlConfigured ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`OLLAMA_MODEL configured: ${modelConfigured ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
+  // ── Inspect summary ───────────────────────────────────────────
+  const allFragmentsOK = f2Loaded;
+  const noBoundaryLeaks = !fragment3Supplied && !rto21PositiveResultSupplied &&
+    !wholeGraphInPrompt && !centralCaseInPrompt && !currentViewInPrompt &&
+    !otherFragmentsInPrompt && !turnHistoryInPrompt && controlCheck.clean && !leakCheck.leaked;
+
+  console.log("\n=== SUMMARY ===");
+  console.log(`Inspect live calls: 0`);
+  console.log(`Earlier Fragment 2 supplied: ${f2Loaded ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Borderline-control fragment supplied: YES`);
+  console.log(`Fragment 3 supplied: NO`);
+  console.log(`RTO.21 positive result supplied: NO`);
+  console.log(`RTO.22 negative result supplied: NO`);
+  console.log(`Known relationship supplied: NO`);
+  console.log(`Whole SituationGraph supplied: ${wholeGraphInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Central case supplied: ${centralCaseInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Current derived view supplied: ${currentViewInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Turn history supplied: ${turnHistoryInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Other fragments supplied: ${otherFragmentsInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`BORDERLINE_CONTROL_CLEAN:\nYES`);
+  console.log(`--live route exposed: YES`);
+  console.log(`maximum live calls per --live: 1`);
+  console.log(`relationshipFound=false allowed: YES`);
+
+  const passed = allFragmentsOK && noBoundaryLeaks;
+  console.log(`\nInspect result: ${passed ? "PASS" : "FAIL"}`);
+
+  if (!passed) {
+    console.log("\nApparatus cannot satisfy boundary without production changes.");
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  return { prompt };
+}
+
+// ─── Live execution (exactly one model call) ──────────────────────────────────
+
+async function executeLive() {
+  const baseUrl = process.env.OLLAMA_BASE_URL;
+  if (!baseUrl) {
+    console.error("OLLAMA_BASE_URL not set in environment. Cannot execute live mode.");
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+  if (baseUrl === "http://localhost:11434" || baseUrl === "http://127.0.0.1:11434") {
+    console.error("Refuses localhost fallback. OLLAMA_BASE_URL=" + baseUrl);
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  const modelName = process.env.OLLAMA_MODEL;
+  if (!modelName) {
+    console.error("OLLAMA_MODEL not set in environment. Cannot execute live mode.");
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  // Load fragment 2 and build prompt
+  const { structuredResult: srs2 } = await loadFragment2();
+  const prompt = buildRelationshipPrompt(srs2, BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT);
+
+  // Prompt-leak check before sending
+  const leakCheck = checkPromptLeak(prompt);
+  if (leakCheck.leaked) {
+    console.error(`PROMPT_LEAK: Expected outcome leaked to model input via: ${leakCheck.terms.join(", ")}`);
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  // Prepare artifact path for live result
+  await fs.mkdir(resultsDir, { recursive: true });
+
+  const startedAt = Date.now();
+  console.log("Live mode: sending to model...");
+
+  const provider = (await import(path.resolve(__dirname, "../../lib/llm/provider.js"))).getProvider();
+  const raw = await provider.generateReconstruction(prompt, modelName);
+  const elapsedMs = Date.now() - startedAt;
+
+  console.log(`Model response received in ${elapsedMs}ms`);
+
+  // Provider returns a parsed JavaScript object via recoverJson().
+  const parsedResult = typeof raw === "object" && raw !== null ? raw : (() => {
+    console.error("Provider returned unexpected type (expected parsed object):", typeof raw);
+    process.exit(1);
+  })();
+
+  // Validate output contract
+  const errors = validateRelationshipOutput(parsedResult);
+  if (errors.length > 0) {
+    console.error("\nLive output contract violations:");
+    for (const err of errors) {
+      console.error(`  - ${err}`);
+    }
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  // Write artifact
+  const artifactPath = path.resolve(
+    resultsDir,
+    "rto-fragment-relationship-borderline-control-live.json"
+  );
+
+  const controlCheck = verifyBorderlineControlClean();
+  const payload = {
+    apparatus: "rto-fragment-relationship-borderline-control.mjs",
+    experiment: "RTO.23A",
+    artifactType: "LIVE RESULT — Borderline same-topic relationship discovery",
+    modelName: modelName,
+    elapsedMs: elapsedMs,
+    inputCharacterCount: prompt.length,
+    instructionCharacterCount: prompt.substring(0, prompt.indexOf("=== Fragment 2")).length,
+    fragment2CharacterCount: JSON.stringify(srs2, null, 2).length,
+    borderlineControlCharacterCount: JSON.stringify(BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT, null, 2).length,
+    fragment2Path: FRAGMENT_2_PATH,
+    controlFixtureType: "EXPERIMENTAL_FIXTURE",
+    sameCompetitorContext: controlCheck.sameCompetitorContext,
+    sameConferenceContext: controlCheck.sameConferenceContext,
+    borderlineControlClean: controlCheck.clean,
+    knownRelationshipSuppliedToModel: false,
+    wholeSituationGraphSupplied: false,
+    centralCaseStatementSupplied: false,
+    turnHistorySupplied: false,
+    proposedRelationship: parsedResult,
+  };
+
+  await fs.writeFile(artifactPath, JSON.stringify(payload, null, 2));
+  console.log(`\nLive result written to: ${artifactPath}`);
+  console.log("\n=== Proposed Relationship ===");
+  console.log(JSON.stringify(parsedResult, null, 2));
+
+  return payload;
+}
+
+// ─── CLI entry point ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+async function main() {
+  const args = process.argv.slice(2);
+
+  // --live flag for exactly one live model call
+  if (args.includes("--live")) {
+    console.log("RTO.23A — Borderline Same-Topic Relationship-Control Apparatus\n");
+    console.log("WARNING: This will make exactly ONE live model call.\n");
+    const result = await executeLive();
+    return result;
+  }
+
+  // Default: inspect-only, zero model calls
+  console.log("RTO.23A — Borderline Same-Topic Relationship-Control Apparatus\n");
+  console.log("Run with --live for one live model call.\n");
+
+  const result = await inspectApparatus();
+  if (result === null) {
+    process.exit(1);
+  }
+
+  return result;
+}
+
+main().catch((error) => {
+  console.error(error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error));
+  process.exit(1);
+});