experiment: confirm live sufficiency decision detection

docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -3601,3 +3601,19 @@ Fixed the deterministic bug: removed `node.kind !== "unknown"` from State B dete
 Tests updated to production shape (`kind: "unknown"` for decisions). Added 6 focused tests in 60B.75 block. All 22 tests pass. No schema/prompt/provider/harness changes.
 
 Status: resolved.
+
+#### Experiment 60B.76 — Live Verification of Sufficiency Question Fix (FAIL)
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-15  
+**Branch:** `feature/sufficiency-decision-detection-v0.46`  
+**Type:** Live regression of 60B.75 fix
+
+**Result: C — DECISION CLOSES + F — STRUCTURAL REGRESSION**
+
+The deterministic sufficiency-closure gate in `apply-proposal.js` fires *before* question formulation when all material factors resolve. The decision (`n_product_launch_decision`) was auto-resolved with status=resolved before `formulateQuestion()` could fire the sufficiency confirmation template.
+
+The 60B.75 kind-gate removal successfully exposed State B to reasoningPattern detection in the tests, but the live path hits an earlier gate: deterministic closure via `hasRemainingMaterialFactors()` returning false. The decision closes prematurely, no question fires, and activeUnknownNodeId becomes null.
+
+Customer resolves correctly (negative meaning preserved). But the no-confirmation guard cannot prevent deterministic auto-closure because it operates after closure, not during.
+
+Status: unblocked — need to address `apply-proposal.js` sufficiency closure gate before State B question selection can be tested live.

docs/experiment-60b76.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# Experiment 60B.76 — Live Verification of Sufficiency Question Fix
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-15  
+**Branch:** `feature/sufficiency-decision-detection-v0.46`  
+**Preceded by:** Experiment 60B.75 (fix applied + tests pass)
+
+## Objective
+
+Does the 60B.75 fix make the exact no-confirmation production case select the focused sufficiency confirmation/discovery question while keeping the decision open?
+
+## Configured environment
+
+- **Model:** qwen-claude:latest
+- **Ollama base URL:** http://192.168.1.111:11434
+- **Confidence Engine base URL:** http://127.0.0.1:3000
+
+## Input
+
+- **Fixture:** `tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-product-launch-customer-signing.json`
+  - Pre-anchored state: decision (`n_product_launch_decision`) unknown; customer signing (`n_enterprise_customer_signing`) unknown, activeUnknownNodeId = n_enterprise_customer_signing.
+- **Answer (exact, no paraphrase):** "The enterprise customer has now confirmed in writing that they will not sign if we launch this year, so the £700,000 of expected annual revenue from them will not be received."
+- Explicit sufficiency confirmation: **NO**
+
+## Run
+
+```bash
+FIXTURE_MODE=updateOnly \
+FIXTURE_PATH=tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-product-launch-customer-signing.json \
+ANSWER_2="The enterprise customer has now confirmed in writing that they will not sign if we launch this year, so the £700,000 of expected annual revenue from them will not be received." \
+CONFIDENCE_ENGINE_BASE_URL=http://127.0.0.1:3000 \
+node scripts/reproduce-multi-turn-investigation.mjs
+```
+
+- **startCalls:** 0
+- **updateCalls:** 1
+- **totalCalls:** 1
+- **Retries:** 0
+
+## Results
+
+### Proposal accepted: YES (HTTP 200)
+
+### updatedNodes:
+```json
+[
+  {
+    "nodeId": "n_enterprise_customer_signing",
+    "previousStatus": "unknown",
+    "newStatus": "resolved",
+    "reason": "Enterprise customer confirmed in writing they will not sign if we launch this year."
+  },
+  {
+    "nodeId": "n_product_launch_decision",
+    "previousStatus": "unknown",
+    "newStatus": "resolved",
+    "reason": "Material uncertainty resolved; evidence now sufficiently distinguishes net value of launch this year versus wait twelve months."
+  }
+]
+```
+
+### resolvedUnknownNodeIds:
+```json
+["n_enterprise_customer_signing", "n_product_launch_decision"]
+```
+
+### addedNodes: []
+### addedEdges: []
+
+### structuralActionRequired: null
+### finalActiveUnknownNodeId: null
+### finalSelectedQuestion: null
+
+## Analysis
+
+The sufficiency confirmation question did **not** fire. Instead, the decision was closed deterministically during `apply-proposal.js` processing — before `formulateQuestion()` was ever called.
+
+**Root cause:** The deterministic sufficiency-closure gate (line 1673 of `apply-proposal.js`) fires when:
+1. All material uncertainties are resolved → `hasRemainingMaterialFactors()` returns false
+2. This triggers automatic decision closure with reason "sufficient evidence distinguishes net value"
+
+The 60B.75 fix exposed State B in `selectReasoningPattern()` (so `reasoningPattern === "decision"` now reaches the sufficiency template selection), but did not address the earlier deterministic closure gate in `apply-proposal.js`. The decision resolves before question formulation can occur.
+
+### Structural impact:
+
+- **Customer:** Resolves correctly → status = resolved, negative meaning preserved
+- **Decision:** Prematurely closes → status = resolved (should be unknown)
+- **Active target:** Gone → activeUnknownNodeId = null (decision was the only unknown)
+- **Question:** Never formulated → finalSelectedQuestion = null
+- **No new nodes/edges**
+
+### Classification: C — DECISION CLOSES
+
+The deterministic sufficiency closure in `apply-proposal.js` resolves the decision before the question-formulation path is reached. This is also **F — STRUCTURAL REGRESSION** because meaning loss does not occur, but the structural behavior (premature closure) prevents testing of State B's question selection.
+
+## Comparison with 60B.74
+
+| Field | 60B.74 | 60B.76 |
+|---|---|---|
+| Customer status | resolved | resolved ✓ |
+| Customer meaning preserved | yes | yes ✓ |
+| Decision status | **unknown** (kept open) | **resolved** (closed prematurely) ✗ |
+| activeUnknownNodeId | n_product_launch_decision | null |
+| finalSelectedQuestion | decision_threshold_outcome | null (never reached) |
+| Classification | B | C + F |
+
+The decision closed in 60B.76 because `hasRemainingMaterialFactors()` correctly returns false after the customer factor resolves — and the deterministic closure gate fires *before* question formulation can evaluate sufficiency confirmation presence.
+
+## What this proves
+
+1. **The 60B.75 fix successfully exposes State B to reasoningPattern detection.** The decision-context path is now reachable.
+2. **But an earlier gate prevents reaching that path:** the `apply-proposal.js` deterministic closure fires before question formulation, closing the decision prematurely when no material factors remain.
+3. **The sufficiency confirmation check must either be lifted from deterministic closure or moved into the closure gate itself** — checking for explicit confirmation *before* auto-closure.
+
+## What remains unproven
+
+1. Whether State B's sufficiency template selection works correctly (question formulation is not reached).
+2. Whether removing the kind gate in `selectReasoningPattern` causes any unintended side effects when question formulation IS reached.
+
+## Production code changed: NO
+## Prompt changed: NO
+## Schema changed: NO
+## Harness changed during experiment: NO
+## Vitest run: NO
+## Ollama calls: 1
+## Direct API calls: 0