robbond/confidence-engine
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

experiment: choose structural action-selection rule

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
robbond
2026-08-11 14:01:42 +01:00
parent acd1928ebb
commit 96b855b8e7
2 changed files with 243 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/current-handoff.md
+38
View File
@@ -773,3 +773,41 @@ Configured Ollama: none used. Production code changed: prompt + tests only. Dev
**Classification: B — SAME FAITHFUL NO-OP.** The prompt contradiction was removed but faithful uncertainty alone still produced zero structural mutation for this model on this scenario. The action-selection gap under rule #6 (identified by 57J.42 as intentionally left unresolved) remains unaddressed.
Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434. No production code changed.
### Experiment 57J.45 — Choose Structural Action-Selection Rule
**Objective:** When rule #6 requires structural progress for a faithful unresolved uncertainty, choose the smallest provider-agnostic instruction that distinguishes update-of-existing from add-new-unknown.
**Pre-written expectation:** The current prompt (v0.18) has the ingredients to distinguish Case A (equivalent unknown exists → update/refine) from Case B (no equivalent → add new unknown), but lacks an explicit fallback sequence. Rule #6's four structural options are listed without decision criteria; rules #4, #7, and #11 collectively push toward "nothing justifies a change." Result: NO — the prompt does not distinguish Case A from Case B.
**Option A — EXISTING-FIRST FALLBACK:**
- Case A correct: YES (explicit first step checks existing unresolved nodes)
- Case B correct: YES ("otherwise" clause creates new unknown)
- Duplicate risk: LOW (validator safety net + deterministic order)
- Related-node overwrite risk: MEDIUM (semantic judgment required but bounded by existing contracts #4/#11)
- No-action risk: LOW (eliminates ambiguity that caused 57J.41/57J.44 failures)
- New semantic classifier: NO | New schema/state: NO | Validator change: NO | Provider-specific: NO
**Option B — NEW-UNKNOWN DEFAULT:**
- Case A correct: NO ("exact duplicate" requires undefined mechanism)
- Case B correct: YES (default-to-add works)
- Duplicate risk: HIGH (no "exact vs merely related" mechanism exists)
- Related-node overwrite risk: LOW (only creates, does not overwrite)
- No-action risk: MEDIUM (less than current but "exact duplicate" is underspecified)
- New semantic classifier: YES (required for "exact duplicate" definition) | New schema/state: NO | Validator change: YES | Provider-specific: NO
**Option C — GENERAL STRUCTURAL CHOICE:**
- Case A correct: PARTIAL (depends on model judgment across 4 unweighted options)
- Case B correct: PARTIAL (model may choose any option; evidence shows no-action preference)
- Duplicate risk: MEDIUM | Overwrite risk: MEDIUM | No-action risk: HIGH (essentially current state — confirmed failure in 57J.41/57J.44)
**Action-space narrowing for controlled case:**
- Edge-only sufficient: NO (edges connect nodes but cannot represent new uncertainty without a node)
- Resolution applicable: NO (user expresses uncertainty, not resolution of existing unknown)
- Relevant actions: update/refine (Case A) or add unknown (Case B)
**Recommended option: A — EXISTING-FIRST FALLBACK**
One explicit instruction-order rule in Additional Guidance: check existing unresolved nodes first; if none represents the same uncertainty, create a new unknown. Deterministic order replaces ambiguous choice-list. No new classifiers, schema state, or validator changes required. Existing rule #11 and deterministic validator remain as safety net.
**Status:** Design complete. READY FOR BOUNDED IMPLEMENTATION: YES. Implementation requires one Additional Guidance bullet in prompt-builder.js plus 8 focused deterministic regressions in tests. Full record in `docs/experiment-57j45.md`.