feat(confidence-engine): preserve focused deconstruction semantic fidelity

docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -176,3 +176,85 @@ RTO.14–17 experiments proved that an LLM can retain focused knowledge and carr
 
 See also:
 - `docs/methodology-checkpoint-return-to-origin.md` — repository-facing checkpoint summary
+
+---
+
+## Focused Semantic Deconstruction — Reasoning Status (2026-08-24)
+
+### Current state
+
+- **Branch:** `feature/decision-closure-ownership-v0.47`
+- **HEAD:** `2c108df5a92ec4cb0c4fa7878002cb7eb0aea4fd`
+- **Working tree:**
+  ```
+   M lib/graph/focused-investigation.js
+  ?? tests/graph/live-focused-deconstruct-experiment-helper.mjs
+  ```
+- No unexpected temporary files or evidence directories.
+
+### Canonical focused helper
+
+```
+tests/graph/live-focused-deconstruct-experiment-helper.mjs
+```
+
+Exports `runLiveFocusedDeconstructExperiment`. Future focused semantic experiments should: import it directly; use the real production `buildFocusedDeconstructPrompt`; use the production validator/provider through the helper; configure `.env.local` for `OLLAMA_BASE_URL` and `OLLAMA_MODEL`; make the explicitly budgeted number of live calls; never inline prompt/provider/schema logic; never replace the helper ad hoc.
+
+### Product flow context
+
+```
+initial scenario → initial/global SituationGraph → user selects original open question/thread → focused formulate → user answer → focused deconstruct → contribution retained against original targetNodeId → subsequent focused formulate/deconstruct rounds
+```
+
+Focused deconstruction accumulates focused contributions rather than rewriting the initial global SituationGraph. Reuse/integration of accumulated focused learning is a later question, not part of this checkpoint.
+
+### Semantic rules currently under review (validated in the cumulative diff)
+
+The production `buildFocusedDeconstructPrompt` encodes six semantic principles:
+
+1. **Observation fidelity** — only meaning directly supported by what the user's answer states becomes an observation; do not strengthen implications into observations.
+2. **Uncertainty fidelity** — preserve uncertainty at the narrowest scope justified by evidence; when one factor is established but nothing else is, keep remaining uncertainty broad rather than inventing specific additional factors/deficits/causes/interventions.
+3. **Assumption attribution** — attribute only propositions that the user's answer would cease to make sense if false; do not import plausible interpretations from investigation context or model analysis into the assumptions field; return `assumptions: []` when no genuine assumption exists.
+4. **Relationship strength** — only connections the user's answer directly establishes become relationships; co-mentioned facts do not create causal/constraint/dependency links.
+5. **Proposition ownership** — track who owns each proposition (user's comfort, willingness, threshold, belief, judgement, etc.); do not elevate subjective stance into objective requirement or situational constraint.
+6. **Evidence-first / action-appropriate follow-ups** — before formulating follow-ups, check whether the question tests a proposition against current epistemic state; if an explanation/deficit/cause/intervention has not been established by evidence, phrase the question to test whether that proposition is true rather than assuming it; do not jump to implementation details until intervention is the relevant next issue.
+
+A supporting negative principle also holds: *Do not solve semantic interpretation with an ever-growing deterministic dictionary/regex system. Structure may be deterministic; meaning remains semantic/LLM-based.*
+
+### Validated learning (bounded evidence)
+
+Bounded focused experiments on this branch showed:
+
+- The original real UI failure was reproduced on the actual focused-deconstruct path.
+- Observations could remain faithful while assumptions/relationships were weakened beyond what the user stated.
+- Tightening the assumptions contract materially reduced model-generated assumptions being attributed to the user, supported by bounded contrast.
+- Genuine implicit dependencies can still be preserved through the tightened boundary.
+- Proposition ownership preserves subjective criteria without weakening genuine factual reports.
+- Tentative factual reports can retain their uncertainty.
+- Evidence-first follow-ups avoid premature remedy; practical follow-ups remain possible once a blocker is established.
+- Uncertainty specificity follows user-supplied evidence rather than defaulting to generic broadness.
+
+**Do not treat these as generalisation:** each finding is supported by the bounded contrast of tested cases only.
+
+### EXP13 status: CONTAMINATED
+
+```
+EXP13 - CONTAMINATED — excluded from evidence
+```
+
+Reasons: iterative production prompt refinement; best-supported live-call count = 4; not valid bounded experiment evidence; tuned EXP13 uncertainty wording was removed during the diff. EXP13 must not be cited as proof of uncertainty behaviour.
+
+### EXP13R / EXP14 (valid but conservative)
+
+- **EXP13R:** materially reduced invented uncertainty specificity but retained some residual operational specialisation.
+- **EXP14:** showed the same rule could preserve explicit user-supplied BACS/failed-payment specificity while leaving unidentified additional gaps broad.
+
+Do not conclude that the uncertainty boundary is fully solved. The contrast between these two cases does not establish generalisation.
+
+### Current restart point
+
+The immediate semantic pass has established a coherent working principle:
+
+> **The Engine should preserve what was said, how certain it was, who owns the proposition, and how strongly evidence supports relationships; then investigate missing evidence before inventing explanations or remedies.**
+
+Deterministic tests (22/22) verify the structural boundaries. Live-call evidence is bounded. No new experiment is run in this checkpoint.