test(experiment): simplify relationship inference apparatus

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

@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@
 /**
- * RTO.23A — Borderline Same-Topic Negative-Control Relationship-Discovery Apparatus
+ * RTO.23C — Simplified Semantic Relationship-Inference 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.
+ * Purpose: Present two reasoning contributions neutrally and ask the model
+ * to infer their meaningful relationship, if any, from meaning alone —
+ * without domain dictionaries, keyword rules or expected-result leakage.
  *
  * Design boundary:
  *   - Standalone experimental runner.
@@ -16,12 +15,11 @@
  *   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.
+ * Fixed later contribution:
+ *   same-context-public-market-activity — public market activity, same context.
  *
- * Output contract (same as RTO.21 / RTO.22):
- *   { relationshipFound, relationship, remainingQualification }
+ * Output contract:
+ *   { relationshipFound, relationship, evidence, qualification }
  */
 
 import fs from "fs/promises";
@@ -41,19 +39,15 @@ const FRAGMENT_2_PATH = path.resolve(
   "../../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.
+// ─── Later contribution (fixed experimental fixture) ──────────────────────
 
-const BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT = {
-  targetNodeId: "borderline-control-competitor-market-presence",
+const LATER_CONTRIBUTION = {
+  targetNodeId: "same-context-public-market-activity",
   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."
+    "Its chief executive gave the opening remarks, speaking about growth in the market and the importance of solving this customer problem.",
+    "The company also hosted a networking reception for customers and partners attending the event."
   ],
   uncertainties: [],
   assumptions: [],
@@ -77,119 +71,27 @@ async function loadFragment2() {
   };
 }
 
-// ─── Borderline-control integrity check ──────────────────────────────────────
+// ─── Build the relationship-inference prompt ──────────────────────────────
 
-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) {
+function buildRelationshipPrompt(srs2, later) {
   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.");
+  // Neutral instruction
+  parts.push("Consider these two reasoning contributions. What meaningful");
+  parts.push("relationship, if any, exists between them? Base the answer only");
+  parts.push("on what the contributions actually mean. If neither contribution");
+  parts.push("materially changes, qualifies, supports, weakens, contradicts or");
+  parts.push("otherwise affects the other, report that no material relationship");
+  parts.push("is present.");
   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("Preserve uncertainty. Do not invent facts. Do not rewrite either");
+  parts.push("contribution. Do not recommend what to do. Do not decide which");
+  parts.push("question should be investigated next. A proposed relationship is");
+  parts.push("a proposal, not automatically authoritative.");
   parts.push("");
 
   // Fragment 2 (earlier)
-  parts.push("=== Fragment 2 (earlier evidence) ===");
+  parts.push("=== Contribution 1 (earlier) ===");
   parts.push(`Question: ${srs2.question}`);
   if (srs2.observations && srs2.observations.length) {
     parts.push("Observations:");
@@ -210,56 +112,59 @@ function buildRelationshipPrompt(srs2, controlSrs) {
     }
   }
   if (srs2.relationships && srs2.relationships.length) {
-    parts.push("Relationships (internal to fragment):");
+    parts.push("Relationships (internal to contribution):");
     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) {
+  // Later contribution
+  parts.push("=== Contribution 2 (later) ===");
+  parts.push(`Question: ${later.question}`);
+  if (later.observations && later.observations.length) {
     parts.push("Observations:");
-    for (const o of controlSrs.observations) {
+    for (const o of later.observations) {
       parts.push(`  - ${o}`);
     }
   }
-  if (controlSrs.uncertainties && controlSrs.uncertainties.length) {
+  if (later.uncertainties && later.uncertainties.length) {
     parts.push("Uncertainties:");
-    for (const u of controlSrs.uncertainties) {
+    for (const u of later.uncertainties) {
       parts.push(`  - ${u}`);
     }
   }
-  if (controlSrs.assumptions && controlSrs.assumptions.length) {
+  if (later.assumptions && later.assumptions.length) {
     parts.push("Assumptions:");
-    for (const a of controlSrs.assumptions) {
+    for (const a of later.assumptions) {
       parts.push(`  - ${a}`);
     }
   }
-  if (controlSrs.relationships && controlSrs.relationships.length) {
-    parts.push("Relationships (internal to fragment):");
-    for (const r of controlSrs.relationships) {
+  if (later.relationships && later.relationships.length) {
+    parts.push("Relationships (internal to contribution):");
+    for (const r of later.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("QUESTION: What meaningful relationship, if any, exists between");
+  parts.push("these two contributions? If no material relationship is present,");
+  parts.push("state that explicitly.");
   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 format
+  parts.push("Return exactly one JSON object. If a relationship exists:");
+  parts.push('{ "relationshipFound": true, "relationship": "<plain-language description>", "evidence": ["<specific contribution content supporting the relationship>"], "qualification": ["<important uncertainty or limitation>"] }');
+  parts.push("");
+  parts.push("If no material relationship is present:");
+  parts.push('{ "relationshipFound": false, "relationship": null, "evidence": [], "qualification": [] }');
 
   return parts.join("\n");
 }
 
-// ─── Output contract validation (same as RTO.21 / RTO.22) ─────────────────────
+// ─── Output contract validation ──────────────────────────────────────────────
 
 function validateRelationshipOutput(result) {
   const errors = [];
@@ -272,38 +177,34 @@ function validateRelationshipOutput(result) {
     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");
+    if (!Array.isArray(result.evidence)) {
+      errors.push("evidence must be an array when relationshipFound=false");
+    }
+    if (!Array.isArray(result.qualification)) {
+      errors.push("qualification 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;
+  // When true, relationship string is required
+  if (typeof result.relationship !== "string" || result.relationship.trim() === "") {
+    errors.push("When relationshipFound=true, relationship must be a non-empty plain-language description");
+  }
+  if (!Array.isArray(result.evidence)) {
+    errors.push("evidence must be an array when relationshipFound=true");
+  } else if (result.evidence.some((s) => typeof s !== "string")) {
+    errors.push("evidence items must all be strings");
+  }
+  if (!Array.isArray(result.qualification)) {
+    errors.push("qualification must be an array when relationshipFound=true");
+  } else if (result.qualification.some((s) => typeof s !== "string")) {
+    errors.push("qualification items must all be strings");
   }
 
-  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)
+  // No forbidden fields
   const forbidden = ["graphEdgeType", "nodeId", "confidenceScore", "numericStrength",
-    "recommendation", "nextQuestion", "decisionSignificance", "graphUpdate"];
+    "keywordScore", "materialityScore", "recommendation", "nextQuestion",
+    "decisionSignificance", "graphUpdate", "strengthScore"];
   for (const field of forbidden) {
     if (field in result && typeof result[field] !== "undefined") {
       errors.push(`Forbidden field present: ${field}`);
@@ -342,7 +243,7 @@ function checkPromptLeak(prompt) {
 // ─── Inspect mode (default: zero model calls) ────────────────────────────────
 
 async function inspectApparatus() {
-  console.log("=== RTO.23A Borderline Same-Topic Relationship-Control Apparatus (inspect-only) ===\n");
+  console.log("=== RTO.23C Simplified Semantic Relationship-Inference Apparatus (inspect-only) ===\n");
 
   // Load and verify fragment 2
   let structuredResult2;
@@ -354,43 +255,26 @@ async function inspectApparatus() {
     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`);
+  const laterLoaded = typeof LATER_CONTRIBUTION === "object" && LATER_CONTRIBUTION !== null;
+
+  console.log("--- Contribution verification ---");
+  console.log(`Earlier contribution supplied: ${f2Loaded ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Later contribution supplied: ${laterLoaded ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
 
   // Build prompt for inspection
-  const prompt = buildRelationshipPrompt(structuredResult2, BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT);
+  const prompt = buildRelationshipPrompt(structuredResult2, LATER_CONTRIBUTION);
 
   // Measure character sizes
-  const instructionPart = prompt.substring(0, prompt.indexOf("=== Fragment 2"));
+  const instructionPart = prompt.substring(0, prompt.indexOf("=== Contribution 1"));
   const frag2StructuredText = JSON.stringify(structuredResult2, null, 2);
-  const controlStructuredText = JSON.stringify(BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT, null, 2);
+  const laterContributedText = JSON.stringify(LATER_CONTRIBUTION, 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(`laterContributionCharacterCount: ${laterContributedText.length}`);
   console.log(`inputCharacterCount: ${prompt.length}`);
 
   // ── Boundary checks ───────────────────────────────────────────
@@ -400,10 +284,6 @@ async function inspectApparatus() {
   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"}`);
@@ -412,10 +292,6 @@ async function inspectApparatus() {
     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"}`);
@@ -424,11 +300,16 @@ async function inspectApparatus() {
     prompt.includes("prior turns") || prompt.includes("conversation history");
   console.log(`Turn history supplied: ${turnHistoryInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
 
+  // Known result / expected relationship check
+  const knownResultSupplied = prompt.includes("Fragment 3's technical evidence bears on") ||
+    prompt.includes("active competing-product development more plausible");
+  console.log(`Known relationship/result supplied: ${knownResultSupplied ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+
   // ── Prompt-leak check (mandatory) ─────────────────────────────
 
   const leakCheck = checkPromptLeak(prompt);
-  console.log("\n--- Prompt-leak check ---");
-  console.log(`EXPECTED_OUTCOME_LEAKED_TO_MODEL:\n${leakCheck.leaked ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log("\n--- Expected outcome leakage ─────────────────────────────");
+  console.log(`Expected outcome disclosed to model:\n${leakCheck.leaked ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
   if (leakCheck.leaked) {
     console.log(`Leaked terms: ${leakCheck.terms.join(", ")}`);
   }
@@ -437,31 +318,43 @@ async function inspectApparatus() {
 
   const mockProposal = {
     relationshipFound: true,
-    relationship: {
-      laterEvidence: "test",
-      earlierItem: "test",
-      bearing: "test",
-    },
-    remainingQualification: ["test"],
+    relationship: "test description",
+    evidence: ["test"],
+    qualification: ["test"]
   };
   const mockNoRel = {
     relationshipFound: false,
     relationship: null,
-    remainingQualification: [],
+    evidence: [],
+    qualification: []
   };
   const proposalErrors = validateRelationshipOutput(mockProposal);
   const noRelErrors = validateRelationshipOutput(mockNoRel);
-  console.log("\n--- Output contract (same as RTO.21) ---");
+
+  console.log("\n--- Output contract ────────────────────────────────────────");
   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`);
+
+  // ── Prompt semantic cleanliness check ────────────────────────
+
+  const lowerPrompt = prompt.toLowerCase();
+  const hasDomainDict = !!lowerPrompt.match(/\b(technical\s*architecture|prototype|roadmap|launch\s*timing|development\s*programme)\s*dictionary/);
+  const hasKeywordScoring = !!lowerPrompt.match(/keyword.*scor(e|ing)|score.*keyword/);
+  const hasFixedTaxonomy = !!lowerPrompt.match(/relationship\s*(type|category|taxonomy)/i) && lowerPrompt.includes("enum");
+
+  console.log("\n--- Semantic cleanliness ───────────────────────────────────");
+  console.log(`Keyword/dictionary semantic checks: ${hasDomainDict || hasKeywordScoring ? "PRESENT" : "NONE"}`);
+  if (hasDomainDict) console.log("  Domain dictionary used in prompt");
+  if (hasKeywordScoring) console.log("  Keyword scoring present in prompt");
 
   // ── 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 ---");
@@ -469,31 +362,26 @@ async function inspectApparatus() {
   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;
+
+  const noBoundaryLeaks = !fragment3Supplied && !wholeGraphInPrompt &&
+    !centralCaseInPrompt && !otherFragmentsInPrompt &&
+    !turnHistoryInPrompt && !knownResultSupplied && !leakCheck.leaked;
+  const semanticClean = !hasDomainDict && !hasKeywordScoring && !hasFixedTaxonomy;
 
   console.log("\n=== SUMMARY ===");
+  console.log(`Inspect result: ${f2Loaded && laterLoaded && noBoundaryLeaks && semanticClean ? "PASS" : "FAIL"}`);
   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(`Earlier contribution supplied: ${f2Loaded ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Later contribution supplied: ${laterLoaded ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
+  console.log(`Known relationship/result supplied: ${knownResultSupplied ? "YES" : "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(`Turn history supplied: ${turnHistoryInPrompt ? "YES" : "NO"}`);
   console.log(`relationshipFound=false allowed: YES`);
+  console.log(`maximum live calls per --live: 1`);
 
-  const passed = allFragmentsOK && noBoundaryLeaks;
-  console.log(`\nInspect result: ${passed ? "PASS" : "FAIL"}`);
+  const passed = f2Loaded && laterLoaded && noBoundaryLeaks && semanticClean;
 
   if (!passed) {
     console.log("\nApparatus cannot satisfy boundary without production changes.");
@@ -524,7 +412,7 @@ async function executeLive() {
 
   // Load fragment 2 and build prompt
   const { structuredResult: srs2 } = await loadFragment2();
-  const prompt = buildRelationshipPrompt(srs2, BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT);
+  const prompt = buildRelationshipPrompt(srs2, LATER_CONTRIBUTION);
 
   // Prompt-leak check before sending
   const leakCheck = checkPromptLeak(prompt);
@@ -567,22 +455,17 @@ async function executeLive() {
     "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",
+    experiment: "RTO.23C",
+    artifactType: "LIVE RESULT — Semantic relationship inference",
     modelName: modelName,
     elapsedMs: elapsedMs,
     inputCharacterCount: prompt.length,
-    instructionCharacterCount: prompt.substring(0, prompt.indexOf("=== Fragment 2")).length,
+    instructionCharacterCount: prompt.substring(0, prompt.indexOf("=== Contribution 1")).length,
     fragment2CharacterCount: JSON.stringify(srs2, null, 2).length,
-    borderlineControlCharacterCount: JSON.stringify(BORDERLINE_CONTROL_FRAGMENT, null, 2).length,
+    laterContributionCharacterCount: JSON.stringify(LATER_CONTRIBUTION, 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,
@@ -605,20 +488,14 @@ async function main() {
 
   // --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("RTO.23C — Semantic Relationship-Inference 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;
 }