experiment: diagnose uncertainty fidelity false positive

docs/experiment-57j47.md

@@ -110,16 +110,14 @@ Selected question: null
 userSupportedMeaning: "The user is currently uncertain whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
 possibleInference: null
 
-### Meaning classification: STRENGTHENED
+### Meaning classification: HUMAN ASSESSMENT = MINOR PARAPHRASE | VALIDATOR REJECTION = LEXICAL MISMATCH
 
 Raw answer: "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic." (first-person uncertainty statement)
 Extracted meaning: "The user is currently uncertain whether..." (third-person assertion about user's mental state + temporal specificity "currently")
 
-The model converted first-person uncertainty ("I am unsure") into third-person assertion ("The user is currently uncertain"). This adds two elements beyond the raw answer:
-1. **Perspective shift:** Asserting what "the user" feels/thinks, rather than preserving the first-person expression.
-2. **Temporal specificity:** Adding "currently" — an explicit temporal qualifier not present in the raw answer.
+**Validator rejection reason:** Lexical false positive. The deterministic category model (`deriveAnswerMeaningProfile`) detects `"unsure"` in the raw answer (category: `uncertain`) but does NOT detect `"uncertain"` in the extracted meaning (category: `other`). Both words express identical uncertainty semantics; `"uncertain"` is absent from the detection patterns (`"not really sure" | "not sure" | "unsure" | "do not know" | "don't know"`). The rejection was caused by keyword mismatch, not semantic strengthening.
 
-This goes slightly beyond preserving "only uncertainty over whether projected office savings are realistic." The extracted meaning introduces a stronger claim (assertion about user mental state) that was not established by the raw answer.
+**Human semantic assessment (independent of validator):** Neither element — the perspective shift nor the temporal qualifier "currently" — materially changes meaning beyond what the raw answer establishes. See 57J.48 for detailed deterministic analysis.
 
 ## STRUCTURAL PROPOSAL
 
@@ -140,21 +138,21 @@ A genuinely new unknown node (`ns82kx9`) was created, directly representing savi
 
 The proposal added a new unknown node (with one depends_on edge to the state anchor) representing savings realism. The existing-first rule found no equivalent existing unresolved unknown for savings realism, so the fallback-to-add path was correctly exercised.
 
-## Classification: D — STRENGTHENING BLOCKS TEST
+## Classification: D — REJECTION BLOCKS TEST (LEXICAL FALSE POSITIVE)
 
-**Meaning is STRENGTHENED.** The structural action (ADD NEW UNKNOWN) represents exactly the savings-realism uncertainty and is meaningful. However, the meaning extraction is not purely faithful (third-person assertion + temporal specificity overstates the raw first-person uncertainty). Therefore this test does not establish v0.19's effectiveness for the semantic-to-mutation boundary.
+**Meaning extraction produced a semantically equivalent paraphrase that was lexically rejected.** The structural action (ADD NEW UNKNOWN) represents exactly the savings-realism uncertainty and is meaningful. However, the meaning extraction used `"uncertain"` rather than `"unsure"` — identical semantics but absent from `deriveAnswerMeaningProfile`'s detection patterns, causing a category mismatch (`other` instead of `uncertain`) that triggered rejection. **This is not evidence of genuine semantic strengthening; it is evidence of incomplete keyword coverage.** The faithful no-op pattern has been broken by the structural action, but the test cannot confirm v0.19's effectiveness because the meaning extraction boundary still produces lexically rejected paraphrases.
 
 **Why:** The model produced a genuine new unknown node representing savings realism — this IS structural progress that was NOT present in prior experiments (57J.36-45 all showed faithful no-ops or empty proposals). However, the userSupportedMeaning contains third-person assertion ("The user is currently uncertain") that goes beyond the raw answer's first-person uncertainty statement. The `proposal_compatibility` validator caught this as semantic strengthening, rejecting the proposal before structural evaluation.
 
 **Did v0.19 solve the faithful semantic-to-mutation failure in this run:** NO
 
-The test cannot determine whether v0.19 solves the boundary because meaning was strengthened, which blocks the test. However, the evidence is directionally encouraging: **the model DID produce a meaningful new unknown for savings realism** — something none of the prior experiments (57J.36 through 57J.46) achieved in a single call. The faithful no-op pattern has been broken; the remaining blocker is the meaning extraction boundary, not the structural action selection.
+The test cannot determine whether v0.19 solves the boundary because the meaning extraction produced a semantically faithful but lexically rejected paraphrase. However, the evidence is directionally encouraging: **the model DID produce a meaningful new unknown for savings realism** — something none of the prior experiments (57J.36 through 57J.46) achieved in a single call. The faithful no-op pattern has been broken; the remaining blocker is an incomplete lexical coverage gap in `deriveAnswerMeaningProfile`, not a structural action selection failure.
 
 ## What this establishes:
 
 1. **The existing-first uncertainty fallback rule works at the structural level.** When no equivalent exists, the model adds a genuinely new unknown directly representing savings realism — exactly what the v0.19 prompt was designed to produce.
 2. **The faithful no-op is no longer the default output.** This run produced one added node and one added edge. Prior experiments (57J.36-45) consistently returned zero structural mutations for the same type of uncertainty answer.
-3. **A new blocking issue emerges at the meaning extraction boundary:** first-person uncertainty statements ("I am unsure") are being converted to third-person assertions ("The user is currently uncertain"), which the semantic fidelity guard correctly flags as strengthening.
+3. **A new blocking issue emerges at the meaning extraction boundary:** the model produces semantically faithful paraphrases using words (`"uncertain"`) that are absent from `deriveAnswerMeaningProfile`'s detection patterns, causing false-positive rejection by the semantic fidelity guard. The guard is correct for genuine strengthening but incorrect here because of incomplete lexical coverage (detects `"unsure"` but not `"uncertain"`).
 
 ## What it does NOT prove: