experiment: confirm live explicit sufficiency closure
This commit is contained in:
@@ -4372,3 +4372,24 @@ Observed:
|
|||||||
What this proves: The deterministic stripping gate from 60B.80 prevents premature model-led terminal closure of parent decisions when no explicit sufficiency confirmation is present, and allows State B to fire naturally through the existing questioning path.
|
What this proves: The deterministic stripping gate from 60B.80 prevents premature model-led terminal closure of parent decisions when no explicit sufficiency confirmation is present, and allows State B to fire naturally through the existing questioning path.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Doc:** docs/experiment-60b81.md
|
**Doc:** docs/experiment-60b81.md
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Experiment 60B.82 — Live Explicit Confirmation Closure Confirmed (2026-08-15)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Type:** Paired live observation — explicit-confirmation positive branch (1 update call, production route)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Input:** Answer with explicit sufficiency confirmation: *"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. There are no other material uncertainties between launching this year and waiting twelve months."*
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Classification: A — LIVE EXPLICIT-CONFIRMATION CLOSURE CONFIRMED**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Observed:
|
||||||
|
- Customer resolved ("Will not sign", negative meaning preserved)
|
||||||
|
- Decision terminal (status=resolved, value=null)
|
||||||
|
- Both nodes resolved: ["n_enterprise_customer_signing", "n_product_launch_decision"]
|
||||||
|
- finalActiveUnknownNodeId = null
|
||||||
|
- finalSelectedQuestion = null
|
||||||
|
- No new nodes or edges introduced
|
||||||
|
- Financial revision correctly applied (£1.2M → £500k reflects confirmed £700k loss)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
What this proves: Explicit sufficiency confirmation flows cleanly through the 60B.80 gate to terminal closure of the parent decision, active target clears, and no question is asked. The paired lifecycle (no confirmation→State B / explicit confirmation→terminal close) is live-baselined in production.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Doc:** docs/experiment-60b82.md
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
|||||||
|
# Experiment 60B.82 — Live Explicit Confirmation Closure Confirmed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Date:** 2026-08-15
|
||||||
|
**Branch:** `feature/decision-closure-ownership-v0.47`
|
||||||
|
**Preceded by:** Experiment 60B.81 (live no-confirmation State B path confirmed)
|
||||||
|
**Type:** Paired live observation — explicit-confirmation positive branch
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Objective
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
After 60B.81 proved the negative branch (no confirmation → decision stays open + sufficiency question), answer: does explicit sufficiency confirmation still close the decision cleanly?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
```text
|
||||||
|
final represented factor resolves
|
||||||
|
+
|
||||||
|
explicit sufficiency confirmation present
|
||||||
|
=>
|
||||||
|
parent decision may close
|
||||||
|
=>
|
||||||
|
active target clears
|
||||||
|
=>
|
||||||
|
no further question
|
||||||
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Method
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- **Fixture:** `tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-product-launch-customer-signing.json`
|
||||||
|
- **Input (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. There are no other material uncertainties between launching this year and waiting twelve months."`
|
||||||
|
- **Crucially present:** `"There are no other material uncertainties"` — explicit sufficiency confirmation
|
||||||
|
- **Mode:** updateOnly (1 update call via production HTTP route)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Result
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Classification: A — LIVE EXPLICIT-CONFIRMATION CLOSURE CONFIRMED**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Observed
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| Field | Value |
|
||||||
|
|-------|-------|
|
||||||
|
| Customer status | resolved |
|
||||||
|
| Decision status | resolved (terminal) |
|
||||||
|
| resolvedUnknownNodeIds | ["n_enterprise_customer_signing", "n_product_launch_decision"] |
|
||||||
|
| finalActiveUnknownNodeId | null |
|
||||||
|
| finalSelectedQuestion | null |
|
||||||
|
| addedNodes | [] |
|
||||||
|
| addedEdges | [] |
|
||||||
|
| Financial revision | £1.2M/year → £500k/year (correctly reflects £700k enterprise loss) |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### What This Proves
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. Explicit sufficiency confirmation ("no other material uncertainties") flows cleanly through the 60B.80 gate to terminal closure of the parent decision.
|
||||||
|
2. Both the paired negative branch (60B.81: no confirmation → State B) and positive branch (60B.82: explicit confirmation → terminal close) are now live-baselined.
|
||||||
|
3. The confirmation-gated lifecycle is symmetric and complete in production.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### What Remains Unproven by This Run
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Edge-case confirmation phrasings (implicit, partial, or negated confirmation language).
|
||||||
|
- Multi-node simultaneous resolution with confirmation.
|
||||||
|
- Confirmation under contradiction reasoning constraints.
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user