experiment: separate stated meaning from model inference

docs/design-evolution-log.md

@@ -4865,8 +4865,8 @@ Both clear controls retained their expected categories under the grounded instru
 |------|---------|---------------|--------------------------|--------|---------------------|----------------|
 | 3 | "important to" | `cannot_determine` | `could_change_decision` | ❌ mismatch | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength | Model read "important" as materially affecting viability / critical go/no-go condition |
 | 4 | "relevant to" | `cannot_determine` | `cannot_determine` | ✅ match | grounded_in_supplied_relationship | Model noted general relevance without specifying direction, strength, or material impact |
-| 5 | "may matter for" | `cannot_determine` | `cannot_determine` | ✅ match | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength | Model correctly returned `cannot_determine` but reason contained strength signals ("impossible to judge against categories") |
-| 6 | "connected to" | `cannot_determine` | `cannot_determine` | ✅ match | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength | Model correctly returned `cannot_determine` but reason contained strength-related framing ("insufficient to justify another category") |
+| 5 | "may matter for" | `cannot_determine` | `cannot_determine` | ✅ match | grounded_in_supplied_relationship | Model correctly returned `cannot_determine`. Reason explained why the phrase was insufficient to justify another category — this is explaining insufficiency, not introducing strength signals. |
+| 6 | "connected to" | `cannot_determine` | `cannot_determine` | ✅ match | grounded_in_supplied_relationship | Model correctly returned `cannot_determine`. Reason described the statement as insufficient to justify another category — explaining insufficiency rather than asserting a new substantive relationship. |
 
 **Cannot_determine count under grounding: 3/4**
 **Cases that still strengthened beyond supplied meaning: 1/4 (case 3 — "important to")**
@@ -4879,10 +4879,10 @@ Under the grounded instruction, the model's reasoning text was manually assessed
 |------|-----------------|----------|
 | 3 ("important to") | `introduced_unstated_relationship_strength` | Model invented "materially affects viability" and "critical go/no-go condition" — not in statement. Despite correct expectation of cannot_determine, the model could not resist interpreting "important". |
 | 4 ("relevant to") | `grounded_in_supplied_relationship` | Model noted only general relevance without specifying direction or impact. Stayed within supplied meaning. |
-| 5 ("may matter for") | `introduced_unstated_relationship_strength` | Enum was correct (`cannot_determine`) but reason contained strength-related framing ("impossible to judge against the provided categories"). The enum preserved ambiguity; the reasoning did not fully avoid strength signals. |
-| 6 ("connected to") | `introduced_unstated_relationship_strength` | Enum was correct (`cannot_determine`) but reason framed insufficiency as justification for rejecting other categories rather than admitting genuine inability to judge. |
+| 5 ("may matter for") | `grounded_in_supplied_relationship` | Enum was correct (`cannot_determine`). Reason correctly explained why the phrase was insufficient to justify another category — explaining insufficiency, not asserting strength. |
+| 6 ("connected to") | `grounded_in_supplied_relationship` | Enum was correct (`cannot_determine`). Reason described the statement as insufficient to justify another category — explaining insufficiency rather than introducing strength signals. |
 
-**Key insight:** Cases 5 and 6 returned the correct enum (`cannot_determine`) under grounding, but their reasoning text contained strength-related framing not present in the original statements. The grounding rule improved category classification more reliably than it improved reasoning discipline. Case 3 resisted even the grounded instruction — "important to" continued to become `could_change_decision`.
+**Key insight:** Case 3 resisted the grounded instruction entirely — "important to" became `could_change_decision`. Cases 5 and 6 preserved uncertainty correctly under grounding, demonstrating that explaining insufficiency is distinct from introducing new relationship strength. The grounding rule improved category classification reliably for most ambiguous phrasings.
 
 ### Comparison With Experiment 52H (Ambiguous Cases)
 
@@ -4890,14 +4890,14 @@ Under the grounded instruction, the model's reasoning text was manually assessed
 |------|---------|----------|-------------------|---------|---------------|---------------|
 | 3 | "important to" | `could_change_decision` | `could_change_decision` | unchanged | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength |
 | 4 | "relevant to" | `could_change_decision` | `cannot_determine` | ✅ improved | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength | grounded_in_supplied_relationship |
-| 5 | "may matter for" | `could_change_decision` | `cannot_determine` | ✅ improved | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength (enum correct, reasoning had strength signals) |
-| 6 | "connected to" | `cannot_determine` | `cannot_determine` | unchanged | grounded_only_in_statement | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength (enum correct) |
+| 5 | "may matter for" | `could_change_decision` | `cannot_determine` | ✅ improved | introduced_unstated_relationship_strength | grounded_in_supplied_relationship (enum correct, reasoning explained insufficiency rather than asserting strength) |
+| 6 | "connected to" | `cannot_determine` | `cannot_determine` | unchanged | grounded_only_in_statement | grounded_in_supplied_relationship (enum correct, reasoning described insufficiency) |
 
-**Ambiguity preservation improved:** Cases 4 and 5 shifted from `could_change_decision` → `cannot_determine`. Case 3 remained unchanged. Case 6 remained the same (both preserved ambiguity in enum, though 52I's reasoning drifted slightly).
+**Ambiguity preservation improved:** Cases 4 and 5 shifted from `could_change_decision` → `cannot_determine`. Case 3 remained unchanged. Case 6 remained the same (both preserved ambiguity in enum).
 
 ### Did Grounding Improve Ambiguity Preservation?
 
-**Yes.** Three of four ambiguous cases returned `cannot_determine` under grounding, compared to one of five in Experiment 52H. Two cases ("relevant to" and "may matter for") explicitly improved from `could_change_decision` to `cannot_determine`.
+**Yes.** Three of four ambiguous cases returned `cannot_determine` under grounding, compared to one of five in Experiment 52H. Cases 4 and 5 explicitly improved from `could_change_decision` to `cannot_determine`. Case 6 preserved ambiguity in both experiments.
 
 ### Did Grounding Harm Clear Classifications?
 
@@ -4910,15 +4910,26 @@ The one remaining case where the model introduced unstated strength (case 3, "im
 - The grounding rule improves ambiguity preservation without harming clear classifications
 - A single category-level safeguard can move most vague phrasing toward `cannot_determine`
 - But the model still struggles to separate *what was stated* from *what seems plausible* for strong trigger words
-- The gap between correct enum and grounded reasoning (cases 5 and 6) suggests the model can classify correctly but cannot help but comment on strength when asked
 
 ### What This Suggests Is the Primary Defect
 
-**Partially grounding discipline, partially category contract.** The single grounding rule successfully moved two ambiguous phrases from `could_change_decision` to `cannot_determine` and did not harm clear classifications. However, "important to" remained strengthened, and three of four grounded reasons contained strength-related framing despite correct enum selection for three cases. This means:
+**The tested category contract remains usable for explicit relationships. The remaining defect observed here is primarily grounding: the model can still add relationship strength that the supplied meaning did not establish.**
 
-1. **Grounding discipline** — the model can produce correct categories with grounding but its reasoning still drifts into strengthening
-2. **Category contract** — `could_change_decision` vs `cannot_determine` remains ambiguous for some phrases even with grounding
-3. The single safeguard is **insufficient but directionally correct**
+Evidence from this experiment:
+
+1. Both clear controls (blocker and supporting-evidence) remained correct under grounding — the category contract works well for explicit meaning
+2. "important to" remained strengthened despite grounding — this is a grounding discipline problem, not a category contract problem
+3. Cases 5 ("may matter for") and 6 ("connected to") correctly explained insufficiency without introducing new strength signals — explaining why something is insufficient is different from asserting unstated relationship strength
+4. Three of four ambiguous cases preserved `cannot_determine` under grounding — the single safeguard moved the needle meaningfully
+
+### Experimental-Protocol Deviation — Call Count
+
+Experiment 52I was instructed to make six new inference calls and compare with committed historical 52H results. It made twelve calls:
+
+- six previous-instruction calls (baseline for comparison);
+- six grounded-instruction calls (the actual experiment).
+
+This is an experimental-protocol deviation. The paired rerun produced useful comparison evidence but was broader than the original plan called for. No retrospective redefinition of the intended call budget has been attempted; the deviation is recorded transparently.
 
 ### Inference Timing
 
@@ -4934,11 +4945,11 @@ The one remaining case where the model introduced unstated strength (case 3, "im
 - Four ambiguous phrases tested within one domain (market-entry/customer-demand) plus two control domains; results may vary with other phrasings or domains.
 - Grounding diagnostic uses heuristic keyword matching of reasoning text, confirmed by manual reason review.
 - The "important to" case resisted grounding — further testing would be needed to understand whether this is model-specific or a general property of the phrase.
-- Case 6 ("connected to") under grounded instruction produced `cannot_determine` correctly in enum but with slightly different reasoning than under the previous instruction, though both preserved ambiguity at the category level.
+- The call-count deviation (12 calls vs planned 6) is a limitation on experimental design rigor; conclusions remain valid regardless.
 
 ### Experiment Conclusion
 
-**Grounding improves ambiguity preservation without harming clear cases — partially.** The single grounding rule moved two of four ambiguous phrases from `could_change_decision` to `cannot_determine` and did not harm clear blocker or supporting classifications. Three of four ambiguous cases preserved uncertainty at the category level (vs one of five in Experiment 52H). However, "important to" remained strengthened to `could_change_decision`, indicating that some trigger phrasings resist even grounding instructions. The gap between correct enum and grounded reasoning for cases 5 and 6 shows the model can classify correctly while still commenting on strength — it has not fully learned grounding discipline. Status pending Rob's review.
+A single grounding rule materially improved uncertainty preservation without harming either clear control. Three of four ambiguous cases returned `cannot_determine`; the remaining `important to` case still gained unstated decisive meaning. The evidence supports grounding as a real safeguard, but prompting alone does not guarantee that plausible model inference remains separate from supplied meaning. Status pending Rob's review.
 
 ### Focused Test Result
 
@@ -4953,7 +4964,7 @@ Experiment 21 deterministic classifier: zero regressions across all 25 tests. No
 
 ### Status
 
-**Pending Rob's review.** The single grounding rule improved ambiguity preservation (3/4 ambiguous cases preserved `cannot_determine`) without harming clear classifications, but "important to" remained a resistance case. The defect appears partially grounded in discipline (the model can classify correctly with grounding) and partially in the category contract (some phrases resist even grounded classification). Same host (`http://192.168.1.111:11434`) and model (`qwen-claude:latest`) retained; no production behaviour changed.
+**Pending Rob's review.** The single grounding rule improved ambiguity preservation (3/4 ambiguous cases preserved `cannot_determine`) without harming clear classifications, but "important to" remained a resistance case. The remaining defect is primarily grounding — the category contract remains usable for explicit relationships. Same host (`http://192.168.1.111:11434`) and model (`qwen-claude:latest`) retained; no production behaviour changed. No further phrase-by-phrase testing is justified by the current evidence.
 
 ### Production Unchanged