docs: close reasoning fidelity v0.8 first pass

docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ Answer before continuing:
 
 ---
 
-*Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–53, 54A–54Z, 55A–55F, 56D–56H, 56L. Branch: `feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8`. Status pending Rob's review.*
+*Created by Experiment 34. Updated by Experiments 38–53, 54A–54Z, 55A–55F, 56D–56H, 56L–56M, v0.8 closeout. Branch: `feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8`. First-pass reasoning-fidelity v0.8 complete to A–F scope.*
 
 ### Return-to-Work Note (Experiment 55F)
 
@@ -239,3 +239,36 @@ This experiment does not prove consistency across repeated runs, fidelity for ot
 ### Experiment 56M Summary — Production evidence vs clarification routing validation
 
 Validated one production claim after Codex commit `f861e2c`: does the deterministic question-formulation boundary preserve the E/F distinction? No live Ollama calls were made (0). Deterministic `formulateQuestion()` was exercised with both regression fixtures. Regression E (competing delivery-delay causes: "Staff capacity may be the issue" / "Supplier lead times are likely responsible.") produced question: "What evidence would clarify possible causes of the delivery delay?" — reasoning pattern=diagnosis, strategy=evidence_gathering, template=diagnosis_evidence. PASS. Regression F (preference vs constraint ambiguity: "Whether avoiding additional risk is a hard constraint") produced question: "Is avoiding additional risk a hard constraint or a preference/trade-off?" — reasoning pattern=prioritisation, strategy=null, template=user_meaning_clarification, with rejected families correctly excluding all evidence-adjacent families. PASS. Both cases maintain their distinct routes: E on an evidence route and F on user clarification. All 19 existing tests continue to pass. Branch: `feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8`. File: `docs/experiment-56m.md`. Status pending Rob's review.
+
+### Reasoning Fidelity v0.8 — First Pass Closeout
+
+**The first-pass reasoning-fidelity refinement is complete to its agreed scope.**
+
+Regression boundaries A–F have been investigated and the production defects identified from those boundaries have been addressed:
+
+- **A — weak priority:** supported against unsupported strengthening via pre-mutation compatibility guard;
+- **B — conditional trade-off:** qualification preserved through deterministic derivation and normalisation;
+- **C — unresolved uncertainty:** may remain unresolved when the user supplies no position;
+- **D — explicit hard constraint:** explicit meaning preserved;
+- **E — evidence-resolvable disagreement:** routed to evidence gathering;
+- **F — user-owned ambiguity:** routed to clarification.
+
+No demonstrated production defect remains inside the A–F first-pass boundary. Deterministic production validation is passing (commit `ec398dc` validating evidence vs. clarification routing).
+
+**Current HEAD:** `ec398dc` — experiment: validate evidence versus clarification routing
+**Key commits:** `f861e2c` (preserve evidence vs. clarification distinction), `ec398dc` (validate evidence vs. clarification routing)
+
+The two important production capabilities now present are:
+
+1. User-supported meaning cannot silently outrun the raw answer at the mutation boundary;
+2. Evidence-resolvable uncertainty and user-owned ambiguity are routed differently at question formulation.
+
+**Next work should begin from a newly observed product or reasoning failure rather than automatically extending this regression programme.** These open questions remain for future evidence-driven investigation, not as current defects:
+
+- broader wording/domain/model robustness;
+- clarification-target precision outside the tested cases;
+- durable per-node provenance of user-supported meaning vs inference;
+- whether rejected proposals should eventually be adapted rather than simply blocked;
+- end-to-end interaction behaviour across graph update, question choice, Behaviour Selection and UI;
+- multilingual robustness;
+- any future defect exposed by real use.