docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -1069,6 +1069,106 @@ The `@/` alias is a legitimate architectural choice that should not be changed.
 
 ---
 
+## v0.61 Experiment 2 — Initial Decomposition Coverage (Scenario Reuse)
+
+**Status: B — USEFUL BUT MATERIAL UNCERTAINTY LOST**
+
+### Execution
+
+| Item | Value |
+|---|---|
+| Branch | `feature/initial-decomposition-v0.61` |
+| Starting HEAD | `6425540 test(confidence-engine): prove direct helper production seam` |
+| Route | POST /api/cases/start |
+| Requests made | 1 |
+| Successful results | 1 |
+| Retries | 0 |
+| Execution errors | NONE |
+| Model | `qwen-claude:latest` |
+| Response duration | 77,984 ms |
+| Validation status | valid |
+| Prompt version | v0.2 |
+
+### Observed Decomposition
+
+**Summary:** "A manufacturing business owner is evaluating whether to invest £120k in automated quality inspection amid rising complaint counts and recent operational changes, but lacks rate-based and categorical data to determine if a genuine quality or delivery problem exists."
+
+**Graph topology:** 14 nodes (1 state, 3 observation, 3 metric, 2 relationship, 3 unknown, 2 assumption), 6 edges.
+
+**Unknown investigative paths:**
+1. `nvb2z51` — Current and historical complaint rate per unit produced is unknown
+2. `nn7tkbd` — Whether the new CRM system changed the threshold or definition of a valid complaint compared to the old system
+3. `n9fhzkz` — Defect and delivery failure rates specifically attributed to the new supplier or weekend shift are unknown
+
+**Other materially relevant graph content:**
+- `nqpcnaa` (relationship): Complaint volume rose less than production volume (35% vs 40%), suggesting the complaint rate per unit may have decreased or remained stable
+- `netiuwi` (relationship): Complaint categories changed three months ago due to CRM updates, decoupling historical complaint data from current classification methods
+- `npf0jdh` (assumption): No genuine quality degradation exists
+- `n1kszew` (assumption): A true quality or delivery issue exists, likely triggered by new supplier or weekend shift
+
+**Note on selected question:** The automatic unknown selection process produced a decomposition-rejection in this run. The `selectedQuestion` is null; the system generated a reconstruction question but rejected it as not authoritative, deferring to graph-backed pipeline. Three unresolved unknowns remain at initial decomposition — no auto-selection/prioritisation occurred beyond tie-breaking via scoring heuristics.
+
+### Semantic Reference Evaluation (A–F)
+
+**A — facts and explicit unknowns: CLEARLY PRESERVED**
+Evidence: All six material facts present as distinct nodes (complaints +35%, production +40%, late delivery/minor defects, CRM tagging change, supplier change, weekend shift). £120k decision node present. Three explicit unknowns preserved. No invented facts.
+
+**B — normalization uncertainty: CLEARLY PRESERVED**
+Evidence: Node `nqpcnaa` explicitly captures the 35% vs 40% divergence as a relationship node with status "supported" and confidence "medium". Notes that complaint rate per unit may have decreased or remained stable despite higher absolute numbers. This is distinct from arithmetic resolution — it frames the question without resolving it.
+
+**C — measurement/comparability: PARTIALLY PRESERVED**
+Evidence: Node `netiuwi` captures CRM categories changed decoupling historical data. However, this is merged with a threshold/definition unknown (`nn7tkbd`) rather than remaining as its own independent material concern. The distinctness of "measurement instrument changed" from "rate normalization needed" is partially compressed.
+
+**D — nature of the problem: PARTIALLY PRESERVED**
+Evidence: "Late delivery" and "minor product defects" are bundled into a single observation node (`nqjt07e`). The distinction between a delivery/logistics problem and a quality/defect problem is not preserved at sufficient granularity to guide targeted investigation.
+
+**E — causal/source ambiguity: CLEARLY PRESERVED**
+Evidence: Supplier change, weekend shift, CRM/tagging, and production volume changes all present in the graph without any edge asserting causality between them and the complaint increase. Node `nwg8ma4` bundles these as known metric changes; assumptions (`npf0jdh`, `n1kszew`) frame competing hypotheses without resolution.
+
+**F — intervention fit: PARTIALLY PRESERVED**
+Evidence: £120k automation cost node exists (`nubgwjr`). However, no graph content explicitly connects the proposed intervention to what it would or would not address (e.g., automated inspection does not resolve late delivery). The gap between "there might be a quality problem" and "£120k automated inspection is the right response" is not surfaced.
+
+### Failure Patterns
+
+| Pattern | Result | Evidence |
+|---|---|---|
+| F1 — premature conclusion | NO | Both competing assumptions presented; no resolution asserted |
+| F2 — invented evidence | NO | All facts trace to scenario text |
+| F3 — material qualification lost | YES — late delivery/defect distinction (D) compressed; intervention-fit gap (F) not surfaced as explicit unknown |
+| F4 — steering/prioritisation | NO | No "first/most important/primary/priority" language in graph or summary |
+| F5 — action recommendation | NO | Summary uses neutral framing ("evaluating whether to invest"); no buy/wait directive |
+| F6 — redundant Open Questions | NO | Three unknowns are materially distinct |
+| F7 — premature arithmetic resolution | NO | 35% vs 40% divergence framed as open question, not resolved |
+| F8 — speculative proliferation | NO | Two assumptions are direct negations of each other (minimal viable pair) |
+| F9 — unsupported action implication | NO | No explicit recommendation to buy or wait; "waiting" only implied by null selectedQuestion |
+
+### Classification: B — USEFUL BUT MATERIAL UNCERTAINTY LOST
+
+**Reason:** The decomposition is useful and restrained — all facts are preserved, no steering, no premature conclusions. Three materially distinct unknowns at initial decomposition. However, dimensions D (nature of the problem) and F (intervention fit) are partially lost through compression: the late-delivery/defect distinction collapses into generic "complaints", and the £120k intervention's potential mismatch with delivery problems is not surfaced as an explicit uncertainty channel. This is a material compression, though less severe than Experiment 1 where CRM comparability and intervention fit were fully compressed.
+
+### Comparison with Clean Experiment 1
+
+**Shared dimensions:** Both experiments lose CRM measurement/comparability distinctness (present but merged into threshold question in Exp 2, fully compressed in Exp 1). Both lose intervention-fit specificity — £120k automation is listed as a fact but not connected to what it would/wouldn't address. Neither experiment steers toward any investigation path.
+
+**Different dimensions:** Experiment 2 **surfaces normalization uncertainty** via node `nqpcnaa` (35% vs 40% rate divergence) — this was absent in Experiment 1. This is a material difference: the explicit framing that "complaints rose less than production" preserves a channel of inquiry that was missing before.
+
+**What two observations support:** The engine's initial decomposition captures normalization where it previously did not, suggesting partial semantic coverage improvement or scenario-sensitive behaviour. Both experiments consistently compress CRM measurement distinctness and intervention-fit gaps.
+
+**What two observations do NOT establish:** Systematic instability, model inconsistency, reliable coverage, or reproducible improvement patterns. Two observations are insufficient to establish either direction.
+
+### Git
+
+**Documentation commit:** `docs(confidence-engine): record v0.61 decomposition experiment 2`
+**Working tree:** clean after commit
+
+### Next Evidence Question
+
+One neutral evidence question only:
+
+> Does the current initial decomposition preserve the late-delivery vs quality-defect distinction as separate investigative paths when the scenario explicitly frames them as distinct complaint categories, and does the decomposition surface what a proposed intervention would NOT address?
+
+---
+
 ## Next restart point
 
 > v0.60 is complete. Report is established as the culmination of an Investigation. No next product boundary is currently selected. Begin the next session by choosing the next unresolved user/product reasoning boundary from current product behaviour and founding principles, rather than continuing storage migration or assuming an old backlog item is next.