docs/current-handoff.md

@@ -1450,6 +1450,112 @@ This question remains recorded as historical apparatus evidence. It is NOT selec
 
 ---
 
+## v0.61 Experiment 5 — Repeated Same-Input Initial Decomposition Stability
+
+**Status: PASS (4/5 successful, 1 apparatus failure)**
+
+### Execution
+
+| Item | Value |
+|---|---|
+| Branch | `feature/initial-decomposition-v0.61` |
+| Starting HEAD | `65c5ded` — docs(confidence-engine): restore v0.61 decomposition objective |
+| Route | POST /api/cases/start |
+| Requests made | 5 |
+| Successful results | 4 |
+| Failed requests | 1 (Run 5 — validation failure) |
+| Retries | 0 |
+| Model | `qwen-claude:latest` |
+| Prompt version | v0.2 |
+
+### Response Duration Range
+
+- Min: 86,826 ms (Run 1)
+- Max: 101,915 ms (Run 3)
+- Successful range: 86,826–101,915 ms
+
+### Structure Range
+
+| | Nodes | Unknowns | Assumptions |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Run 1 | 16 | 3 | 3 |
+| Run 2 | 20 | 7 | 2 |
+| Run 3 | 21 | 3 | 3 |
+| Run 4 | 14 | 3 | 2 |
+
+Unknown count: 3–7
+Assumption count: 2–3
+Total node count: 14–21
+
+### Semantic Channel Evaluation Table
+
+| Run | Unknowns | Assumptions | A Normalisation | B CRM comparability | C Delivery vs defects | D Supplier/shift/source | E Intervention fit | Redundancy/speculation | Steering/action implication |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | 3 | 3 | PRESENT | PRESENT | PRESENT | PRESENT | ABSENT | None detected | None detected |
+| 2 | 7 | 2 | PRESENT | PRESENT | PARTIAL | PRESENT | ABSENT | Speculative subdivisions (customer segment, QC team capability, responsibility distribution, batch-size/equipment) not from source text; multiple rate-normalisation unknowns redundant | None detected |
+| 3 | 3 | 3 | PRESENT | PRESENT | PARTIAL | PRESENT | PRESENT | None detected | None detected |
+| 4 | 3 | 2 | PRESENT | PRESENT | PARTIAL | PRESENT | ABSENT | None detected | None detected |
+| 5 | — | — | FAIL | FAIL | FAIL | FAIL | FAIL | FAIL | FAIL |
+
+### Run 5 Failure Details
+
+- **Error:** `Scenario analysis failed`
+- **Classification:** APPARATUS FAILURE (validation failure)
+- **Analysis errors:** `reconstruction: Required, Required, Required`
+- This run is excluded from semantic frequency counts.
+
+### A–E Frequency Counts (Runs 1–4 only)
+
+```
+A Normalisation: 4/4 present, 0/4 partial, 0/4 absent
+B CRM comparability: 4/4 present, 0/4 partial, 0/4 absent
+C Delivery vs defects: 1/4 present, 3/4 partial, 0/4 absent
+D Supplier/shift/source: 4/4 present, 0/4 partial, 0/4 absent
+E Intervention fit: 1/4 present, 0/4 partial, 3/4 absent
+```
+
+### Material Structural Variation
+
+Significant structural variation observed between runs. Run 2 produced 7 unknowns (vs 3 in all other runs) with multiple speculative subdivisions not grounded in the source text (customer segment variation, quality control team capability, responsibility distribution, batch-size/equipment utilization). Node count ranged from 14 to 21. Different selected questions across runs: Run 1 had no selected question; Runs 2–4 each selected a different unknown as the focused investigation target.
+
+### Redundancy / Speculation Findings
+
+**Run 2** introduced speculative subdivisions: unknowns about "customer segment variation," "quality control team capability shifts," "responsibility distribution impact," and "batch-size/equipment utilization correlation" — none of which are mentioned or implied in the source scenario text. Run 2 also produced redundant rate-normalisation unknowns (two separate unknown nodes covering essentially the same concept). Runs 1, 3, and 4 showed no redundancy or speculation.
+
+### Steering / Action Implication Findings
+
+No run contained steering language ("first/most important/primary/priority"), unsupported causal claims between operational changes and complaint increase, premature arithmetic conclusions (the 35% vs 40% divergence was consistently framed as open rather than resolved), or action recommendations. The £120k intervention was represented neutrally in all runs without directional pressure.
+
+### Interpretation Answers
+
+**1. Which semantic channels were preserved in all four successful runs?**
+A (Normalisation), B (CRM comparability), D (Supplier/shift/source) — consistently present across all four successful runs.
+
+**2. Which channels varied between PRESENT / PARTIAL / ABSENT?**
+C (Late-delivery vs product-defect distinction): 1 PRESENT, 3 PARTIAL. The distinction was fully preserved only in Run 1; compressed in Runs 2–4 into generic treatment without explicitly separating delivery failures from manufacturing defects.
+E (Intervention fit): 1 PRESENT, 3 ABSENT. Only Run 3 surfaced intervention-fit uncertainty explicitly through an assumption node linking late-delivery logistics to the potential irrelevance of quality inspection.
+
+**3. Did question/unknown structure materially vary across runs?**
+YES. Node count ranged from 14 to 21. Unknown count varied from 3 to 7. Run 2's graph contained four speculative unknowns not grounded in the scenario text, while Runs 1, 3, and 4 remained restrained at 3 unknowns each. Three different selected questions were produced across Runs 2–4.
+
+**4. Did any run replace useful uncertainty with redundant/speculative structure?**
+Yes — Run 2 introduced four speculative unknowns (customer segment, QC team capability, responsibility distribution, batch-size/equipment) not present in the source text, plus redundant rate-normalisation coverage. Runs 1, 3, and 4 did not introduce speculation.
+
+**5. Did any run introduce steering, unsupported causality, premature conclusions, or an action recommendation?**
+No. None of the four successful runs introduced steering language, unsupported causal claims between operational changes and outcomes, premature arithmetic resolution, or action recommendations.
+
+**6. What does this five-run experiment support?**
+Four semantic channels (normalisation uncertainty, CRM measurement comparability, supplier/shift/source ambiguity, and basic complaint/incidence framing) are consistently preserved across fresh independent decompositions of this scenario. The initial decomposition is stable with respect to factual capture — no invented evidence was observed.
+
+**7. What does this experiment explicitly NOT establish?**
+This experiment does NOT establish: reliability at higher run counts, systematic stability versus transient variation, generalization to other scenario types, the model's behavior with different prompt versions, or that Run 2's speculative divergence is a reproducible failure mode rather than an isolated artifact. One apparatus failure (Run 5) prevents counting it as a successful observation.
+
+### Conclusion
+
+The initial decomposition preserves core factual uncertainty channels (normalisation, CRM comparability, supplier/shift ambiguity) consistently across fresh runs. The primary instability observed is in two areas: (1) intervention-fit mapping — when and whether the gap between problem mechanism and proposed action surface; and (2) speculative subdivision risk — the model can introduce unsupported unknown categories on some runs (observed in 1 of 4 successful runs). Node count variance (14–21) confirms that graph topology, not just node content, varies materially.
+
+---
+
 ## v0.61 active restart point
 
 The current handoff direction is the repeated-same-input decomposition stability experiment described in the **active design** section at the top of §v0.61.