# Experiment 60B.20 — Live Verification of Bounded Structural Context Admission

**Branch:** `feature/reasoning-context-compatibility-v0.28`  
**Starting HEAD:** `a7ca8d7` (feature/reasoning-context-compatibility-v0.28)  
**Date:** 2026-08-13  
**Status:** COMPLETE  
**Type:** LIVE RUN — Single-call live regression of 60B.19 bounded structural context admission

## Objective

Rerun the exact client-retention case that was blocked in 60B.12:

> Does the engine now accept the client-retention unknown through reasoning-pattern validation, preserve it as material unresolved, and target it as the final question?

## Following

Experiment 60B.19 — Bounded structural context admission (commit d871a8c)  
Experiment 60B.12 — Previous blocked live case (rejection at result_validation)

This is the live regression that 60B.19 explicitly identified as unproven:
> "the precise 60B.12 client-retention continuation case in a live end-to-end path where the model introduces the factor and the final selected target preserves that same ready material unknown."

## Configured Model

- **Model:** qwen-claude:latest
- **Ollama base URL:** http://192.168.1.111:11434

## Fixed Starting Graph

**Fixture:** `tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-decision-options.json`

| Node | Kind | Status | Label |
|------|------|--------|-------|
| n_relocation_state | state | provisional | Engineering team relocation consideration |
| opt_relocate | option | known | Relocate to Manchester |
| opt_stay_put | option | known | Stay in London (Status Quo) |
| n_relocation_decision | unknown | unknown | Which option leaves us better off overall? |

## Fixed Answer (verbatim, exact)

> We have now quantified the full financial impact of replacing the two senior engineers and the delivery delay at about £600,000 as a one-off relocation cost. Staying put costs us an extra £2 million every year. The remaining issue is our largest client: we do not yet know whether they would leave if we relocated, and losing them would cost us about £5 million per year.

## Execution

Exactly one update call through `reproduce-multi-turn-investigation.mjs` in `updateOnly` mode.

## Call Accounting

```
startCalls: 0
updateCalls: 1
totalCalls: 1
Retries: 0
Second live invocation: NO
```

## UPDATE — Raw Output

**HTTP:** 200 (no rejection)  
**Stage:** All stages passed (result_validation did not reject)  
**Validation errors:** None (structuralActionRequired = null)  
**Proposal applied:** YES

### Structural Data

- **updatedNodes:** `[]`
- **resolvedUnknownNodeIds:** `[]`
- **addedNodes:**
  ```json
  {
    "id": "n_client_retention_risk",
    "label": "Will our largest client leave if we relocate?",
    "description": "Uncertainty regarding whether our largest client would depart following a relocation to Manchester; matters because their departure would cost approximately £5M per year, potentially outweighing the relocation savings and necessitating a revised net-value comparison.",
    "kind": "unknown",
    "status": "unknown",
    "confidence": "medium",
    "dependsOn": ["opt_relocate"],
    "parentId": null
  }
  ```
- **addedEdges:**
  ```json
  {
    "id": "e-opt-rel-to-client-risk",
    "fromNodeId": "opt_relocate",
    "toNodeId": "n_client_retention_risk",
    "relationship": "may_cause"
  }
  ```

### Question Targeting

- **selectedQuestion.nodeId:** `n_client_retention_risk`
- **selectedQuestion.question:** `"will our largest client leave if we relocate?"`

### Resulting Graph State

```
Nodes (5):
  n_relocation_state       | state    | provisional
  opt_relocate             | option   | known
  opt_stay_put             | option   | known
  n_relocation_decision    | unknown  | unknown          ← still unresolved
  n_client_retention_risk  | unknown  | unknown          ← newly added, unresolved

Edges (3):
  opt_relocate       → n_relocation_decision   (contained_in)
  opt_stay_put       → n_relocation_decision   (contained_in)
  opt_relocate       → n_client_retention_risk (may_cause)
```

## Assessment

### Structural-context admission: PASSED

The former `result_validation` rejection ("Active unknown violates reasoning pattern consistency") is gone. The model produced `kind=unknown` for the client-retention node, which is compatible with the active decision pattern. No validation errors occurred.

### Client-retention representation: FIRST-CLASS UNKNOWN

Node created as `kind=unknown`, `status=unknown`, with explicit label "Will our largest client leave if we relocate?" and description carrying the £5M/year material context. Not text-only, not lost.

### Reasoning-pattern treatment

- **Intrinsic/client node pattern:** `unknown` (intrinsic inference yields unknown; compatible with active decision pattern)
- **Active pattern:** `decision`
- **Diagnosis→decision mismatch accepted through bounded context admission:** YES

The structural action fallback from 60B.19 runs at the pre-mutation proposal boundary for newly-added unresolved unknowns reaching the active decision context. No rejection occurred because kind=unknown is inherently compatible with active pattern "decision".

### Materiality behaviour: PRESERVED

- Decision (`n_relocation_decision`) remains unresolved (status=unknown)
- Client-retention issue is the material reason for continued investigation
- No unrelated uncertainty invented
- £5M/year context preserved in node description

### Client-risk ownership: CLEARLY OWNED BY RELOCATE

Edge `opt_relocate → n_client_retention_risk` with relationship `may_cause` directly attributes client departure risk to relocation. Node's `dependsOn: ["opt_relocate"]` reinforces this linkage.

### Preferred-target behaviour

- **Proposal selectedQuestion.nodeId:** `n_client_retention_risk`
- **Final selectedQuestion.nodeId:** `n_client_retention_risk` (via model-selected nodeId, honored as preferred target per 60B.8+60B.11)

**Classification: MODEL MATERIAL TARGET PRESERVED**

The model's selected question targets the exact newly-created client-retention unknown node. The deterministic preference-aware targeting preserves this selection because it is structurally valid (kind=unknown, status=unknown, unresolved).

### Question text: SPECIFIC TO CLIENT RETENTION

Text: `"will our largest client leave if we relocate?"` — directly addresses the client-retention uncertainty with no generic framing.

## Comparison with 60B.12

| Field | 60B.12 | 60B.20 |
|-------|--------|--------|
| Validation stage | result_validation (rejected) | All stages passed (200) |
| Proposal applied | NO | YES |
| Client-retention node | never created (rejected before application) | `n_client_retention_risk` (kind=unknown, status=unknown) |
| Final selectedQuestion.nodeId | UNAVAILABLE | `n_client_retention_risk` |
| Final question text | NONE | "will our largest client leave if we relocate?" |

## Classification: A — FULL LIVE CHAIN CONFIRMED

All criteria met:

- [x] Former reasoning-pattern rejection removed
- [x] Proposal applied successfully
- [x] Client-retention factor survives as unresolved unknown
- [x] Decision remains unresolved
- [x] Client risk belongs to Relocate (may_cause edge)
- [x] Final selectedQuestion.nodeId targets the client-retention unknown

## Critical evidence

1. **Validation pass:** No result_validation rejection. The structural context admission fix in d871a8c allows newly-added `kind=unknown` nodes reaching the active decision context through the bounded same-turn path.
2. **Materiality preserved:** Decision unknown status unchanged; client-retention node is the material unresolved factor with £5M/year context intact.
3. **Targeting alignment:** Final selected question targets exactly `n_client_retention_risk` — the same node that was just created and is tied to Relocate via may_cause.
4. **No fabrication:** No unrelated uncertainty invented; no over-closure of any existing node.

## What improved relative to 60B.12

- The bounded structural context admission in d871a8c (fix from 60B.19) removed the validation rejection that previously blocked the entire proposal
- The model's kind=unknown output for the client-retention node is now admitted through both intrinsic compatibility and the same-turn fallback path
- Final question targeting correctly aligns with the material factor, enabled by the 60B.8/60B.11 preferred-target mechanism

## What remains weak or unproven

- The model still produced `n_client_retention_risk` (not `n_client_retention` as in 60B.6) — naming is stochastically different but functionally equivalent
- Whether the structural context admission also helps if the model produces kind=diagnosis remains untested by this case (this run exercised kind=unknown which was always theoretically compatible)
- No Vitest regression suite rerun against the new boundary; only the live case

## Production code changed: NO
## Prompt changed during experiment: NO
## Validator changed: NO
## Schema changed: NO
## Harness changed: NO
## Vitest run: NO
## Ollama calls: 1
## Direct API calls: 0
## Dev server disturbed: NO