# Experiment 57J.63 — Equivalent Uncertainty Identity Rerun with Hardened Capture

**Branch:** `feature/selected-question-contract-v0.22`
**Starting HEAD:** `47509d3` (docs: record accepted-update capture hardening)

## Objective

Answer exactly:

> Once Update 1 establishes a persistent savings-realism uncertainty, does a semantically equivalent Answer 2 reuse that same unresolved node without creating duplicate graph state?

57J.61 was inconclusive because accepted Update 1 state was not captured reliably.
57J.62 fixed that apparatus.

Do not change the reasoning fixture.

## Configuration

- **Scenario:** "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
- **Answer 1:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
- **Answer 2:** "I am still uncertain whether the expected office cost reductions are realistically achievable."
- **maxUpdates:** 2
- **Ollama model:** qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434

## Pre-written expectation

> Answer 1 should establish one persistent savings-realism uncertainty. Answer 2 expresses the same unresolved resolution question and should therefore reuse/refine that existing identity or leave it as the sole representation. It must not create a second equivalent unresolved unknown.

## Run results

### Start

- **HTTP:** 200
- **Stage:** unknown
- **Selected question:** "What would clarify projected savings or minimum cost reduction threshold required to justify relocation in this situation?"
- **Node count:** 8
- **Edge count:** 5
- **Relevant unresolved cost/savings unknowns:** None established by start alone

### Update 1

- **HTTP:** 422
- **Stage:** proposal_compatibility
- **First error:** "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning is populated, but the proposal contains no graph mutation. answerMeaning alone does not constitute graph progress."

#### RejectedProposalSnapshot

```json
{
  "answerMeaning": {
    "userSupportedMeaning": "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic.",
    "possibleInference": "If the savings are not realistic, the relocation may fail to meet the goal of reducing operating costs."
  },
  "updatedNodes": [
    {
      "nodeId": "nz4k4ep",
      "newValue": null
    }
  ],
  "resolvedUnknownNodeIds": [],
  "addedNodes": [],
  "addedEdges": []
}
```

- **userSupportedMeaning:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
- **supportCategory:** null (not populated by model)
- **resolutionGuidance:** null (not populated by model)
- **updatedNodes:** [{nodeId: "nz4k4ep", newValue: null}]
- **resolvedUnknownNodeIds:** []
- **addedNodes:** []
- **addedEdges:** []
- **selectedQuestion:** null

#### Persistent savings-realism node: NONE

The model extracted userSupportedMeaning but proposed zero graph mutations. The gateway rejected the proposal at proposal_compatibility. No persistent savings-realism unknown was established.

#### Update 1 classification: U1-NO-PERSISTENT-UNCERTAINTY

### Update 2

**Reached:** NO

Update 1 did not establish a persistent savings-realism anchor. Per protocol, Update 2 is not executed.

## Call accounting

- startCalls: 1
- updateCalls: 1
- totalCalls: 2

## Identity result

N/A — no anchor was established by Update 1.

## Classification: D — UPDATE 1 DID NOT ESTABLISH ANCHOR

The same blocking class as 57J.61. The model correctly extracts userSupportedMeaning for savings-realism uncertainty but does not propose a graph mutation (no new unknown node, no edge). The proposal_compatibility gateway rejects this with HTTP 422. Without an anchor, the identity invariant cannot be tested.

### What this establishes:
- The harness captured rejected proposal detail correctly (57J.62 hardening works).
- When the model produces userSupportedMeaning for savings-realism uncertainty without adding a dedicated unknown node, the gateway rejects at proposal_compatibility with the expected error message.
- Same failure class as 57J.61 but with full diagnostics visible.

### What this does NOT prove:
- Whether equivalent paraphrase creates duplicate state (identity invariant untestable without an anchor).
- Whether a dedicated savings-realism unknown node can be created at all in the current production path for this answer class.
- Stability across different answers or scenarios that do establish anchors.

## Production code changed: NO
## Prompt changed during experiment: NO
## Canonical harness restored: YES
## 57J.62 capture hardening preserved: YES
## Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0
## Dev server disturbed: NO