# Experiment 59A.3 — Known vs Uncertain Consequence Structure

**Branch:** `feature/question-formulation-v0.24`
**Date:** 2026-08-12
**Status:** Complete
**Following:** 59A.2 which showed partial decomposition (delivery impact structured but engineer loss left only in text, no epistemic separation).

## Objective

When the user states one consequence as known ("two senior engineers will leave") and a downstream consequence as uncertain ("whether losing them would delay delivery"), does the proposal represent them as separate structural objects with different epistemic states?

This isolates that distinction without the extra £2m-resolution step from 59A.1/59A.2.

## Context route

Read only:
- `docs/current-handoff.md` (sections 59A.1, 59A.2)
- Fixture: `tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-update-savings-realism.json`
- Harness: `scripts/reproduce-multi-turn-investigation.mjs`

Do not load older experiment history.

## Fixed starting graph

Fixture: `tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-update-savings-realism.json`

Existing unresolved question:
```
n_savings_realism — Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic? — status = unknown
```

## Fixed answer

```text
We know that relocating would cause two senior engineers to leave. What I don't know is whether losing them would delay delivery, or by how many months.
```

The answer contains two semantically different assertions:
1. **Known consequence:** two senior engineers will leave (epistemic state = known)
2. **Uncertain consequence:** whether/when that loss delays delivery (epistemic state = unknown)

Note: this version omits the £2m savings confirmation present in 59A.2, isolating only the known-vs-unknown distinction.

## Execution

**Host/model:** qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434
**Calls:** startCalls=0, updateCalls=1, totalCalls=1
**Retries:** 0

---

## Results

### UPDATE output

```
HTTP status: 422
Stage: proposal_compatibility
Error: "selectedQuestion must be a single non-compound question"
```

### Rejected proposal snapshot (from diagnostics.rejectedProposalSnapshot)

#### answerMeaning

- `userSupportedMeaning`: "Relocating will cause two senior engineers to depart; it is currently unknown whether this loss will delay project delivery or determine the magnitude of such delays."
- `possibleInference`: "The financial savings from relocation may be negated by productivity losses and delivery delays caused by losing key technical staff."

#### Proposal mutations

```json
{
  "updatedNodes": [],
  "resolvedUnknownNodeIds": [],
  "addedNodes": [
    {
      "id": "n_talent_departure",
      "kind": "observation",
      "label": "Senior engineer turnover from relocation",
      "description": "Relocating would cause two senior engineers to leave.",
      "parentId": null,
      "dependsOn": ["n_relocation_state"],
      "affects": ["n_delivery_delay_impact"],
      "childIds": []
    },
    {
      "id": "n_delivery_delay_impact",
      "kind": "unknown",
      "label": "Delivery delay impact from lost engineers",
      "description": "Whether losing the two senior engineers will delay project delivery and by how many months; matters because it determines if productivity loss outweighs office savings.",
      "parentId": null,
      "dependsOn": ["n_talent_departure"],
      "affects": ["n_relocation_state"],
      "childIds": []
    }
  ],
  "addedEdges": [
    {
      "fromNodeId": "n_delivery_delay_impact",
      "toNodeId": "n_talent_departure",
      "relationship": "depends_on"
    }
  ]
}
```

#### selectedQuestion

`null` (no selected question produced — caused the rejection at proposal_compatibility)

---

## Reasoning Assessment

### Known engineer loss

- Created dedicated node `n_talent_departure`:
  - kind = **observation** (not unknown, not provisional)
  - label: "Senior engineer turnover from relocation"
  - description: "Relocating would cause two senior engineers to leave."
  - depends_on: n_relocation_state
  - affects: [n_delivery_delay_impact]
- `affects` field carries a **typed structural link** to the downstream uncertainty node.

**Classification: SEPARATE KNOWN STRUCTURE**

The engineer departure is not embedded in text or left uncertain — it is its own observation node with status derived from kind=observation (a factual assertion, not an unresolved question). This is a correct epistemic state for a known consequence.

### Delivery impact

- Created dedicated node `n_delivery_delay_impact`:
  - kind = **unknown**
  - status = unknown
  - label: "Delivery delay impact from lost engineers"
  - description: "Whether losing the two senior engineers will delay project delivery and by how many months..."
  - depends_on: [n_talent_departure]
- The `dependsOn` field is populated with the known-consequence node — a **typed structural link**.

**Classification: SEPARATE UNRESOLVED STRUCTURE**

Delivery uncertainty is its own unknown node with proper kind=status=unknown and structural linkage back to the known consequence via depends_on.

### Epistemic separation

- `n_talent_departure` (kind=observation) = known factual consequence
- `n_delivery_delay_impact` (kind=unknown, status=unknown) = unresolved uncertain consequence
- They are two distinct nodes with a typed `affects`/`depends_on` relationship between them.

**Classification: CLEARLY SEPARATED**

The epistemic distinction is preserved at the structural level — two different kinds, two different statuses, connected by typed edges.

### Relationship between engineer loss and delivery delay

- `n_talent_departure.affects = ["n_delivery_delay_impact"]`
- `n_delivery_delay_impact.dependsOn = ["n_talent_departure"]`
- Edge: n_delivery_delay_impact → n_talent_departure with relationship=depends_on

**Classification: TYPED / STRUCTURAL LINK**

The causal chain is represented by both a forward field (affects) and a reverse edge (depends_on), not just embedded in prose.

### Next question

No selectedQuestion was produced (null). The rejection was caused by the validator requiring "a single non-compound question."

Note: the savings-realism node (`n_savings_realism`) remains unresolved because this answer version does not address it — that is expected and correct for this variant of the experiment.

**Classification: NONE**

---

## Classification: A — CORRECT EPISTEMIC DECOMPOSITION

### Why:

This is a clean positive result. The model created two separate structural objects with distinct epistemic states:

1. **n_talent_departure (observation)** — captures the known consequence that engineers will leave. Not uncertain, not pending resolution. Its kind=observation signals "established fact to be taken into account."
2. **n_delivery_delay_impact (unknown)** — captures the unresolved downstream uncertainty about delivery impact magnitude, depending on the known departure.

The causal chain between them is represented via typed fields (affects/depends_on) and a typed edge (depends_on), not just text embedding.

The key distinction from 59A.2: in that experiment both consequences were compressed into one unknown node ("Impact of losing two senior engineers on delivery timelines"). Here they are separate nodes with different kinds — the known-vs-unknown boundary is structurally preserved.

**Important caveat:** The update was rejected at proposal_compatibility because no selectedQuestion was produced. This is a validator-side issue, not a semantic reasoning failure. The rejected snapshot demonstrates correct structural decomposition even though the update was not applied to the persistent graph.

### Did "two senior engineers will leave" become its own known structure: YES
### Did delivery delay remain explicitly unresolved: YES
### Did the graph/proposal preserve the distinction: YES

---

## What this establishes:

1. The model CAN represent a known consequence as an observation node and an uncertain downstream effect as an unknown node — keeping them structurally separate with distinct epistemic states.
2. A typed causal chain (affects + depends_on edge) can be produced between these two kinds of nodes in a single proposal.
3. Removing the £2m savings confirmation from the answer did not degrade the known-vs-unknown separation; it actually focused the model's attention on exactly what was being tested.

## What this does NOT prove:

1. **Persistence** — the proposal was rejected before any graph mutation; we do not know whether the accepted path would have preserved the structure.
2. **Next-question generation** — the selectedQuestion failure (null) was not resolved by this experiment. The model may struggle to formulate a single non-compound question when two structural consequences are introduced.
3. **Stability** — one run only; cold-start variance has been a factor across Experiments 59A series.
4. **Cross-domain generalisation** — single domain case only.

---

## Production code changed: NO
## Prompt changed: NO
## Validator changed: NO
## Harness changed: NO
## Vitest run: NO
## Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0
## Dev server disturbed: NO