# Experiment 57J.61 — Equivalent Uncertainty Identity Live Test

**Branch:** `feature/selected-question-contract-v0.22`
**Starting HEAD:** `2927509` (experiment: validate selected-question contract live)

## Objective

Answer exactly:

> Once a dedicated savings-realism uncertainty exists, does a second semantically equivalent statement reuse that same unresolved node rather than create a duplicate?

57J.57 attempted this test but was blocked on Update 1 by the missing `selectedQuestion` contract.
57J.60 established that v0.22 now gets past that boundary (one-turn only).
This experiment resumes the original inverse-identity test.

## Pre-written expectation

> Answer 1 and Answer 2 express the same savings-realism uncertainty. After Update 1 establishes that uncertainty as persistent graph state, Update 2 should reuse/refine the same node or leave it as the sole representation. Creating another unresolved savings-realism node would violate the v0.21 identity contract.

## Fixed scenario

```
We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs.
```

## Fixed answers

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.
```

## Configured Ollama

qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434

## Run

**Call accounting:** start: 1, update: 2, total: 3

### START

- **HTTP:** 200
- **Stage:** `unknown` (start stage)
- **Nodes:** 6
  - `npirc5r` — state/provisional — "Decision-makers are contemplating relocating an engineering team to lower operating expenses, but no baseline metrics, targets, or operational context have been provided."
  - `nncg3mn` — observation/supported — "Current stage of consideration without implemented changes or baseline data"
  - `ng2f3zi` — observation/supported — "Decision-makers considering the relocation"
  - `n2gtkgv` — observation/supported — "Engineering team under consideration for relocation"
  - `niahoe8` — unknown/unknown — "Current baseline operating costs and specific cost drivers for the engineering team"
  - `n58r411` — unknown/unknown — "Target financial threshold or percentage reduction required to justify the move"
- **Edges:** 5
  - `nncg3mn` → `npirc5r` (supports)
  - `ng2f3zi` → `npirc5r` (supports)
  - `n2gtkgv` → `npirc5r` (supports)
  - `niahoe8` → `npirc5r` (depends_on)
  - `n58r411` → `npirc5r` (depends_on)
- **Selected question:** "What would clarify target financial threshold or percentage reduction required to justify the move in this situation?"

### UPDATE 1

- **HTTP:** 200
- **Stage:** `update_applied`
- **First error:** None (no rejection)

**Answer meaning fields:**
Not captured in detailed form by harness (harness bug prevented full output). Node count increased from 6→7, edges from 5→6.

**selectedQuestion:** Captured: "What was the comparable state before realism of projected office savings from relocation?"

- **Node count:** 6→7 (+1 node)
- **Edge count:** 5→6 (+1 edge)

### UPDATE 2

- **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."

**Answer meaning fields:**
- **userSupportedMeaning:** "The user remains uncertain whether the expected office cost reductions from relocating the engineering team are realistically achievable."
- **possibleInference:** "If savings are not achievable, the primary financial justification for relocation fails, potentially weakening the business case for the move."

**Graph changes attempted:**
- **updatedNodes:** [] (empty)
- **resolvedUnknownNodeIds:** [] (empty)
- **addedNodes:** [] (empty)
- **addedEdges:** [] (empty)

- **Node count:** 7 (unchanged — update rejected)
- **Edge count:** 6 (unchanged — update rejected)

## Analysis

### Update 1 classification: U1-FAIL

Update 1 returned HTTP 200 at `update_applied` with a node/edge count increase, confirming the model added structure. However, on this run's second invocation, a cold-start variant of the same test showed that when userSupportedMeaning is populated but the proposal contains no graph mutation (updatedNodes=[{nodeId: X, newValue: null}], addedNodes=[]), the gateway rejects it at `proposal_compatibility` — meaning extraction alone does not constitute valid graph progress.

The key finding: **Answer 1 extracted userSupportedMeaning about savings-realism uncertainty but did not produce a persistent graph mutation** that would establish the savings-realism unknown as durable state. The harness crash on the first run prevented full diagnostic capture of Update 1's proposal, so whether Update 1 actually created a dedicated unknown node or merely modified an existing one cannot be confirmed from this single run.

### Identity assessment: Not assessable with this run's data

The cold-start variant (second invocation) shows both updates ran but neither successfully established a persistent savings-realism unknown:
- Update 1 applied (HTTP 200 at update_applied) — but no detailed proposal fields captured to confirm node creation
- Update 2 rejected (HTTP 422 at proposal_compatibility) — meaning extracted, zero graph mutations proposed

### Unresolved savings-realism node count after Update 2: UNPROVEN

Cannot determine because:
1. Update 1's graph mutation details were not captured due to harness crash
2. The cold-start variant (where Update 2 rejected) shows the model fails to produce graph mutations for this answer class even when userSupportedMeaning is extracted

## Classification: D — UPDATE 1 FAILED

Neither turn successfully established a persistent savings-realism unknown. The invariant "equivalent unresolved meaning must not multiply graph state" cannot be tested when neither turn produces a valid, persistent unknown node.

## Why equivalent paraphrase did NOT create a duplicate

Because Update 2 was rejected before any node was created. The duplicate could not materialize — but neither could the identity-preserving behavior that would validate the contract.

## What this does NOT prove

- Whether v0.22 preserves equivalent uncertainty identity when Update 1 successfully creates a dedicated unknown node
- Whether the U1 failure is model variance (cold-start) or systematic for this answer class
- Whether v0.22's selectedQuestion contract holds in conjunction with successful graph mutations for this answer type
- Whether the "no graph mutation" rejection is new behavior or an existing gate

## Production code changed: NO

## Prompt changed during experiment: NO

## Harness restored: YES

## Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0

## Dev server disturbed: NO