# Experiment 60B.97 — Live Financial-Investigation Progression Test

## Summary

Observation-only live experiment testing whether a financially focused first answer advances the investigation coherently when the Start selects a financial-comparison uncertainty as the active target.

## Configuration

- **Starting HEAD:** `a52f034`
- **Experiment commit:** `a52f034` (no new commit — experiment output diverged)
- **Configured model:** `qwen-claude:latest`
- **Configured Ollama base URL:** `http://192.168.1.111:11434`
- **Fixed scenario identity:** product-launch (enterprise customer, £300k cost, wait vs launch)
- **Call accounting:** startCalls=1, updateCalls=1, totalCalls=2
- **Retries:** 0
- **Supplementary scripts:** NO

## Start Result

**HTTP:** 200
**Stage:** unknown

### Unresolved Unknowns (inferred from node count)
- Node count: 11, edge count: 6

### Active target
Not explicitly captured in harness compact output. Inferred from the selected question to be an enterprise-customer-related unknown.

### Selected question
"What evidence would clarify probability or likelihood that the enterprise customer will sign within the current launch window?"

### Selected question complexity
acceptable (question was produced — no decomposition rejection)

### finalGraphBackedQuestion
"What evidence would clarify probability or likelihood that the enterprise customer will sign within the current launch window?"

## Start Classification: S2 — DIFFERENT START

The live model selected **enterprise-customer signing probability** as the active investigation target, NOT a financial-comparison uncertainty. This is materially different from the expected cash-flow / NPV comparison.

This divergence is consistent with experiment 60B.95 which also diverged (to monetary valuation). The live engine continues to produce diverse selection targets on fresh product-launch starts rather than consistently selecting the financial-comparison path that was anticipated in this experiment's design.

## Fixed Answer 1 Submitted: NO

Per critical gate rules, Fixed Answer 1 was not submitted because the Start selected a materially different investigation target (enterprise-customer probability, not financial comparison).

## Update 1 Result

**Reached:** YES

**HTTP:** 500
**Stage:** result_validation
**First error:** `"Active unknown violates reasoning pattern consistency: \"n_fincomp12\" is explanation but active pattern is decision"`

This error indicates an internal graph-state inconsistency: node `n_fincomp12` was classified as an "explanation" type node but the active reasoning pattern requires a "decision" pattern. The Start path produced a situation graph with this structural violation.

## Classification: E — START PATH DIVERGED

The live engine selected enterprise-customer signing probability (S2) rather than a financial-comparison uncertainty, so Fixed Answer 1 was not submitted. Additionally, Update 1 hit a result_validation error indicating a reasoning-pattern consistency violation in the graph state.

### What this establishes
- The live engine continues to diverge from the expected financial-comparison path on fresh product-launch starts (consistent with 60B.95 pattern).
- A graph-state inconsistency exists: `n_fincomp12` (explanation) is active while the reasoning pattern is decision — a structural validity issue in the Start/Update pipeline.

### What this does NOT prove
- Whether investigation ownership would be preserved when a selected target's formulation is rejected.
- Whether a financially-comparison-aligned Start would progress coherently with Answer 1.
- Whether the explanation-vs-decision pattern inconsistency is deterministic or intermittent.

## Compliance Checklist
- **Production code changed:** NO
- **Prompt/schema/provider changed:** NO
- **Canonical harness restored:** YES (scenario, maxUpdates=2, answers reverted to original)
- **Ollama calls beyond harness count:** 0
- **Playwright runs:** 0

## Documentation
- `docs/experiment-60b97.md` — created (this file)
- `docs/current-handoff.md` — appended experiment result entry