# Experiment 57J.44 — Direct Live Test of Conflict-Free Mutation Prompt

**Branch:** `feature/semantic-to-mutation-contract-v0.18`
**Starting HEAD:** `359ccc4` (prompt: remove semantic-only mutation conflict)
**Experiment commit:** pending

## Objective

Answer exactly:

> After removing the semantic-only/no-op prompt contradiction in v0.18, does one simple faithful uncertainty now produce structural graph mutation?

This is the direct live regression for 57J.43's corrected Additional Guidance bullets.

## Pre-written expectation

The answer contains one explicit unresolved uncertainty about savings realism. If v0.18 removes the prompt-level no-op conflict successfully, faithful `userSupportedMeaning` should be accompanied by structural graph progress through an update/refinement, resolution, justified new node, or justified relationship. `answerMeaning` alone with all mutation fields empty would reproduce the failure.

## Configured model

qwen-claude:latest at http://127.0.0.1:3000 (via CONFIDENCE_ENGINE_BASE_URL)

## Fixed inputs

**Scenario:** "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."

**Answer:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."

## Start

- **HTTP:** 200 | stage: unknown
- **Nodes:** 6 | Edges: 3
- **Selected question:** "What would clarify current operating costs for the present location versus projected post-relocation costs and one-time relocation expenses in this situation?"

## 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."
- **Nodes:** 6 | Edges: 3 (unchanged)
- **Selected question:** null

### Rejected Proposal Snapshot

```json
{
  "answerMeaning": {
    "userSupportedMeaning": "The user is unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic.",
    "possibleInference": "If the savings projections are inflated or inaccurate, the financial benefit of relocating may be negated by one-time moving costs and ongoing operational impacts."
  },
  "updatedNodes": [
    {
      "nodeId": "nkm55qp",
      "newValue": null
    }
  ],
  "resolvedUnknownNodeIds": [],
  "addedNodes": [],
  "addedEdges": []
}
```

## Meaning Classification

**FAITHFUL.** `userSupportedMeaning` preserves only uncertainty about whether projected office savings are realistic. No decision condition, hard constraint, requirement to proceed, priority, or conclusion added. Compared to Experiment 57J.40 (v0.17) where the same scenario produced STRENGTHENED meaning ("Proceeding with the relocation decision is explicitly conditional on obtaining verified evidence..."), v0.18 correctly eliminates the conditioning language.

## Structural Progress

- `updatedNodes` count: 1 (but newValue=null means no actual change — validator sees empty structural change)
- `resolvedUnknownNodeIds` count: 0
- `addedNodes` count: 0
- `addedEdges` count: 0

**Structural progress: NO**

All mutation fields are empty. The v0.18 diagnostic triggered because the proposal contained zero graph progress.

## Classification: B — SAME FAITHFUL NO-OP

Meaning is FAITHFUL and all structural mutation fields remain empty (the updatedNodes entry has newValue=null, indicating no meaningful change). This means removal of the direct prompt contradiction was insufficient for this model to produce structural mutation from faithful uncertainty.

## Why

The v0.18 prompt fix correctly eliminated the semantic-strengthening path seen in 57J.40 (classification C). The model now faithfully preserves uncertainty without converting it to conditional/prescriptive language. However, when asked to act on that faithful meaning, the model still produces zero structural mutations — no new nodes, no resolved unknowns, no updated structure, no added edges.

This maps directly onto the "action selection under rule #6" ambiguity that 57J.42 identified as intentionally left unresolved. The prompt now tells the model it MUST produce structural mutation when rule #6 applies AND that it MAY return empty arrays only when rule #6 does not apply — but the model still treats a single uncertainty about savings realism as insufficient to justify any structural change.

## Did v0.18 remove the faithful semantic-only no-op failure: NO

The direct contradiction was removed (57J.43 confirmed), but one faithful-uncertainty call still produces zero graph progress. The gap between semantic fidelity and structural action selection remains active.

## What this clean run establishes

1. v0.18's Additional Guidance fix prevents the STRENGTHENING failure seen in 57J.40 — the model now extracts faithfulness for simple uncertainty statements.
2. The configured model does not translate one unresolved financial uncertainty into structural graph progress, regardless of whether the prompt contradiction exists.
3. The v0.18 diagnostic ("answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning is populated, but the proposal contains no graph mutation") fires correctly as a validator-level signal.

## What it does NOT prove

1. That the action-selection gap (57J.42) can be resolved by prompt changes alone.
2. That more complex answers (multiple evidence dimensions) would produce structural progress.
3. That other models would behave differently on this scenario.
4. Whether the v0.18 fix is correct for all cases where no mutation is warranted (true no-ops).

## Call accounting

startCalls: 1
updateCalls: 1
totalCalls: 2

Supplementary scripts used: NO

Retries: 0

## Production code changed: NO
## Prompt changed during experiment: NO
## Harness restored: YES
## Dev server disturbed: NO
## Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0