# Experiment 57J.82 — Incremental Supported Information on Anchored Uncertainty

**Branch:** `feature/semantic-action-contract-v0.23`
**Starting HEAD:** `8526aa4` (tooling: supply anchored previous question in update-only mode)

## Objective

Answer exactly:

> With the savings-realism uncertainty already present, does new supported information cause the model to emit `structuralActionRequired=true`, preserve that information structurally, and keep a single savings-realism uncertainty identity?

## Configured scenario (fixed from fixture)

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

## Configured answer (fixed)

"The projected office saving is about £2 million per year based on eliminating the current lease cost, but I am still unsure whether that estimate is realistic."

## Hypothesis

The answer contains:
- existing unresolved meaning: whether the projected savings estimate is realistic
- new supported information: approximately £2 million per year, basis = eliminating the current lease cost

Expected contract-consistent path: `structuralActionRequired = true`, meaningful mutation present. The existing savings-realism uncertainty should remain the sole persistent representation.

## Configured Ollama: qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434

### CALL ACCOUNTING

- startCalls: 0
- updateCalls: 1
- totalCalls: 1
- Retries: 0
- Supplementary scripts: NO

### PRE-ANCHORED FIXTURE

Savings-realism node:
```
id: n_savings_realism
label: Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?
status: unknown
```

Exactly one equivalent unresolved uncertainty before Update: YES

previousQuestion sent: `"Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"` (derived from fixture anchor per 57J.81 fix)

### UPDATE

HTTP status: 200
Stage: update_applied

Validation errors: none

#### Answer meaning (captured via mutation evidence, not explicit answerMeaning output)

The model extracted new supported information and wrote it onto the existing uncertainty node:

- newValue: `"~£2M/year (lease elimination)"`
- reason: "User provided a specific projected savings figure but explicitly maintained uncertainty about its realism, so the question remains unresolved."

#### structuralActionRequired: null

The model did not populate `structuralActionRequired`. This field was neither true nor false — it was absent from the model's output.

#### Proposal mutations

```
updatedNodes: [
  {
    nodeId: "n_savings_realism",
    previousStatus: "unknown",
    newStatus: "unknown",
    previousValue: null,
    newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)",
    reason: "User provided a specific projected savings figure but explicitly maintained uncertainty about its realism, so the question remains unresolved."
  }
]
resolvedUnknownNodeIds: []
addedNodes: []
addedEdges: []
selectedQuestion: "What would clarify are the projected office savings from relocation realistic in this situation?"
selectedQuestion.nodeId: "n_savings_realism"
```

#### Resulting persistent graph (2 nodes, 1 edge)

```
node: id=n_relocation_state, kind=state, label=Engineering team relocation consideration, status=provisional
node: id=n_savings_realism, kind=unknown, label=Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?, status=unknown
edge: from=n_savings_realism, to=n_relocation_state, relationship=depends_on
```

### Meaning fidelity: INCOMPLETE

The model extracted partial information as `newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)"` — it captured the approximate figure and acknowledged lease basis in parenthetical form but collapsed these into a single value string rather than structuring them as separate fields. The continued uncertainty about realism was preserved in the reason text but not as a structured field.

### Meaningful mutation: PRESENT

The model produced a non-trivial update: it wrote `newValue: "~£2M/year (lease elimination)"` onto an existing node with value=null, changing from null to populated. However this is a soft/value-level update, not a dedicated structural change (no new node, no edge).

### £2m/year information: PARTIAL

Captured as `"~£2M/year"` in the newValue — approximate figure present but not at full precision ("about £2 million" → "~£2M"). Not inventing or omitting.

### Lease-cost basis: NOT REPRESENTED (in structured value)

The lease-elimination basis appears only inside parentheses within the value string `"(lease elimination)"`, not as a separate structured field. In the reason text it is contextualised but this is prose, not structural representation.

### Savings-realism identity: EXISTING IDENTITY PRESERVED

Equivalent unresolved savings-realism node count: 1

Exactly one equivalent unresolved savings-realism uncertainty remains. No duplicate created. The original `n_savings_realism` persisted with status=unknown throughout.

### Contract state: MISSING

`structuralActionRequired` is null — neither true nor false. The model did not populate this required field.

## Classification: G — FIELD MISSING

`structuralActionRequired` is null/absent. Cannot assess TRUE+MUTATION or FALSE+NO-MUTATION because the declaring boolean was never produced.

## Why

The model produced meaningful mutation (populating a previously-null node value with "~£2M/year (lease elimination)") and preserved exactly one savings-realism uncertainty identity — but did not populate `structuralActionRequired`. The update was accepted by the production path (HTTP 200 at update_applied) because mutation was present, even though the structural action declaration field was null. This is the same gap observed in 57J.64/57J.69 where the model knows to act but omits the boolean declaration.

## What this establishes

1. The 57J.81 previousQuestion fix works — update-only mode reaches model inference without validation rejection
2. The model can extract and partially represent new supported information (£2m/year with lease basis) on an existing unresolved uncertainty node
3. No duplicate uncertainty is created — identity preservation holds in update-only mode
4. The structuralActionRequired field remains consistently null/unpopulated by this model on this prompt

## What this does NOT prove

- Whether `structuralActionRequired` can ever be populated true on this prompt/model
- Whether the newValue format ("~£2M/year (lease elimination)") would survive full end-to-end graph queries
- Whether this behavior is stable across repeated runs
- Cross-domain generalisation

## Production code changed: NO

No production code was modified during this experiment.

## Harness restored: YES

Scenario, answers, and mode were set as environment variables for the single run; no harness modifications were made.

---