94 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
94 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
## Phase Transition
|
||
|
||
Record that the project has moved from:
|
||
|
||
Interface Design
|
||
→
|
||
Facilitated Investigation
|
||
→
|
||
Behavioural Architecture
|
||
→
|
||
System Architecture
|
||
|
||
Future work should validate these layers rather than introduce new ones.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Emerging Direction — Graph as Source of Truth
|
||
|
||
The first UX experiments focused on workspace structure.
|
||
|
||
The next series will focus on investigation rhythm and behaviour.
|
||
|
||
Future experiments should explore:
|
||
|
||
- how conversations unfold (behavioural, not visual)
|
||
- how understanding evolves across turns
|
||
- how the facilitator selects its behavioural response
|
||
- how confidence is gradually built through action, not description
|
||
- what state assessment enables better question selection
|
||
|
||
The objective is no longer to arrange cards or translate panels.
|
||
|
||
The objective is to make each turn of the investigation feel like a natural step in a guided thinking process.
|
||
|
||
The objective is to make the investigation feel like a natural facilitated conversation.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Experiment 21 — Question Relevance Against Decision Target
|
||
|
||
#### Hypothesis
|
||
|
||
Does giving the classifier an explicit decision target allow it to distinguish questions that could change the decision from questions that are merely useful or incidental?
|
||
|
||
This is one question. Nothing else matters until this is answered.
|
||
|
||
#### Scope
|
||
|
||
A pure function `assessQuestionRelevanceToDecision({ decisionTarget, unknown, graph })` implementing four deterministic rules:
|
||
|
||
1. **could_change_decision** — The question directly mirrors the decision's core action (e.g., "whether to enter", "should we launch", "whether there is [demand/market/need]") AND the decision target contains a matching action keyword. Answering could reasonably reverse the proposed action.
|
||
2. **supports_decision** — Necessary precondition (e.g., compliance, cost feasibility) OR supporting context (e.g., differentiation, competitive position). The answer would improve confidence or evidence but is less likely to reverse the decision alone.
|
||
3. **unlikely_to_change_decision** — Background detail or comparative reference that does not affect the decision conditions.
|
||
4. **cannot_determine** — Decision target or unknown is missing, empty, or too unclear to compare honestly.
|
||
|
||
The classifier is passive — validated only against mock scenario fixtures. No changes to: graph construction, question importance classifier, unknown selection, question selection, prompts, Ollama integration, APIs, UI, state assessment, behaviour selection, conversation output, or engine behaviour in any way.
|
||
|
||
#### Decision Target
|
||
|
||
For the long-investigation scenario, use an explicit target from the fixture:
|
||
|
||
> Should we enter the European market with our SaaS analytics platform?
|
||
|
||
Do not attempt to discover the decision target automatically. For this experiment, the decision target is supplied by the test fixture.
|
||
|
||
#### Evaluation
|
||
|
||
Run the classifier passively across the same long-investigation turns used in Experiment 20 (turns 0–3). Record per-turn classification. Compare with Experiment 20 results. Expect at least two distinct categories — not a collapse to one.
|
||
|
||
#### Questions
|
||
|
||
- Does providing an explicit decision target enable more useful distinctions than keyword-only matching?
|
||
- Do the four categories map intuitively to how a human evaluator would judge relevance?
|
||
- Or does the deterministic rule set still miss cases that appear obviously important?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Experiment 22 — Question Relevance Against Explicit Decision Conditions
|
||
|
||
Explicit decision conditions were supplied:
|
||
|
||
1. Credible customer demand exists in Europe
|
||
2. European compliance is achievable
|
||
3. The expected market value justifies the cost of entry
|
||
4. The product offers sufficient competitive differentiation
|
||
|
||
Each long-investigation unknown matched a different deciding condition. All four correctly classified as `tests_deciding_condition`.
|
||
|
||
Category variety is not automatically a measure of quality — here, uniformity (all four as decisive) is correct because each question directly tests a required condition.
|
||
|
||
The classifier remains passive and is not in the active reasoning path.
|
||
|
||
---
|