28 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
28 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
# v0.6 Comparability Experiment
|
|
|
|
## Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
The engine should confirm that observations are comparable before treating their difference as a contradiction that needs explanatory follow-up.
|
|
|
|
## Fixtures
|
|
|
|
1. Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.
|
|
2. Complaints increased. Production increased.
|
|
3. Average delivery time decreased by 25%, but order cancellations increased.
|
|
4. Customer satisfaction increased, but complaints increased.
|
|
5. Temperature increased. Ice melted.
|
|
6. Sales doubled. Sales doubled.
|
|
|
|
## Results
|
|
|
|
- The first four scenarios repeated the same failure pattern: contradiction-level investigation could begin before comparability was established.
|
|
- A deterministic comparability gate corrected that by producing one comparison question first.
|
|
- Temperature increased / Ice melted was treated as comparability confirmed, so no comparison question was asked.
|
|
- Sales doubled / Sales doubled was treated as comparability confirmed, and contradiction reasoning was not needed.
|
|
|
|
## Whether comparability should become a permanent reasoning stage
|
|
|
|
Yes, in minimal deterministic form.
|
|
|
|
The repeated pattern appeared in four scenarios, so a small pre-contradiction comparability assessment is justified.
|