1.9 KiB
Experiment 57J.6 — Rejected Answerability Corroboration Candidate
Status: REJECTED (not production)
Established Defect
conjunctionCount + 1 can mistake alternative wording for independent answer dimensions. A label/description pair containing "scenario, problem, or data set" has conjunctionCount=2, yielding a minimum score of 3 that inflates its perceived compoundness beyond what the surface grammar warrants.
Candidate Attempted
Commit 60048a5 made conjunction-based evidence require structural corroboration from existing graph edges before treating a question as decomposable. Fresh-evidence questions with "and" needed at least one established relationship edge to trigger decomposition.
What Candidate Improved
The minimal clarification case:
The actual scenario, problem description, or data set intended for analysis.
Now correctly scored as independently answerable (score=1) rather than falsely flagged as compound (score=3).
Why Candidate Was Rejected
A genuinely compound fresh unknown such as:
What evidence supports the savings estimate and what evidence supports the retention assumption?
Also became independently answerable because no graph structure existed yet. Without any established relationship edges, the conjunction corroboration gate blocked decomposition of a legitimately compound question.
The implementation prompt explicitly required stopping if Case 1 (false positive minimal clarification) and Case 2 (true compound preserved) could not both be preserved with existing signals. The candidate crossed that stop condition by sacrificing Case 2 to fix Case 1.
Durable Finding
Surface grammar is not sufficient evidence of semantic compoundness, but fresh graph state may also be too sparse to establish compoundness structurally. A future refinement must resolve that distinction rather than choosing one failure mode by weakening the other.