confidence-engine/docs/experiment-57j56.md

Experiment 57J.56 — Uncertainty Identity Live Validation

Branch: feature/uncertainty-identity-v0.21 Starting HEAD: a476431 (docs: record uncertainty identity clarification) Experiment commit: pending

Objective

Answer exactly:

When the user expresses uncertainty about whether projected office savings are realistic, does v0.21 now represent that focused uncertainty separately when the graph contains only broader related cost unknowns?

This is the direct live regression for the prompt clarification implemented in 57J.55.

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.

Pre-written Expectation

The user's uncertainty asks a distinct resolution question: whether the office-savings assumption is realistic. A broader projected-cost unknown is related but not equivalent unless resolving it would also resolve the savings-realism question. v0.21 should therefore preserve the focused uncertainty either by reusing a genuinely equivalent unknown or by adding a dedicated unknown.

Run Results

Configured Ollama

• Base URL: http://192.168.1.111:11434 (from .env.local)
• Model: qwen-claude:latest

Dev Server

• Running on http://127.0.0.1:3000 (REUSE EXISTING)

CALL ACCOUNTING

startCalls: 1
updateCalls: 1
totalCalls: 2

Retries: 0 Supplementary scripts: NO

START

HTTP: 200 | Stage: unknown

Selected question: "What would clarify how long it will take for ongoing savings to offset upfront expenses and productivity dips in this situation?"

Nodes (8 total)

ID	Kind	Status	Label
ncwvq9x	state	provisional	Summary of the situation from the scenario text
nbb1z4m	observation	supported	Decision-making body ('We') evaluating the relocation
nduqivt	observation	supported	Engineering team targeted for relocation
nclswps	metric	known	Proposed physical or legal relocation of the engineering team to a new jurisdiction/location
nx54wwa	metric	known	Current and projected monthly/annual operating expenses for the engineering function
nkmuu21	unknown	unknown	Total one-time costs required for relocation (severance, hiring, infrastructure setup, legal/compliance)
nt0asmb	unknown	unknown	Potential short- to medium-term loss in team output, morale, or turnover due to the move
n4j29jl	unknown	unknown	How long it will take for ongoing savings to offset upfront expenses and productivity dips

Edges (5 total)

• e-sum-nbb1z4m supports → ncwvq9x
• e-sum-nduqivt supports → ncwvq9x
• e-unk-nkmuu21 depends_on → ncwvq9x
• e-unk-nt0asmb depends_on → ncwvq9x
• e-unk-n4j29jl depends_on → ncwvq9x

Relevant unresolved unknowns (costs/savings/relocation)

1. nx54wwa — "Current and projected monthly/annual operating expenses for the engineering function" (metric, known → status: known)
2. nkmuu21 — "Total one-time costs required for relocation" (unknown, unknown)
3. nt0asmb — "Potential short- to medium-term loss in team output, morale, or turnover due to the move" (unknown, unknown)
4. n4j29jl — "How long it will take for ongoing savings to offset upfront expenses and productivity dips" (unknown, unknown)

UPDATE 1

HTTP: 200 | Stage: update_applied | First error: none

Answer Meaning

userSupportedMeaning: null
supportCategory: null
resolutionGuidance: null

Note: answerMeaning fields are null — the model did not populate semantic meaning extraction. This is expected behavior (see Experiments 56D, 57J.28): the deterministic derivation layer handles categorization; the LLM's raw answerMeaning often omits these fields when no clear classification applies to "unsure" answers.

Structural Action

updatedNodes:

[{"nodeId":"nx54wwa","previousStatus":"known","newStatus":"provisional","previousValue":null,"newValue":null,"reason":"User expressed doubt about the realism of projected office savings, indicating the metric's accuracy is not yet confirmed."}]

resolvedUnknownNodeIds: []

addedNodes:

[{"id":"n_savings_realism","label":"Validity of projected office savings estimates from relocation","description":"The degree to which anticipated monthly/annual office cost reductions will actually materialize matters because it serves as the primary financial justification for the relocation, so that we must validate this baseline before committing resources to other unknowns.","kind":"unknown","status":"unknown","confidence":"medium","value":null,"unit":null,"evidenceIds":[],"dependsOn":[],"affects":["nx54wwa"],"parentId":null,"childIds":["nx54wwa"]}]

addedEdges:

[{"id":"e-doubt-savings","fromNodeId":"n_savings_realism","toNodeId":"nx54wwa","relationship":"weakens","confidence":"medium","description":"Doubt about the realism of projected savings weakens confidence in the current expense metric's accuracy."}]

Post-Update Nodes (9 total)

ID	Kind	Status	Label
ncwvq9x	state	provisional	Situation summary
nbb1z4m	observation	supported	Decision-making body
nduqivt	observation	supported	Engineering team
nclswps	metric	known	Proposed relocation
nx54wwa	metric	provisional	Current and projected operating expenses (← updated)
nkmuu21	unknown	unknown	Total one-time costs
nt0asmb	unknown	unknown	Potential team output loss/turnover
n4j29jl	unknown	unknown	Payback period for savings vs. costs
n_savings_realism	unknown	unknown	Validity of projected office savings estimates from relocation (← NEW)

Post-Update Edges (6 total)

• e-sum-nbb1z4m supports → ncwvq9x
• e-sum-nduqivt supports → ncwvq9x
• e-unk-nkmuu21 depends_on → ncwvq9x
• e-unk-nt0asmb depends_on → ncwvq9x
• e-unk-n4j29jl depends_on → ncwvq9x
• e-doubt-savings weakens → nx54wwa (← NEW)

Selected Question After Update 1

"What would clarify potential short- to medium-term loss in team output, morale, or turnover due to the move in this situation?"

Meaning Classification: FAITHFUL

The user's uncertainty ("unsure whether projected office savings are realistic") was not strengthened (no constraint/preference invented) and not degraded (doubt was not ignored). The nx54wwa metric node was correctly downgraded from known → provisional with reason explicitly referencing the savings-realism doubt.

Identity Result: ADDED DISTINCT UNCERTAINTY

No equivalent unresolved node existed in the start graph for "are projected office savings realistic?" — the existing unknowns were:

• nkmuu21: one-time relocation costs (magnitude estimation across severance/hiring/infrastructure)
• nt0asmb: team output loss/turnover (people impact)
• n4j29jl: payback period timing (temporal analysis)

None of these resolution questions is equivalent to "validity of projected office savings estimates." Resolving nkmuu21 (knowing total one-time costs) does not resolve whether the ongoing savings assumptions are realistic. Therefore, a new node was correctly added.

The new node n_savings_realism carries:

• Label: "Validity of projected office savings estimates from relocation"
• Status: unknown/unknown (preserves unresolved status)
• Description explicitly frames it as a prerequisite for validating the financial justification
• A weakens edge to nx54wwa showing structural linkage between doubt and affected metric
• A child-parent relationship with nx54wwa (childIds: ["nx54wwa"])

Structural-Specificity Test

After Update 1, does persistent graph state contain an unresolved node from which the engine can directly ask: "What evidence would establish whether projected office savings are realistic?"

YES. The node n_savings_realism (unknown/unknown) exists in the updated graph with label "Validity of projected office savings estimates from relocation." Its description frames it as a baseline validation requirement. It is an independent unknown, not absorbed into any broader node.

Classification: A — V0.21 IDENTITY RULE WORKS LIVE

Meaning is FAITHFUL and identity result is ADDED DISTINCT UNCERTAINTY.

The v0.21 prompt clarification ("same uncertainty = same resolution question") works on a live run with the configured model (qwen-claude:latest). The focused savings-realism uncertainty is not absorbed into the broader nx54wwa expense metric node (which was only updated to provisional status). Instead, it is preserved as an independent unknown (n_savings_realism) with proper structural linkage.

What This Establishes

1. Prompt clarification is effective: The v0.21 Additional Guidance ("same uncertainty = same resolution question") successfully guides the model to distinguish focused savings-realism doubt from broader cost unknowns in cold-start scenarios.
2. Dedicated node creation works for uncertain status: Unlike 57J.53 (where "uncertain" status degraded an unrelated node's status), v0.21 correctly creates a dedicated unknown node for the focused uncertainty.
3. Structural linkage is appropriate: The weakens edge from n_savings_realism to nx54wwa provides a meaningful structural relationship that can support downstream reasoning (e.g., if savings realism remains unresolved, cost-benefit analysis cannot proceed).
4. No absorption into broader cost nodes: nx54wwa was updated (known → provisional) but did NOT absorb the savings-realism uncertainty — it remained distinct via a new node.

What This Does NOT Prove

1. Single-run stability: One live run is not repeated-run evidence. Cold-start variance (observed in 57J.29) could produce different outcomes on another invocation.
2. Downstream investigation viability: Whether the saved savings-realism unknown survives into Update 2 and beyond — whether it gets selected for follow-up, or whether a later answer re-triggers absorption.
3. Cross-domain generalisation: Only tested on one scenario (engineering team relocation) with one phrasing of uncertainty.
4. Paraphrase invariance: Whether other ways of expressing savings-realism doubt produce the same structural outcome.
5. Edge case: when broad nodes SHOULD absorb sub-concerns: If an existing unknown like "Are the projected total costs realistic?" already exists, v0.21 should still prefer reuse/refine. This was not tested (no equivalent pre-existed in this run).

Production code changed: NO

Prompt changed during experiment: NO

Canonical harness restored: YES

Hardened no-retry behaviour preserved: YES

Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0

Dev server disturbed: NO