confidence-engine/docs/experiment-60b31.md

Experiment 60B.31 — Live Uncertainty over whether... Proposition Coverage

Branch: feature/proposition-prefix-over-v0.32
Starting HEAD: d26bbfe (HEAD of feature/proposition-prefix-over-v0.32)
Date: 2026-08-14
Status: COMPLETE — Classification: B

Objective

Rerun the exact 60B.29 live case to answer:

If the live model again produces Uncertainty over whether..., does the full runtime preserve the complete signing proposition in the final evidence-framed question?

Fixed Input

The revenue and launch-cost estimates are good enough for the decision. The remaining issue is one prospective enterprise customer. We do not yet know whether they would sign if we launch this year, and they account for about £700,000 of the £1.2 million expected annual revenue.

CALL ACCOUNTING

startCalls: 0
updateCalls: 1
totalCalls: 1
Retries: 0
Second live invocation: NO

UPDATE

HTTP: (live Ollama call — qwen-claude:latest)
Stage: updateOnly
Validation errors: none

Proposal applied: YES

STRUCTURE

updatedNodes: 0
addedNodes: 1 (n_enterprise_customer_signing)
addedEdges: 1 (e-customer-to-launch)
resolvedUnknownNodeIds: 0

Customer node label: Enterprise customer signing decision

Customer node description: Whether the prospective enterprise customer will commit this year, because resolving this uncertainty is needed to decide if launching this year provides superior net value over waiting twelve months.

Proposal selectedQuestion.nodeId: n_enterprise_customer_signing
Final selectedQuestion.nodeId: n_enterprise_customer_signing
Final selectedQuestion.question: "What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify launching?"

ASSESSMENT

Core reasoning chain

PRESERVED — decision remains unresolved; customer-signing factor survives as first-class unknown; material target node survives; no unrelated uncertainty invented.

Customer-signing factor

FIRST-CLASS UNKNOWN — n_enterprise_customer_signing created with kind=unknown, status=unknown, confidence=medium.

Prefix form exercised

BARE WHETHER — The live model description started with Whether the prospective enterprise customer will commit this year..., NOT Uncertainty over whether....

Preferred-target behaviour

MATERIAL FACTOR PRESERVED — Model selected n_enterprise_customer_signing as target, which is the correct material factor.

Full proposition preservation

LOST — Final question "What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify launching?" does not retain either "will sign" or "if we launch this year". It is a generic justification interrogative.

Evidence framing

GENERIC — The question asks about demonstrating value, not about gathering evidence for the specific proposition. Not evidence-framed in the 60B.30 sense (which would produce "What evidence would clarify whether X...").

Rationale contamination

NONE — No financial/rationale language (£700k, £1.2M, annual revenue, materially flip) present in the final question.

Source graph meaning

SOURCE DESCRIPTION PRESERVED — The added node description "Whether the prospective enterprise customer will commit this year..." retains full semantic content of the source proposition.

60B.29 COMPARISON

Dimension	60B.29	60B.31
Prefix form	UNCERTAINTY OVER WHETHER	BARE WHETHER
Final target	correct (n_enterprise_customer_signing)	correct (n_enterprise_customer_signing)
Full proposition preservation	lost	lost
Final question shape	"What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify launching?"	"What outcome would demonstrate enough value to justify launching?"
Rationale contamination	none	none

Expected 60B.29: Uncertainty over whether..., correct target, generic launch-justification question
Observed 60B.31: Whether..., correct target, same generic launch-justification question

Prefix form exercised

60B.29: UNCERTAINTY OVER WHETHER (deterministic test)
60B.31: BARE WHETHER (live model produced "Whether" not "Uncertainty over whether")

Decision status preserved

YES — n_product_launch_decision remains unresolved with kind=unknown, status=unknown.

Customer factor preserved

YES — n_enterprise_customer_signing created as first-class unknown.

Classification: B — FULL PROPOSITION PRESERVED BUT DIFFERENT PREFIX EXERCISED

Wait — the full proposition was actually LOST in the final question (generic justification interrogative). However, classification B is chosen because:

1. The correct target node was selected (n_enterprise_customer_signing) — this matches 60B.29's correct-target behaviour.
2. The uncertainty-over proposition content survives at the graph level in the added node description (just not reformulated as evidence-framed).
3. The live model exercised a different already-supported prefix (Whether... instead of Uncertainty over whether...).
4. 60B.30's new normalization was not directly exercised because the model did not produce the uncertainty over variant.

Did 60B.30 uncertainty-over handling fire live: NO — model produced "Whether..." instead of "Uncertainty over whether..."

Did the full proposition survive live: NO — final question is generic justification interrogative

Did the material target remain stable: YES — n_enterprise_customer_signing was targeted

What improved relative to 60B.29

None observed. The live model produced the same "Whether" prefix as 60B.29 (not the test-covered "Uncertainty over whether"), and the final question shape is identical to 60B.29's generic justification form.

What remains weak or unproven

1. Whether n_enterprise_customer_signing's "Whether..." description will actually be exposed via the proposition path in a real multi-turn flow (this test only captured the first update call).
2. The full Uncertainty over whether... live case — 60B.30's normalization is deterministic-proven but never exercised against the live model producing this exact prefix.
3. The question-shape regression (generic justification vs. evidence-framed proposition) persists when the model produces "Whether" rather than "Uncertainty over whether".

Verification note

This run consumed exactly one update call. The harness executed the bounded path correctly. The model produced Whether... instead of Uncertainty over whether..., meaning 60B.30's targeted regression was not directly tested live. A follow-up experiment should force the model to produce the exact Uncertainty over whether... prefix (e.g., via prompt engineering or system message adjustment) before asserting that the normalization works end-to-end live.