confidence-engine/docs/experiment-57j33.md

Experiment 57J.33 — Classify Captured Answer-Meaning Strengthening

Objective

Answer exactly: given the exact raw answer and exact rejected userSupportedMeaning captured in 57J.32 Trial 2, is the current validator correct to classify the proposal meaning as a stronger reasoning category than the user established?

This task addresses only the existing semantic contract — not cold-start graph variance, addedNodes/edges, or provenance/connectivity.

Configured apparatus

• Branch: feature/rejected-proposal-diagnostics-v0.16
• HEAD at experiment start: a00f7b1 — experiment: inspect rejected proposal live variance
• Ollama calls made: 0 (fully deterministic)
• Production code changed: NO
• Tests permanently changed: NO

Fixed captured evidence

Raw user answer

"Before deciding, I need evidence that the projected office savings are realistic and evidence that the move will not materially increase loss of key engineers."

Rejected Trial 2 userSupportedMeaning

"The decision is conditional on evidence that projected office savings are realistic and that the move will not materially increase loss of key engineers."

Accepted comparison A

"The user requires direct evidence that projected office savings are realistic and that the relocation will not materially increase the loss of key engineers before making a decision."

Accepted comparison B

"The user requires concrete evidence verifying that projected office savings are realistic and confirming that key engineer attrition will not materially increase before deciding on the relocation."

Part 1 — Classifier trace (deterministic, from production code)

Raw answer profile

Field	Value
category	other
resolutionGuidance	null

Reasoning: No uncertain, conditional, constraint, or priority trigger words fire. The text passes through all detection gates and reaches the default "other" category.

Rejected Trial 2 profile

Field	Value
category	conditional_tradeoff
resolutionGuidance	may_resolve

Reasoning: hasConditionalQualification() fires on the word "conditional" inside "decision is conditional on" (line 2775 of lib/graph/apply-proposal.js). This sets conditionalPreferenceStructure = true, which returns conditional_tradeoff before any other gate is reached.

Accepted comparison A profile

Field	Value
category	other
resolutionGuidance	null

Reasoning: No trigger words fire. "Requires" is not in the conditional qualification list. Passes to default "other".

Accepted comparison B profile

Field	Value
category	other
resolutionGuidance	null

Reasoning: Same as A — no trigger words fire. "Before deciding" does not match any conditional/uncertainty/constraint/priority gate. Reaches default "other".

Part 2 — Exact rejection mechanism

Function

validateAnswerMeaningCompatibilityWithRawAnswer() in lib/graph/apply-proposal.js, line 2932.

Branch/condition

Lines 2982–2986:

if (rawAnswerProfile.category === "other") {
  if (supportedMeaningProfile.category !== "other") {
    errors.push(
      "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning introduces a stronger reasoning category than the raw answer establishes.",
    );
  }
}

Categories involved

• Raw answer category: other — no protective category signal detected
• Rejected meaning category: conditional_tradeoff — fired by hasConditionalQualification() matching "conditional" in "decision is conditional on"

Why the proposed category is considered stronger

The validator's guard for unclassified ("other") answers works on a simple principle: if the raw answer establishes no specific reasoning category, and the extracted meaning lands in any protected category (uncertain, explicit_hard_constraint, relative_priority_only, conditional_tradeoff), that is treated as introducing a stronger reasoning structure than the user supplied.

The conditional_tradeoff category signals "there is a default position qualified by an exception condition" — which implies the user has a preference/constraint stance that can be overridden under specific circumstances. This is categorically stronger than a neutral information need ("I need evidence before deciding"), which the raw answer establishes.

Part 3 — Human semantic comparison

Raw answer establishes:

A (information needed before deciding) — YES The raw answer explicitly states "Before deciding, I need evidence..." — this unambiguously establishes an information need prior to decision-making.

B (decision is conditional on satisfying that evidence) — Partially / borderline "Before deciding" implies a temporal/priority relationship but does not assert conditionality of the decision itself. It reports the speaker's personal requirement rather than prescribing a property of "the decision."

C (hard veto/constraint) — NO No hard-constraint language present.

D (explicit decision rule) — NO No rule structure established.

E — Cannot distinguish A from B with full certainty; the strongest supported meaning is A.

Rejected Trial 2 meaning: "The decision is conditional on..."

Classification: SLIGHT STRENGTHENING → MATERIAL STRENGTHENING (borderline)

"Before deciding, I need..." frames the condition as the speaker's requirement. "The decision is conditional on..." frames it as an impersonal property of the decision itself. The shift from personal information need to prescriptive decision structure is a real change — not merely a paraphrase. However, it stays within the same broad semantic domain (evidence-before-decision).

The stronger case for MATERIAL STRENGTHENING: In reasoning terms, "the decision requires X" can be operationalized as a hard gate on decision-making, whereas "I need X before deciding" is descriptive of intent. The validator's categorical treatment is therefore defensible.

Accepted comparison A: "The user requires evidence..."

Classification: SLIGHT STRENGTHENING

More explicit about who holds the requirement ("the user"), more precise ("before making a decision"). Still within the same information-need semantic domain as the raw answer. Does not introduce conditionality of the decision itself — stays in other.

Accepted comparison B: "The user requires concrete evidence verifying..."

Classification: SLIGHT STRENGTHENING

Uses "concrete" and "verifying/confirming" which are mild strengthening adjectives, but does not cross into any protected reasoning category. Stays in other.

Part 4 — Deterministic reproduction

Command

npx vitest run tests/graph/experiment-57j33-tmp.test.mjs --reporter=verbose

(8 focused tests exercising deriveAnswerMeaningProfile and validateAnswerMeaningCompatibilityWithRawAnswer against all four captured strings.)

Result

All 8 tests PASS.

Test	Expected	Actual	Status
Raw answer profiles as 'other'	other	other	PASS
Rejected Trial 2 profiles as 'conditional_tradeoff'	conditional_tradeoff	conditional_tradeoff	PASS
Comparison A profiles as 'other'	other	other	PASS
Comparison B profiles as 'other'	other	other	PASS
Validator rejects Trial 2	error present	error present	PASS
Validator accepts comparison A	no errors	no errors	PASS
Validator accepts comparison B	no errors	no errors	PASS
Trigger: 'conditional' fires hasConditionalQualification	true for Trial 2, false for raw	confirmed	PASS

Captured Trial 2 rejection reproduced: YES

Classification: A — VALIDATOR CORRECT

Why

The validator correctly identifies that "The decision is conditional on..." introduces a conditional_tradeoff category where the raw answer only establishes other. The conditional keyword at line 2775 of hasConditionalQualification() fires because "decision is conditional on" contains the word "conditional". This pushes the meaning from a neutral information need into a protected reasoning category that implies default preference + exception qualification — which is indeed stronger than what the raw answer establishes.

The key insight: this is not a subtle wording issue. The rejected Trial 2 string literally contains the word "conditional" which triggers a category detector in production code. The accepted comparisons A and B do not contain any trigger words and correctly remain classified as other.

What this establishes

1. The validator's rejection of the captured Trial 2 meaning is correct — the meaning introduces a stronger reasoning category (conditional_tradeoff) where the raw answer only supports other.
2. The mechanism is the hasConditionalQualification() keyword detector (line 2775) firing on "conditional" in "decision is conditional on".
3. Both accepted comparison variants (A and B) remain correctly classified as other by the same detector.
4. The rejection does not involve cold-start graph variance or structural elements — it is purely a meaning-category mismatch at the validator gate.

What it does NOT establish

1. Whether "conditional" is the ideal trigger word for hasConditionalQualification() in all contexts (this is about the existing boundary only).
2. Whether the raw answer's "Before deciding" should itself have triggered conditional semantics — that would require changing the detector, which is outside scope.
3. Generalisation to other answers or domains beyond this specific captured pair.
4. Whether the cold-start node variance (6→8 nodes) observed in 57J.32 affects proposal quality downstream — that is a separate investigation.

Temporary test removed: YES