112 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
112 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
# Experiment 58A.6 — Interrogative Question Rendering Through Production Update Path (CONTROLLED)
|
|
|
|
**Branch:** `feature/question-formulation-v0.24`
|
|
**Starting HEAD:** `6f2c09c` (experiment: validate question-formulation fix live)
|
|
**Experiment commit:** pending
|
|
|
|
## Objective
|
|
|
|
When the answer simply preserves the existing savings-realism uncertainty and introduces no new issue, does the live engine select that existing interrogative node and render its next question coherently through the 58A.4 fix?
|
|
|
|
## Configured Scenario (fixed)
|
|
|
|
"We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
|
|
|
|
## Configured Answer (fixed)
|
|
|
|
"I am still unsure whether the projected office savings from relocation are realistic."
|
|
|
|
## Why This Case Is Controlled
|
|
|
|
The answer:
|
|
- preserves the existing uncertainty
|
|
- introduces no new figure
|
|
- introduces no new assumption
|
|
- introduces no new competing unknown
|
|
|
|
Therefore this run is specifically designed to exercise formulation for the existing `n_savings_realism` target rather than test broader reasoning.
|
|
|
|
## Run
|
|
|
|
One update-only call via the committed harness (`scripts/reproduce-multi-turn-investigation.mjs`).
|
|
|
|
### CALL ACCOUNTING
|
|
|
|
- startCalls: 0
|
|
- updateCalls: 1
|
|
- totalCalls: 1
|
|
- Retries: 0
|
|
|
|
### PRE-ANCHORED FIXTURE
|
|
|
|
- savings-realism node id: `n_savings_realism`
|
|
- label: "Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"
|
|
- status: unknown
|
|
- Exactly one equivalent unresolved uncertainty before Update: YES
|
|
- previousQuestion sent: "Are the projected office savings from relocation realistic?"
|
|
|
|
### UPDATE
|
|
|
|
- HTTP status: 422
|
|
- Stage: proposal_compatibility
|
|
- Validation errors: "structuralActionRequired is true but proposal contains no graph mutation"
|
|
|
|
#### Proposal snapshot (rejected)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning: "The user remains unsure about whether the projected office savings from relocation are realistic."
|
|
updatedNodes: [{nodeId: n_savings_realism, newValue: null}]
|
|
resolvedUnknownNodeIds: []
|
|
addedNodes: []
|
|
addedEdges: []
|
|
structuralActionRequired: true (implied by validator rejection reason)
|
|
selectedQuestion: UNAVAILABLE (update rejected before question selection)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### Resulting persistent graph: NOT APPLIED
|
|
|
|
The update was rejected. The fixture graph remains unchanged:
|
|
```
|
|
node: id=n_relocation_state, kind=state, status=provisional
|
|
node: id=n_savings_realism, kind=unknown, status=unknown
|
|
edge: from=n_savings_realism, to=n_relocation_state, relationship=depends_on
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Target selection
|
|
|
|
NO TARGET — update rejected before question selection could complete.
|
|
|
|
## Interrogative fix path
|
|
|
|
UNAVAILABLE — the apparatus prevented reaching this stage.
|
|
|
|
## Question assessment
|
|
|
|
NONE — no question produced.
|
|
|
|
## Classification: E — NO QUESTION
|
|
|
|
The engine identified that structural action was required (structuralActionRequired=true implied by validator rejection) but failed to produce any meaningful graph mutation, causing a 422 at `proposal_compatibility`. No next question was emitted because the update was rejected before the question-selection phase.
|
|
|
|
## What this establishes:
|
|
|
|
1. The pre-anchored fixture apparatus works — the correct node (n_savings_realism) and answer reach the production server
|
|
2. The model correctly extracts user meaning: "The user remains unsure about whether the projected office savings from relocation are realistic."
|
|
3. For a pure-preservation answer with no new evidence/figure/assumption, the engine still requires structural action but cannot produce one — this is a **semantic gap**: the answer provides only uncertainty confirmation, which the model recognizes as requiring structural action but cannot express through graph mutation (nothing to change)
|
|
4. The 58A.4 interrogative-label fix path remains unproven live because the apparatus blocks before question selection
|
|
|
|
## What this does NOT prove:
|
|
|
|
1. Whether n_savings_realism would be selected if the update had succeeded
|
|
2. Whether the emitted question would be grammatically coherent for an interrogative label
|
|
3. Whether the 58A.4 fix works in production
|
|
4. Cross-domain generalisation
|
|
|
|
## Production code changed: NO
|
|
|
|
## Harness/tooling changed: NO
|
|
|
|
## Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0
|
|
|
|
## Dev server disturbed: NO
|