confidence-engine/docs/context-routing-validation.md

Context Routing Validation — Experiment 36

Documents Initially Loaded

1. docs/current-handoff.md (86 lines) — first return-to-work entry point
2. docs/current-project-state.md (132 lines) — active state and capabilities
3. docs/task-context-packs.md (110 lines) — routing for four work types

Total: 328 lines loaded before any expansion.

Additional Documents Required

docs/ui-mock-reference.md (63 lines)

Why: Task 2 required identifying mock scenarios for "long investigation" and "contradictory evidence". The task-context-packs Routing Test B claimed these were identifiable without loading ui-mock-reference, but the specific scenario names were not stated in any initial document. Loading confirmed both exist: "Long investigation (10–15 turns)" and "Contradiction". Routing should have included it: YES — this is a routing defect. The pack's Routing Test B presents an unverifiable claim as fact.

docs/project-knowledge-inventory.md (215 lines)

Why: Task 4 asked where a new developer should begin for engine experiments. Current handoff → project-state → task-context-packs gave the path, but inventory confirmed the Engine Experiment pack's four "always read" documents are all verifiably present in the repository. Also provided confirmation of what the knowledge-management phase created. Routing should have included it: DEBATED — the inventory validates pack completeness but was not strictly necessary to answer Task 4 from routing alone.

docs/current-implementation-verification.md (111 lines)

Why: Cross-checked Behaviour Selection's isolation against current-project-state §3's classification. Found section 3b confirming selectBehaviour has no callers outside its module. Routing should have included it: DEBATED — current-project-state already stated the same fact; this was a corroboration, not a gap fill.

Tasks Completed

Task 1 — Does Behaviour Selection affect engine behaviour?

• Answer: No. It is isolated — no import or call exists in any file under lib/ or app/.
• Initial docs sufficient: Yes (current-project-state §3 + handoff §2).
• Expansion needed: No.

Task 2 — Correct mock scenarios for long investigation and contradictory evidence?

• Answer: "Long investigation (10–15 turns)" and "Contradiction" from ui-mock-reference.md.
• Initial docs sufficient: No. Routing Test B claimed they were, but the claim was unverifiable until ui-mock-reference was loaded.
• Expansion needed: Yes — docs/ui-mock-reference.md.

Task 3 — Why passive classifiers are not part of active reasoning?

• Answer: Passive classifiers (Experiments 18–25B) record diagnostic signals for future use but have no integration into the turn cycle. Investigation-state assessment is the only one called at all, and its result goes into a diagnostics field — never checked by conditional branches. Others have zero callers. None control user-facing decisions or path selection.
• Initial docs sufficient: Yes (current-project-state §2–§5 + handoff §2).
• Expansion needed: No.

Task 4 — Where should a new developer begin for the next engine experiment?

• Answer: Read docs/current-handoff.md → docs/current-project-state.md → Engine Experiment pack from docs/task-context-packs.md, which directs them to four always-read documents (current-project-state, current-working-principles, architecture-guardrails, current-implementation-verification) plus the immediately previous experiment entry in the design log. The pack's "Stop and ask" rules prevent blind expansion.
• Initial docs sufficient: Partially — pack routing is clear but some verification required confirming documents exist (inventory).
• Expansion needed: Marginally — project-knowledge-inventory for pack completeness check.

Routing Failures Found

One genuine failure: Routing Test B in task-context-packs.md. The test states that mock scenarios for "long investigation" and "contradiction" are identifiable without loading ui-mock-reference. This was presented as a self-evident fact but could not be verified from the stated documents alone — the specific scenario names exist only in ui-mock-reference.md. The routing is incomplete; it should have included the mock reference file.

One questionable exclusion: project-knowledge-inventory for Task 4. The task-context-packs Engine Experiment pack lists four "always read" documents but does not themselves confirm all four exist. A cautious developer would load the inventory to verify, adding ~215 lines. This is acceptable cost but worth noting as a gap in the pack's self-validation.

Documentation Improvements Discovered

1. Routing Test B must include ui-mock-reference.md. Remove the "No extra file required" claim and add the mock reference to the Engine Experiment pack's routing chain when tasks involve scenario selection.
2. Packs should confirm their listed documents exist. Adding a verification check (or removing unverified entries) would prevent the need for inventory cross-referencing.

Overall Assessment: Mostly ready

Evidence: Three of four tasks were completed from initial context only. One routing defect was found (Task 2's claim was unverifiable without extra loading). The system works but Routing Test B demonstrates that "sufficient" claims should be evidence-based, not assumed. After fixing Test B, the reduced context system is ready for normal work.