117 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
117 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
# Experiment 57J.63 — Equivalent Uncertainty Identity Rerun with Hardened Capture
|
|
|
|
**Branch:** `feature/selected-question-contract-v0.22`
|
|
**Starting HEAD:** `47509d3` (docs: record accepted-update capture hardening)
|
|
|
|
## Objective
|
|
|
|
Answer exactly:
|
|
|
|
> Once Update 1 establishes a persistent savings-realism uncertainty, does a semantically equivalent Answer 2 reuse that same unresolved node without creating duplicate graph state?
|
|
|
|
57J.61 was inconclusive because accepted Update 1 state was not captured reliably.
|
|
57J.62 fixed that apparatus.
|
|
|
|
Do not change the reasoning fixture.
|
|
|
|
## Configuration
|
|
|
|
- **Scenario:** "We are considering relocating the engineering team to reduce operating costs."
|
|
- **Answer 1:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
|
|
- **Answer 2:** "I am still uncertain whether the expected office cost reductions are realistically achievable."
|
|
- **maxUpdates:** 2
|
|
- **Ollama model:** qwen-claude:latest at http://192.168.1.111:11434
|
|
|
|
## Pre-written expectation
|
|
|
|
> Answer 1 should establish one persistent savings-realism uncertainty. Answer 2 expresses the same unresolved resolution question and should therefore reuse/refine that existing identity or leave it as the sole representation. It must not create a second equivalent unresolved unknown.
|
|
|
|
## Run results
|
|
|
|
### Start
|
|
|
|
- **HTTP:** 200
|
|
- **Stage:** unknown
|
|
- **Selected question:** "What would clarify projected savings or minimum cost reduction threshold required to justify relocation in this situation?"
|
|
- **Node count:** 8
|
|
- **Edge count:** 5
|
|
- **Relevant unresolved cost/savings unknowns:** None established by start alone
|
|
|
|
### Update 1
|
|
|
|
- **HTTP:** 422
|
|
- **Stage:** proposal_compatibility
|
|
- **First error:** "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning is populated, but the proposal contains no graph mutation. answerMeaning alone does not constitute graph progress."
|
|
|
|
#### RejectedProposalSnapshot
|
|
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"answerMeaning": {
|
|
"userSupportedMeaning": "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic.",
|
|
"possibleInference": "If the savings are not realistic, the relocation may fail to meet the goal of reducing operating costs."
|
|
},
|
|
"updatedNodes": [
|
|
{
|
|
"nodeId": "nz4k4ep",
|
|
"newValue": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"resolvedUnknownNodeIds": [],
|
|
"addedNodes": [],
|
|
"addedEdges": []
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
- **userSupportedMeaning:** "I am unsure whether the projected office savings from the relocation are realistic."
|
|
- **supportCategory:** null (not populated by model)
|
|
- **resolutionGuidance:** null (not populated by model)
|
|
- **updatedNodes:** [{nodeId: "nz4k4ep", newValue: null}]
|
|
- **resolvedUnknownNodeIds:** []
|
|
- **addedNodes:** []
|
|
- **addedEdges:** []
|
|
- **selectedQuestion:** null
|
|
|
|
#### Persistent savings-realism node: NONE
|
|
|
|
The model extracted userSupportedMeaning but proposed zero graph mutations. The gateway rejected the proposal at proposal_compatibility. No persistent savings-realism unknown was established.
|
|
|
|
#### Update 1 classification: U1-NO-PERSISTENT-UNCERTAINTY
|
|
|
|
### Update 2
|
|
|
|
**Reached:** NO
|
|
|
|
Update 1 did not establish a persistent savings-realism anchor. Per protocol, Update 2 is not executed.
|
|
|
|
## Call accounting
|
|
|
|
- startCalls: 1
|
|
- updateCalls: 1
|
|
- totalCalls: 2
|
|
|
|
## Identity result
|
|
|
|
N/A — no anchor was established by Update 1.
|
|
|
|
## Classification: D — UPDATE 1 DID NOT ESTABLISH ANCHOR
|
|
|
|
The same blocking class as 57J.61. The model correctly extracts userSupportedMeaning for savings-realism uncertainty but does not propose a graph mutation (no new unknown node, no edge). The proposal_compatibility gateway rejects this with HTTP 422. Without an anchor, the identity invariant cannot be tested.
|
|
|
|
### What this establishes:
|
|
- The harness captured rejected proposal detail correctly (57J.62 hardening works).
|
|
- When the model produces userSupportedMeaning for savings-realism uncertainty without adding a dedicated unknown node, the gateway rejects at proposal_compatibility with the expected error message.
|
|
- Same failure class as 57J.61 but with full diagnostics visible.
|
|
|
|
### What this does NOT prove:
|
|
- Whether equivalent paraphrase creates duplicate state (identity invariant untestable without an anchor).
|
|
- Whether a dedicated savings-realism unknown node can be created at all in the current production path for this answer class.
|
|
- Stability across different answers or scenarios that do establish anchors.
|
|
|
|
## Production code changed: NO
|
|
## Prompt changed during experiment: NO
|
|
## Canonical harness restored: YES
|
|
## 57J.62 capture hardening preserved: YES
|
|
## Ollama calls beyond harness count: 0
|
|
## Dev server disturbed: NO
|