49 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
49 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
# Experiment 60B.81 — Live Confirmation-Gated State B Path Confirmed
|
|
|
|
**Date:** 2026-08-15
|
|
**Branch:** `feature/decision-closure-ownership-v0.47`
|
|
**Preceded by:** Experiment 60B.80 (deterministic confirmation-gated closure enforcement implemented)
|
|
**Type:** Bounded live observation — single update call
|
|
|
|
## Objective
|
|
|
|
Answer: Does the exact no-confirmation live case now stay open and ask the sufficiency question?
|
|
|
|
This is the remaining proof after 60B.80 committed deterministic stripping. The model-led terminal closure bug from 60B.74/60B.76 should be fully eliminated.
|
|
|
|
## Method
|
|
|
|
- **Fixture:** `tests/fixtures/pre-anchored-product-launch-customer-signing.json`
|
|
- **Input:** `"The enterprise customer has now confirmed in writing that they will not sign if we launch this year, so the £700,000 of expected annual revenue from them will not be received."`
|
|
- **Crucially absent:** any phrase equivalent to "no other material uncertainty" / "nothing else remains uncertain"
|
|
- **Mode:** updateOnly (1 update call via production HTTP route)
|
|
|
|
## Result
|
|
|
|
**Classification: A — LIVE CONFIRMATION-GATED STATE B PATH CONFIRMED**
|
|
|
|
### Observed
|
|
|
|
| Field | Value |
|
|
|-------|-------|
|
|
| Customer status | resolved |
|
|
| Customer value | "Will not sign" |
|
|
| Decision status | unknown (non-terminal) |
|
|
| Decision value | null |
|
|
| resolvedUnknownNodeIds | ["n_enterprise_customer_signing"] (decision NOT present) |
|
|
| finalActiveUnknownNodeId | n_product_launch_decision |
|
|
| selectedQuestionTemplate | decision_threshold_sufficiency_confirmation |
|
|
| Question text | "Is there anything else material that could change which option is better?" |
|
|
|
|
### What This Proves
|
|
|
|
1. The 60B.80 stripping gate prevents premature model-led terminal closure of the parent decision when no explicit sufficiency confirmation is present in the user's answer.
|
|
2. State B fires naturally: focused sufficiency confirmation/discovery question targeting n_product_launch_decision.
|
|
3. Customer resolution with negative "will not sign" meaning is preserved independently — non-parent work survives the strip.
|
|
4. No spurious structural uncertainty was introduced.
|
|
|
|
### What Remains Unproven by This Run
|
|
|
|
- Raw model closure intent (whether the model itself proposed terminal status or whether the strip caught it). The harness exposes post-reconciliation/applied proposal only. Classification is "ENFORCEMENT EFFECT OBSERVED" rather than raw compliance.
|
|
- Explicit confirmation path still works through the gate (covered in 60B.80 unit tests but not live-tested here).
|