49 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
49 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
# v0.6 Comparability Experiment
|
|
|
|
## Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
The engine should confirm that observations are comparable before treating their difference as a contradiction that needs explanatory follow-up.
|
|
|
|
## Fixtures
|
|
|
|
1. Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.
|
|
2. Complaints increased. Production increased.
|
|
3. Average delivery time decreased by 25%, but order cancellations increased.
|
|
4. Customer satisfaction increased, but complaints increased.
|
|
5. Temperature increased. Ice melted.
|
|
6. Sales doubled. Sales doubled.
|
|
|
|
## Results
|
|
|
|
- The first four scenarios repeated the same failure pattern: contradiction-level investigation could begin before comparability was established.
|
|
- A deterministic comparability gate corrected that by producing one comparison question first.
|
|
- Confirmed comparability did not by itself imply contradiction.
|
|
- Temperature increased / Ice melted was reclassified as a compatible relationship, so no contradiction question was asked.
|
|
- Sales doubled / Sales doubled was reclassified as duplicate observations, so no follow-up question was asked.
|
|
|
|
## Relationship classification stage
|
|
|
|
After comparability assessment, observations now pass through a deterministic relationship classification stage:
|
|
|
|
- `contradictory`
|
|
- `compatible`
|
|
- `potentially_related`
|
|
- `duplicate`
|
|
- `insufficient_information`
|
|
|
|
## Whether comparability should become a permanent reasoning stage
|
|
|
|
Yes, in minimal deterministic form.
|
|
|
|
The repeated pattern appeared in four scenarios, so a small pre-contradiction comparability assessment is justified.
|
|
|
|
## Two-step experiment result
|
|
|
|
A comparison question is useful only if its answer advances the reasoning stage rather than merely adding more text.
|
|
|
|
In the revenue-versus-cash scenario, the first question now confirms whether the figures are comparable, and the answer resolves that existing uncertainty instead of creating a parallel note. After that update, the engine progresses from comparability assessment to cautious relationship assessment and can select one broad non-expert follow-up question.
|
|
|
|
Every justified next question should correspond to an explicit unresolved graph node.
|
|
|
|
The earlier fallback-only path has now been removed from the normal successful progression. After comparability is resolved and a further investigation question is justified, the engine creates or reuses an explicit unresolved reasoning unknown and lets deterministic selection and question formulation proceed through the standard graph pipeline. A fallback is now only acceptable as an explicit failure case, not as the normal source of the next question.
|