41 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
41 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
# v0.6 Ambiguity Generalisation
|
|
|
|
## Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
If the selector truly handles unjustified contradiction ties generically, it should return ambiguity across multiple domains without preferring one explanation by wording alone.
|
|
|
|
## Scenarios
|
|
|
|
1. Revenue increased by 18%, but cash in the bank fell over the same period.
|
|
2. Customer satisfaction scores increased, but complaints also increased.
|
|
3. Average delivery time decreased by 25%, but order cancellations increased.
|
|
4. Website traffic doubled, but sales remained unchanged.
|
|
5. Production output increased by 30%, but quality defects also increased.
|
|
|
|
## Observed behaviour
|
|
|
|
All five fixtures produced the same pattern:
|
|
|
|
- candidate count: 2
|
|
- selector status: `ambiguous`
|
|
- tie reason: `No justified distinction between leading unknowns.`
|
|
- no explanation was favoured
|
|
- one broad investigation question was produced from the central contradiction
|
|
- neutral label renaming did not collapse ambiguity into a winner
|
|
|
|
## Repeated failure patterns
|
|
|
|
None observed across two or more scenarios.
|
|
|
|
The current ambiguity handling generalised cleanly across the five contradiction fixtures.
|
|
|
|
## Corrections
|
|
|
|
No production correction was required in this task.
|
|
|
|
## Lessons learned
|
|
|
|
- The current ambiguity path appears domain-agnostic when structure and semantic weights remain intentionally non-discriminating.
|
|
- Central-statement-based tie questions are broad enough to avoid prematurely backing one branch.
|
|
- The most useful regression signal is whether ambiguity survives neutral relabelling, not whether one label sorts ahead of another in display order.
|