113 lines
5.4 KiB
Markdown
113 lines
5.4 KiB
Markdown
# Experiment 56H — Validate Unresolved Uncertainty After Harness Repair
|
|
|
|
**Date**: 2026-08-09
|
|
**Branch**: feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8
|
|
**Starting reasoning commit**: e6f7842 (establish canonical live reasoning experiment harness)
|
|
**Harness repair commit**: c40d8c6 (fix canonical live experiment harness import)
|
|
**Type**: Live experiment — observation only
|
|
**Status**: PASS
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Objective
|
|
|
|
When the user says "I'm not really sure.", does the production path preserve the risk-constraint distinction as unresolved?
|
|
|
|
## Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
The production path will preserve the user's uncertainty:
|
|
- `userSupportedMeaning` will not invent a preference or hard-constraint position;
|
|
- compatibility/guard logic will prevent unsupported resolution;
|
|
- the risk-constraint unknown will remain unresolved.
|
|
|
|
## Fixed Case — Regression C
|
|
|
|
- **Source**: "I want the business to grow, but I don't want to take on more risk."
|
|
- **Previous question**: "Is avoiding additional risk a hard constraint or a preference/trade-off?"
|
|
- **Answer**: "I'm not really sure."
|
|
- **Expected preserved meaning**: User is uncertain about whether avoiding additional risk is a hard constraint or preference/trade-off.
|
|
- **Expected uncertainty**: Full — no position taken.
|
|
|
|
## Graph Setup
|
|
|
|
Pre-update graph state:
|
|
- `n-risk-constraint` (unknown/unknown) — active unknown, status=unknown
|
|
- `obs-source-statement` (observation/supported) — source observation
|
|
- 1 edge connecting source to risk unknown
|
|
|
|
## Results
|
|
|
|
| # | Checkpoint | Result |
|
|
|---|-----------|--------|
|
|
| 1 | `userSupportedMeaning` extracted | **null** — no semantic content extracted from the non-answer |
|
|
| 2 | `possibleInference` derived | null |
|
|
| 3 | `rawAnswerCategory` (deterministic) | `cannot_determine` |
|
|
| 4 | `proposedMeaningCategory` (from userSupportedMeaning) | `none` |
|
|
| 5 | `proposalValidation.success` | false (no errors — nothing to validate due to null meaning) |
|
|
| 6 | Compatibility guard passed? | **false** — guard did not pass |
|
|
| 7 | Graph mutation applied? | **No** — graphMutation is null |
|
|
| 8 | Risk unknown status after call | **unknown** (unchanged) |
|
|
| 9 | Hard-constraint distinction resolved? | **NO** |
|
|
|
|
## Verdict
|
|
|
|
**PASS - uncertainty preserved**
|
|
|
|
The final authoritative graph state does **not** establish either:
|
|
- risk is a hard constraint; nor
|
|
- risk is not a hard constraint;
|
|
|
|
from "I'm not really sure." alone. The n-risk-constraint unknown remained at status=unknown with value=null. No graph mutation occurred.
|
|
|
|
## Analysis Against Regression C Contract
|
|
|
|
### What the model extracted (userSupportedMeaning)
|
|
|
|
> **null** — no semantic content extracted from a non-answer response ("I'm not really sure.").
|
|
|
|
The LLM did not invent any preference, constraint position, or leaning. This is the correct behaviour for a genuine non-answer. The deterministic raw-answer classifier categorised the input as `cannot_determine`.
|
|
|
|
### What prevented graph mutation
|
|
|
|
The pre-mutation safeguard chain rejected the proposal:
|
|
- **No meaningful userSupportedMeaning** was extracted from the non-answer (null).
|
|
- Deterministic derivation produced `proposedMeaningCategory: none` (no meaning to map).
|
|
- There was nothing substantive for the compatibility guard to validate — no proposed meaning profile existed to match against the raw answer.
|
|
- **No graph mutation occurred.** `n-risk-constraint` remained unknown with value=null.
|
|
|
|
### Key observation
|
|
|
|
The non-answer ("I'm not really sure.") is handled correctly by this pipeline: the LLM does not fabricate semantic content where none exists, and the guard chain correctly prevents any resolution attempt when there is no substantive meaning to evaluate. The risk-constraint distinction remains unresolved as expected.
|
|
|
|
## What this established
|
|
|
|
- After harness repair (commit c40d8c6), Regression C passes through the real production path. A non-answer preserves uncertainty — the LLM does not invent constraint or preference positions from "I'm not really sure."
|
|
- The safety net (proposal validation + compatibility guard) works as a compound gate: when no meaningful userSupportedMeaning exists, there is nothing to validate and nothing can reach graph state.
|
|
- The deterministic raw-answer classifier correctly categorises non-answers as `cannot_determine`.
|
|
|
|
## What remains untested
|
|
|
|
- Whether the LLM's handling of "I'm not really sure." is stable across repeated identical runs.
|
|
- Whether a near-answer (e.g., "I'm leaning toward..." or "It depends on...") would trigger different behaviour.
|
|
- Whether Regression C works with a graph that has more complexity (multiple active unknowns, edges from other nodes).
|
|
- Stability across other models — this test used only qwen-claude:latest.
|
|
- End-to-end interaction flow: whether the follow-up question correctly reflects the remaining uncertainty in the full investigation context.
|
|
|
|
## Configuration
|
|
|
|
- **Host**: http://192.168.1.111:11434
|
|
- **Model**: qwen-claude:latest
|
|
- **Branch**: feature/reasoning-fidelity-v0.8
|
|
- **Harness**: tests/graph/live-update-experiment-helper.cjs (canonical)
|
|
- **Runner**: experiment-56h-runner.mjs (temporary, removed after capture)
|
|
- **Production code changed**: NO
|
|
- **Live calls**: 1
|
|
|
|
## Previous Attempt
|
|
|
|
Experiment 56G was blocked by apparatus failure (broken import path in the canonical helper). This repair was completed by commit c40d8c6. Experiment 56H succeeds where 56G could not.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
*Status pending Rob's review.*
|