docs(analysis): finding — speculative epistemic ceiling does NOT blunt learning

7-agent architecture audit + adversarial verification refutes the intuition that
all-speculative packs cap the model's learning. The reasoning/learning loop is
blind to epistemic_status (recall_realized ignores it; speculative facts chain to
deductive-closure fixed point). Lexicon-status promotion is compile-and-display-only
(runtime epistemic state comes from grounding_source, not the lexical row). The
verified/as_told distinction is honesty-disclosure-only and intentional. All three
coherence-promoters are dormant (proof-carrying demo-only, energy-policy default-off,
review never sets coherent). Conclusion: do NOT promote-to-coherent for learning
(cosmetic at best, false-verified wrong=0 hazard for facts); the only genuine lever
is wiring the sound, fail-closed proof-carrying path — a separate deliberate decision.

docs/analysis/epistemic-coherence-architecture-2026-06-14.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# Finding: the speculative epistemic ceiling does NOT blunt learning
+
+**Date:** 2026-06-14
+**Status:** substrate finding (refutes a compelling-but-wrong intuition; corrects
+the "B1 coherent-promotion" plan). Method: 7-agent architecture audit + adversarial
+verification (run `wf_f7c37d46-16f`).
+**TL;DR:** All cognition/logos pack entries are `speculative`, and the engine's
+`determine` path can never label a conclusion `verified` — but **neither fact
+blunts learning**. The speculative state is an *honesty/disclosure* mechanism, by
+design, and the reasoning/learning loop is blind to it. The plan to "promote
+entries to coherent so the model can learn" is unwarranted; the lexicon variant is
+purely cosmetic and the fact variant risks manufacturing false `verified`.
+
+## The question
+
+Audit found 25/28 packs have no `epistemic_status` (→ default `speculative`), and
+`generate/determine/determine.py::_basis` only returns `"verified"` when every
+ground is `coherent`. Hypothesis: this caps the model and is why it underperforms
+at learning from contemplation/practice. **Tested rigorously. Refuted.**
+
+## What is actually true (verified, high confidence)
+
+### Axis A — promoting a *lexicon* entry to coherent is compile-and-display-only
+- `language_packs/compiler.py:75-92` maps a `coherent` lexical row → `EpistemicState.DECODED`,
+  stored per-surface on the manifold (`compiler.py:357` → `vocab/manifold.py:114`).
+- **No reasoning/recall/realize/learning path reads that tag.** The only non-test
+  reads (`compiler.py:406`, `:559`) merely copy it forward; `workbench/logos.py`
+  reads it for the Studio audit badge (display).
+- The runtime's per-turn epistemic state comes from **`grounding_source`**, not the
+  lexical row: any pack-resolved lemma → `grounding_source="pack"`
+  (`chat/pack_grounding.py:461,489`) → `DECODED`
+  (`core/epistemic_state.py:133-144`). So a `speculative` and a `coherent` pack
+  lemma are **runtime-indistinguishable.** *(Adversarially upheld; no counterexample.)*
+
+### Axis B — every realized fact is `SPECULATIVE` by construction
+- Told facts: `generate/realize/realize.py:217` (`status = EpistemicStatus.SPECULATIVE`,
+  "COHERENT is never a default (ADR-0021)"). Derived facts: `realize.py:372`. Also
+  `generate/proposition.py:264`, `generate/realize/quantitative.py:108`.
+- `determine._basis` (`determine.py:88-91`) gates `verified` on those `RealizedRecord`
+  grounds — never the lexicon. So lexicon promotion can never reach it.
+
+### Axis C — three coherence-promoters exist; all are dormant at runtime
+1. **Proof-carrying (ADR-0218):** `teaching/proof_promotion.certify_promotion` +
+   `vault/store.py:417,486-507 apply_certified_promotion` (flips `COHERENT` at :507).
+   **Built, sound, independently-re-verified, fail-closed — zero runtime callers**
+   (only tests + `demos/proof_carrying_promotion`).
+2. **Energy-policy (ADR-0148):** `vault/store.py:361 promote_eligible_entries`,
+   wired into the live turn boundary (`chat/runtime.py:2324,2509`) but
+   **default-off** (`config.vault_promotion_enabled = False`). Promotes on energy
+   cooling, not coherence/entailment.
+3. **Curator review:** `teaching/review.py:274` runs live on correction turns but its
+   `epistemic_status` is a passed-in param defaulting `SPECULATIVE`; the live call
+   sets no status. Computes no coherence.
+- So `verified` is genuinely unreachable at runtime — **by deliberate conservatism,
+  not a bug.** `pipeline.py:379`'s `COHERENT` proposal branch is dead relative to the
+  live path.
+
+### Axis D — the learning loop is blind to `epistemic_status` (decisive)
+- `generate/realize/recall.py:19-62 recall_realized` **ignores `epistemic_status`
+  entirely.** `SPECULATIVE` consolidated facts are immediately re-readable as
+  premises, so deductive closure **climbs to fixed point with the speculative
+  ceiling fully in place.** The ceiling does **not** impede chaining or learning.
+- The `verified`/`as_told` distinction is **observational only** — it selects a
+  surface string (`render.py:31`) and gates nothing else.
+- Intentional and sound: `consolidate.py:22`, `realize.py:331-334` — "a sound
+  inference never upgrades the standing of its speculative premises." `idle_tick`
+  and contemplation are proposal-only/SPECULATIVE by construction
+  (`consolidate.py:21-22`, `runtime.py:871`).
+
+## Conclusion
+
+- **The all-speculative state is not why the model struggles.** The learning loop
+  works (monotone climb to deductive closure) regardless of it. The real learning
+  wall is elsewhere (recognizer/coverage), not epistemics.
+- **Do not promote entries to coherent "to help learning."** The lexicon variant is
+  cosmetic (no runtime consumer); the fact variant would make speculative content
+  admissible-as-evidence — a **wrong=0 hazard** (false `verified`) — for zero
+  learning benefit.
+- The **only genuine epistemic lever** is wiring the proof-carrying promotion path
+  (Axis C #1) so a deductively-proven derived fact can become coherent → the engine
+  could honestly emit `verified` for what it *proved* (vs. was told). That is a real
+  honesty/capability upgrade and it is wrong=0-safe (fail-closed, independently
+  re-verified) — but it was **deliberately left unwired**, so turning it on is a
+  ratified-decision, scoped separately in
+  `docs/handoff/proof-carrying-wiring-scope-2026-06-14.md`.
+
+## Cross-references
+ADR-0021 (epistemic status = revision position), ADR-0218 (proof-carrying
+promotion), ADR-0148 (energy-policy promotion), ADR-0206 (epistemic disclosure),
+`docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md`, and the parallel honesty
+finding `docs/analysis/holonomy-resonance-proof-not-robust-2026-06-14.md`.