docs(wave-next): revised plan after A1-A4 findings + schema-gap backlog (#371)
The Wave-Next injector dispatch (A1-A4) surfaced findings that invalidate three of the four briefs' lift assumptions: - A1 currency_amount — sandbox-blocked; real lift potential intact - A2 rate_with_currency — schema gap (Rate not in SentenceChoice union); PR #369 documents the gap with concrete 4-step plan - A3 multiplicative_aggregation — Operation(multiply) spec wrong; correct emission is CandidateInitial(outer×inner); zero GSM8K cases match canonical narrow form anyway - A4 temporal_aggregation — needs apply_rate primitive not in algebra Three of four are schema-extension ADRs masquerading as injector work. Only A1 is a true injector + sandbox-fix scenario. Deliverables: 1. `docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md` (new) — supersedes WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md. Pivots to DCS sub-shape expansion as the actually-tractable next wave (21-case bucket, existing v1 injector, #366 spec on main). Captures the three schema gaps + A1's preserved lift potential for separate ADR work. 2. `docs/handoff/ADR-0167-FOLLOWUPS.md` §7 (new) — points to the revised plan and summarises the four findings inline. WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md retained for history. No code change. No runtime effect. Docs-only.
This commit is contained in:
Shay
GitHub
parent
f3e0e694b8
commit
abf2fd6bc0
2 changed files with 219 additions and 0 deletions
|
|
@ -226,6 +226,35 @@ written to catch.
|
|||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Wave-Next findings + schema-gap backlog
|
||||
|
||||
The Wave-Next injector dispatch (A1–A4) surfaced four findings that
|
||||
materially change the next-capability sequencing. **See
|
||||
`docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md`** for the full pivot — short
|
||||
version below.
|
||||
|
||||
- **A1 currency_amount** — sandbox-blocked write; real lift potential
|
||||
(`charges`/`earns` verbs not in `_INITIAL_HAS_RE`); reimplementation
|
||||
queued
|
||||
- **A2 rate_with_currency** — schema gap (PR #369 merged): `Rate` not
|
||||
in `SentenceChoice` union. Concrete 4-step extension plan in
|
||||
`WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md` §Schema-Gap 1
|
||||
- **A3 multiplicative_aggregation** — emission shape correction needed
|
||||
(`CandidateInitial(product)`, not `Operation(multiply)`). Zero current
|
||||
GSM8K cases match the canonical narrow form anyway; folds into the
|
||||
CompositionClaim ADR
|
||||
- **A4 temporal_aggregation** — schema gap: needs `apply_rate`
|
||||
primitive that doesn't exist in the algebra
|
||||
|
||||
The actually-tractable next wave is **DCS sub-shape expansion** — one
|
||||
focused PR per sub-shape against the existing v1 injector from #315.
|
||||
See `WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md` for the sub-shape sequence.
|
||||
|
||||
The original `docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md` is retained for
|
||||
history but superseded.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequencing recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
For the operator picking this up next:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
190
docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md
Normal file
190
docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
|
|||
# Wave-Next Revised — DCS Sub-Shapes + Schema-Gap Backlog
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-05-27
|
||||
**Supersedes:** `docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md` (kept for history)
|
||||
**Why revised:** The A1–A4 dispatch surfaced findings that invalidate three
|
||||
of the four briefs' lift assumptions. This doc replaces them with the
|
||||
actually-tractable next steps.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What A1–A4 actually found
|
||||
|
||||
| Brief | Outcome | Schema gap surfaced |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **A1** `currency_amount` | Sandbox-blocked write; analysis only. **Real lift potential** — new verbs (`charges`, `earns`) outside `_INITIAL_HAS_RE` coverage. Implementation ready, design intact. | None |
|
||||
| **A2** `rate_with_currency` | PR #369 opened (schema-refusal). Lift=0. | `Rate` not in `SentenceChoice = Union[CandidateInitial, CandidateOperation]` |
|
||||
| **A3** `multiplicative_aggregation` | Sandbox-blocked write; analysis only. Lift=0. | Brief's `CandidateOperation(multiply)` spec is wrong: would compute `0 * inner = 0` with no prior `InitialPossession`. Correct emission is `CandidateInitial(outer × inner)` pre-computed product. |
|
||||
| **A4** `temporal_aggregation` | Sandbox-blocked write; analysis only. Lift=0. | Needs `apply_rate` primitive that doesn't exist in the algebra. |
|
||||
|
||||
**Three of four categories have schema-level prerequisites before any
|
||||
injector can ship.** The original Wave-Next brief misframed them as
|
||||
injector work. The honest read: they're each their own ADR-sized
|
||||
schema-extension followed by an injector wave.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The actually-tractable next wave: DCS sub-shapes
|
||||
|
||||
The `discrete_count_statement` category is 21 of 47 GSM8K refusals
|
||||
(largest single bucket) and has a **working v1 injector** from #315
|
||||
plus a **specification document on main** at
|
||||
`docs/handoff/discrete_count_statement-injector-spec.md` (from #366).
|
||||
|
||||
The spec recommends *narrow incremental expansion* — one sub-shape
|
||||
per PR, each carrying its own `wrong=0` hazard pins. That maps cleanly
|
||||
to small focused PRs.
|
||||
|
||||
### Proposed sub-shape sequence
|
||||
|
||||
Order by lift-per-risk:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **DCS-S1** — proper-noun possession with single static count, no
|
||||
clause split (the canonical narrow form already partially handled
|
||||
by the v1 injector). Expand to cases the v1 injector currently
|
||||
misses for surface-shape reasons.
|
||||
2. **DCS-S2** — proper-noun possession with `and`-coordinated counted
|
||||
nouns (e.g. "Francine has 5 boxes and 27 loose crayons"). Requires
|
||||
the multi-quantity composition decision but is structurally simpler
|
||||
than the full multi-quantity recognizer.
|
||||
3. **DCS-S3** — pronoun-subject possession (e.g. "She had 6 baskets").
|
||||
Requires anaphora resolution to a prior proper noun. Higher risk
|
||||
surface than S1/S2.
|
||||
4. **DCS-S4** — subject-anonymous possession ("There were 12 apples").
|
||||
Requires anonymous-subject handling decision.
|
||||
|
||||
Each sub-shape PR carries:
|
||||
- A focused match-tightening + injector extension in
|
||||
`generate/recognizer_match.py` and `generate/recognizer_anchor_inject.py`
|
||||
- A test file pinning the new admission cases AND the
|
||||
wrong=0 hazard (case 0050 + any newly-revealed hazard pattern)
|
||||
- Eval delta section in `audit_brief_11.md`
|
||||
|
||||
The full DCS bucket lift potential is ~5–15 cases depending on
|
||||
sub-shape coverage. Each sub-shape PR is a small, focused increment.
|
||||
|
||||
### Why not dispatch this as a Wave
|
||||
|
||||
The A1–A4 dispatch demonstrated that orchestrator-launched subagents
|
||||
**burn 50k+ tokens per cold-start** with mixed PR-opening success
|
||||
rates. The user dispatches operators in their own UIs/CLIs where
|
||||
context costs amortize across the operator's session.
|
||||
|
||||
This document is the **reference brief** that operators read; the
|
||||
**dispatch is the user's action**, not the orchestrator's. See
|
||||
`memory/feedback-no-self-dispatch-of-subagents.md` for the binding
|
||||
principle.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Schema-gap backlog (file for separate ADRs, not Wave-Next)
|
||||
|
||||
The three findings from A2/A3/A4 deserve named ADRs when (and only when)
|
||||
the prerequisite ADRs are in place. Until then they sit as queued items.
|
||||
|
||||
### Schema-Gap 1 — `Rate` in `SentenceChoice` union (from A2)
|
||||
|
||||
**From:** PR #369 (A2 rate_with_currency injector — refusal-only)
|
||||
**Requires:** ADR-0168.x or new ADR-0170.
|
||||
|
||||
A2's concrete 4-step follow-up (preserved verbatim from the PR):
|
||||
|
||||
1. Add `CandidateRate` dataclass in `generate/math_candidate_parser.py`
|
||||
(sibling of `CandidateInitial`/`CandidateOperation`) — carries a
|
||||
`Rate` operand keyed by actor + source-span provenance.
|
||||
2. Widen `SentenceChoice` to include `CandidateRate`; update
|
||||
`_slot_count`, `_collapse_per_sentence_ties`, admissibility
|
||||
predicates, and the per-sentence admission gate.
|
||||
3. Teach `parse_and_solve` to compose `CandidateRate` with downstream
|
||||
`apply_rate`/`multiply` questions — unify with the existing
|
||||
`extract_earnings_candidates` short-circuit.
|
||||
4. Then `inject_rate_with_currency` can emit `CandidateRate`. The
|
||||
matcher already extracts `(currency_symbol, amount, per_unit)`;
|
||||
needs entity extraction added.
|
||||
|
||||
**Lift potential after schema extension:** 3+ cases (the original
|
||||
`rate_with_currency` bucket). Likely 4-5 more from `rate_*` adjacent
|
||||
categories once the substrate exists.
|
||||
|
||||
### Schema-Gap 2 — `apply_rate` primitive in the algebra (from A4)
|
||||
|
||||
**From:** A4 temporal_aggregation analysis (no PR)
|
||||
**Requires:** an algebra extension ADR.
|
||||
|
||||
The current solver has no `apply_rate` operation in its operator
|
||||
inventory. Temporal aggregation ("5 hours per day, 7 days per week")
|
||||
fundamentally needs this: a rate composed with a time-duration
|
||||
quantity yields a total. Without it, temporal aggregation has nowhere
|
||||
to ground.
|
||||
|
||||
**Lift potential after primitive lands:** 2 cases (the
|
||||
`temporal_aggregation` bucket).
|
||||
|
||||
### Schema-Gap 3 — Multi-quantity composition emission shape (from A3)
|
||||
|
||||
**From:** A3 multiplicative_aggregation analysis (no PR)
|
||||
**Requires:** correction to the original Wave-Next brief, plus a
|
||||
multi-quantity-composition ADR coordinated with FOLLOWUPS §1
|
||||
(CompositionClaim).
|
||||
|
||||
The brief's `CandidateOperation(multiply)` spec is mechanically wrong:
|
||||
the solver's multiply operation does `state[(actor, unit)] *= value`,
|
||||
requiring a prior `InitialPossession`. A standalone multiplicative
|
||||
statement doesn't have that, so multiply would compute `0 * inner = 0`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Correct emission:** `CandidateInitial(outer_count × inner_count,
|
||||
inner_unit)` — the pre-computed product as a possession.
|
||||
|
||||
**Lift potential after correction lands:** 0 cases (zero GSM8K
|
||||
`multiplicative_aggregation` cases match the canonical narrow form
|
||||
even with correct emission — they all need either coordination or
|
||||
clause-split support). Effectively this category's bucket is empty
|
||||
relative to current GSM8K; the schema correction is for future
|
||||
problems, not for visible lift today.
|
||||
|
||||
### Schema-Gap 4 — A1's `currency_amount` injector (preserved, not dropped)
|
||||
|
||||
**From:** A1 currency_amount analysis (no PR, sandbox-blocked)
|
||||
**Requires:** Only the sandbox fix + reimplementation. No schema work.
|
||||
|
||||
**Lift potential:** 2–4 cases (new verbs `charges`, `earns` not
|
||||
covered by the existing `_INITIAL_HAS_RE`). The implementation design
|
||||
is in A1's analysis — see agent transcript for details. This is the
|
||||
smallest, lowest-risk follow-up if anyone picks it up; the brief is
|
||||
sound, only execution failed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Standing pivot
|
||||
|
||||
The next operator pickup should be:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **DCS-S1** — narrow proper-noun possession sub-shape expansion (highest lift-per-risk, smallest scope)
|
||||
2. **DCS-S2** — coordinated counted-nouns (medium lift)
|
||||
3. **A1 reimplementation** (if sandbox config is fixed) — currency_amount with new verbs
|
||||
4. **Schema-Gap 1 ADR** (Rate-in-union) — unblocks 3–8 follow-up cases
|
||||
5. **Schema-Gap 2 ADR** (apply_rate) — unblocks 2 cases
|
||||
6. **Schema-Gap 3** — folds into CompositionClaim ADR (FOLLOWUPS §1)
|
||||
|
||||
No timelines. Order is by leverage, not calendar.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What this document does NOT do
|
||||
|
||||
- It does not dispatch any agents (per `feedback-no-self-dispatch-of-subagents`)
|
||||
- It does not retire `WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md` (kept for history; future
|
||||
readers should consult this document for current state)
|
||||
- It does not modify any runtime code
|
||||
- It does not add new eval lanes (ADR-0166)
|
||||
- It does not propose any non-deterministic mechanism
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-references
|
||||
|
||||
- `docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md` — original (now-superseded) brief
|
||||
- `docs/handoff/discrete_count_statement-injector-spec.md` — the DCS sub-shape spec
|
||||
- `docs/handoff/ADR-0167-FOLLOWUPS.md` — parent follow-up queue
|
||||
- `docs/decisions/ADR-0168-frameclaim-ratification.md` — FrameClaim scoping
|
||||
- `docs/decisions/ADR-0168.1-math-frameclaim-proposal-adapter.md` — adapter bridge
|
||||
- PR #369 — A2's schema-refusal artifact
|
||||
- `memory/feedback-no-self-dispatch-of-subagents.md` — binding dispatch principle
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue