From e9dfc01c022380064b27df668cb7ef0b2fd9660c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Shay Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:00:04 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] docs(epistemic): say COHERENT 'claims/premises', not 'facts' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit COHERENT is 'currently incident-free' and revisable (ADR-0021 non-hardening invariant), not a hardened fact. Calling promotion premises 'facts' leaks an implication that COHERENT = unrevisable truth. Replace: - paper §3.4: 'reviewed facts' -> 'reviewed claims'; 'facts already marked COHERENT' -> 'claims already marked COHERENT'. - issue: 'already-COHERENT facts' -> 'already-COHERENT premise set'; 'unreviewed facts' -> 'unreviewed claims'. Doctrine unchanged. 'determined facts' (idle-tick term) left intact. Green: epistemic invariants + phase3 + INV-21 (15 passed). --- docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md | 10 +++++----- docs/position_paper.md | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md b/docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md index 2b5c530a..25d25281 100644 --- a/docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md +++ b/docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md @@ -20,10 +20,10 @@ the same change that raised this issue: 1. **Doctrine precision (paper §3.4).** "Promotion requires a *curator-mediated* coherence judgment" over-states a *necessity*. The doctrine (ADR-0021 §3) only requires that promotion be a function of **coherence with the reviewed field**. - For the subclass of claims that are *deductively entailed* by already-`COHERENT` - facts, the entailment proof **is** that coherence judgment and can be - machine-certified by CORE's sound deductive engine — no human re-deciding - settled logic. + For the subclass of claims that are *deductively entailed* by an + already-`COHERENT` premise set, the entailment proof **is** that coherence + judgment and can be machine-certified by CORE's sound deductive engine — no + human re-deciding settled logic. 2. **Code honesty (`teaching/epistemic.py`).** The enum docstring claimed transitions are *"computed from coherence with the existing reviewed field."* They are not computed; `review_correction` carries the status as a @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ reading**, and the design must put the whole defensive burden there: `COHERENT` in the vault — verified by status, not assumed. A premise that is `SPECULATIVE`/`CONTESTED` must make the proof inadmissible for promotion. 3. **Premise selection / closure.** The premise set must be explicit and - bounded; the proof must not silently pull in unreviewed facts. + bounded; the proof must not silently pull in unreviewed claims. **Design consequence:** proof-carrying promotion does **not** remove human review — it *relocates* it. The human (or a separately-ratified structural diff --git a/docs/position_paper.md b/docs/position_paper.md index c70b193c..40dabb06 100644 --- a/docs/position_paper.md +++ b/docs/position_paper.md @@ -138,13 +138,13 @@ is retained for audit and revision, never as a promotion signal. That judgment is curator-mediated today, and for most corrections it must be. The fallible step is not the logic but the *reading* — translating a natural-language -claim into the field's propositional form, and selecting which reviewed facts it +claim into the field's propositional form, and selecting which reviewed claims it bears on. A sound inference over a misread premise is a sound proof of the wrong thing, so a human certifies the reading before a correction enters the reviewed structure. One subclass is different in principle. A claim that is *deductively entailed* by -facts already marked `COHERENT` is not new information and is not the system's own +claims already marked `COHERENT` is not new information and is not the system's own opinion — it makes explicit what the reviewed field already contains. For that subclass the entailment proof *is* the coherence judgment, and CORE's sound, independently-checked deductive engine (`deductive_logic_v1`, §4) can certify it