docs(epistemic): complete phase 1 state separation
This commit is contained in:
Shay
parent
48eb68d5d7
commit
ee381f8e7e
1 changed files with 117 additions and 15 deletions
|
|
@ -183,23 +183,125 @@ This state already effectively exists in the GSM8K runner as `decoded_unarticula
|
|||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1 — Separate Semantic vs Operational States
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1 completes the first pressure-test required before an ADR can safely define a final epistemic vocabulary.
|
||||
|
||||
The central decision is that a state must not be classified by its surface spelling alone. It must be classified by what kind of fact it reports.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis Definitions
|
||||
|
||||
| Axis | Reports | Does not report | Canonical question |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Proposition epistemic axis | The semantic status of a proposition, candidate, graph, trace, or answer. | Which subsystem route was used, why a route fell through, or whether a runtime policy boundary was hit. | What is known about this proposition? |
|
||||
| Operational/meta epistemic axis | The engine's deterministic attempt to reach, select, bound, route, or surface a proposition. | Whether the proposition itself is true, grounded, contradicted, or replay-equal. | What happened while trying to know or surface it? |
|
||||
| Artifact/replay axis | Whether a graph, trace, answer, or report is byte-stable and replay-equal. | Whether the proposition was easy to parse or whether all possible routes were explored. | Can this result be reproduced exactly? |
|
||||
| Articulation axis | Whether a decoded proposition can be rendered on the user-facing surface. | Whether the decoded answer is semantically correct. | Can the known proposition be spoken faithfully? |
|
||||
|
||||
### Boundary Rule
|
||||
|
||||
A state is **proposition-level** only when changing the state would change what CORE claims about the proposition itself.
|
||||
|
||||
A state is **operational/meta-level** when changing the state would change the route, refusal reason, boundedness, or surface behavior without necessarily changing the proposition's truth status.
|
||||
|
||||
A state is **artifact/replay-level** when it reports byte equality, canonical identity, deterministic replay, or stable trace/report reproduction.
|
||||
|
||||
A state is **articulation-level** when the proposition is already semantically available but the rendering/surface path succeeds or fails.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1 Classification Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
| State | Proposition-level? | Operational/meta? | Artifact/replay? | Articulation? | Clean starter state? | Classification | Notes |
|
||||
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|---|
|
||||
| `PERCEIVED` | yes | no | no | no | yes | Proposition | Span/token has been observed but not yet committed to meaning. |
|
||||
| `EVIDENCED` | yes | no | no | no | yes | Proposition | Source-grounded features or candidates exist. |
|
||||
| `DERIVED_EVIDENCED` | yes | partly | no | no | no | Proposition + derivation qualifier | Inputs are evidenced, while output value/structure is deterministic derivation. Should not collapse to plain `EVIDENCED` without recording derivation. |
|
||||
| `PREFERRED_EVIDENCED` | yes | yes | no | no | no | Proposition + selection qualifier | Candidate remains evidenced, but a deterministic preference policy selected it over alternatives. Selection must remain visible. |
|
||||
| `VERIFIED` | yes | no | partly | no | yes | Proposition | Cross-checked against pack/oracle/solver/verifier semantics. May involve artifacts, but core meaning is proposition-level verification. |
|
||||
| `DECODED` | yes | no | yes | no | yes | Proposition + replay | Verified proposition with replay equality / canonical identity. Strongest semantic state in the current math spine. |
|
||||
| `DECODED_UNARTICULATED` | yes | no | yes | yes | no | Proposition + articulation failure | The answer remains decoded; the surface failed. This is not `UNDETERMINED` and not `CONTRADICTED`. |
|
||||
| `UNVERIFIED-POSSIBLE` | yes | no | no | no | yes | Proposition | Consistent but not directly verified. Useful for candidate futures but not strongly used in the audited classic path. |
|
||||
| `UNVERIFIED-NOVEL` | yes | no | no | no | yes | Proposition | Non-contradicting and structurally unseen. Likely important for future recognition/teaching paths. |
|
||||
| `CONTRADICTED` | yes | no | sometimes | no | yes | Proposition | Conflicts with typed semantic rules, graph integrity, or replay checks. |
|
||||
| `AMBIGUOUS` | yes | no | no | no | yes | Proposition | Input supports multiple incompatible admissible propositions. |
|
||||
| `UNDETERMINED` | yes | no | no | no | yes | Proposition | Feature lift, graph construction, solving, or answer resolution cannot complete. |
|
||||
| `ROUTE_FALLTHROUGH` | no | yes | no | no | no | Operational/meta | One path refused or failed and another path may continue. This is not a claim about proposition truth. |
|
||||
| `AUTHORITY_ADMITTED` | partly | yes | no | no | no | Operational/meta + admission qualifier | A route admits authoritatively enough to prevent fallback reinterpretation. The admitted proposition still needs its proposition state. |
|
||||
| `BOUNDED_REFUSAL` | no | yes | no | no | no | Operational/meta | Refusal caused by deterministic computation/search boundary, not semantic contradiction. |
|
||||
| `REFUSED` | no | yes | no | no | no | Operational surface bucket | Runner-level bucket that can hide `UNDETERMINED`, `AMBIGUOUS`, `BOUNDED_REFUSAL`, or `CONTRADICTED`. Must not become a proposition state by itself. |
|
||||
| `WRONG` | partly | yes | sometimes | no | no | Eval surface bucket | Usually external-oracle contradiction, but not a primitive epistemic state. It is an eval classification over a trace/result. |
|
||||
| `CORRECT` | partly | yes | sometimes | no | no | Eval surface bucket | Usually decoded + oracle match, but should not replace the lower-level state. |
|
||||
|
||||
### Non-Conflation Rules
|
||||
|
||||
The ADR should preserve these distinctions:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `REFUSED` is not a proposition state.
|
||||
- It is a surface outcome bucket.
|
||||
- It must carry a cause such as `UNDETERMINED`, `AMBIGUOUS`, `BOUNDED_REFUSAL`, or `CONTRADICTED`.
|
||||
|
||||
2. `WRONG` is not a primitive proposition state.
|
||||
- It is an eval outcome.
|
||||
- Internally it usually means `CONTRADICTED` against verifier replay or external oracle expectation.
|
||||
|
||||
3. `CORRECT` is not a primitive proposition state.
|
||||
- It is an eval outcome.
|
||||
- Internally it usually means `DECODED` plus expected-answer agreement.
|
||||
|
||||
4. `DECODED_UNARTICULATED` must not downgrade the proposition to `UNDETERMINED`.
|
||||
- The proposition was decoded.
|
||||
- The articulation path failed.
|
||||
|
||||
5. `BOUNDED_REFUSAL` must not become `AMBIGUOUS`.
|
||||
- Branch cap refusal says exploration exceeded policy bounds.
|
||||
- It does not assert that multiple incompatible propositions were found.
|
||||
|
||||
6. `ROUTE_FALLTHROUGH` must not become `UNDETERMINED`.
|
||||
- A route may fail while another route succeeds.
|
||||
- The failed route is not final knowledge about the proposition.
|
||||
|
||||
7. `DERIVED_EVIDENCED` must not be treated as unsupported novelty.
|
||||
- The derived value may be absent from the literal span.
|
||||
- The derivation can still be grounded in evidenced operands.
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommended Phase 1 ADR Shape
|
||||
|
||||
A future ADR should avoid a single unqualified enum as the internal model.
|
||||
|
||||
The minimum safe internal shape is a pair:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
(proposition_state, operational_state?)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
A stronger shape is a typed event record:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
EpistemicEvent {
|
||||
proposition_state?: PropositionEpistemicState,
|
||||
operational_state?: OperationalEpistemicState,
|
||||
artifact_state?: ArtifactReplayState,
|
||||
articulation_state?: ArticulationState,
|
||||
evidence_ref: ...,
|
||||
transition_reason: ...,
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The reporting surface may still collapse this to human-readable labels, but the trace should preserve the axes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1 Completion Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1 is complete when the project agrees that:
|
||||
|
||||
- proposition states and operational/meta states are separate axes,
|
||||
- runner buckets like `correct`, `wrong`, and `refused` are not primitive epistemic states,
|
||||
- decoded-but-unarticulated is an articulation failure over a decoded proposition,
|
||||
- bounded refusal is operational policy, not semantic ambiguity,
|
||||
- future transition audits must record both proposition state and operational/meta state when both are present.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phased Plan
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1 — Separate Semantic vs Operational States
|
||||
|
||||
Define which states belong to proposition semantics and which belong to orchestration/runtime policy.
|
||||
|
||||
Goal: prevent category collapse.
|
||||
|
||||
Deliverable:
|
||||
|
||||
| State | Proposition-level? | Operational/meta? | Notes |
|
||||
|---|---:|---:|---|
|
||||
| `DECODED` | yes | no | Replay-equal verified proposition. |
|
||||
| `BOUNDED_REFUSAL` | no | yes | Deterministic computation policy boundary. |
|
||||
| `AMBIGUOUS` | yes | no | Multiple incompatible admissible propositions. |
|
||||
| `ROUTE_FALLTHROUGH` | no | yes | Route-level delegation/fallback. |
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2 — Define Transition Invariants
|
||||
|
||||
Extract deterministic transitions:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue