docs(ADR-0168.1): choose math FrameClaim proposal adapter (#365)

docs/decisions/ADR-0168.1-math-frameclaim-proposal-adapter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
+# ADR-0168.1 — MathFrameClaimProposal Adapter
+
+**Status:** Proposed (design bridge; no runtime FrameClaim admission in this PR)
+**Date:** 2026-05-27
+**Author:** Shay
+**Parent:** [ADR-0168](./ADR-0168-frameclaim-ratification.md)
+**Related:** ADR-0057, ADR-0167, ADR-0163, ADR-0164, ADR-0166
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+ADR-0168 identified a required compatibility bridge before any FrameClaim
+implementation can land.
+
+ADR-0057 ordinary `TeachingChainProposal` eligibility requires a reviewed
+`source="corpus"` evidence pointer. That is correct for cognition teaching
+chains, where the claim is grounded in reviewed teaching-corpus material.
+
+Math-domain FrameClaims originate elsewhere:
+
+```text
+MathReaderRefusalEvidence / audit rows
+```
+
+Those rows are legitimate evidence of a teachable gap, but they are not
+cognition corpus evidence and must never be laundered into cognition corpus
+pointers.
+
+Therefore FrameClaim cannot simply reuse ordinary `TeachingChainProposal`
+as-is without either:
+
+1. weakening ADR-0057's reviewed-evidence floor, or
+2. falsely treating audit evidence as cognition corpus evidence.
+
+Both are forbidden.
+
+---
+
+## Decision
+
+Choose a math-specific proposal/ratification adapter:
+
+```text
+MathFrameClaimProposal
+```
+
+instead of creating a reviewed math corpus artifact first.
+
+This adapter preserves ADR-0057's discipline:
+
+- append-only proposal log
+- replay-equivalence/admissibility as precondition, not permission
+- explicit operator review before mutation
+- no deletion
+- no auto-accept
+- no active-pack mutation during replay
+
+but gives math-domain audit evidence its own honest evidence floor.
+
+---
+
+## Why not a reviewed math corpus first?
+
+A reviewed math corpus may eventually be useful, but it is premature for the
+first FrameClaim bridge.
+
+Creating it now would require deciding:
+
+- corpus schema
+- corpus lifecycle
+- corpus indexing semantics
+- corpus replay integration
+- whether frame evidence, slot evidence, and composition evidence share one
+  corpus or separate corpora
+- how accepted math evidence relates to pack manifests
+
+That is a larger substrate decision than FrameClaim needs.
+
+The adapter is narrower:
+
+```text
+one claim type
+one proposal surface
+one replay gate
+one operator acceptance boundary
+```
+
+It keeps the capability path moving without inventing a new corpus family
+before the need is proven.
+
+---
+
+## Data shape
+
+A future implementation should define a frozen, canonicalizable data shape
+similar to:
+
+```python
+@dataclass(frozen=True, slots=True)
+class MathFrameClaimProposal:
+    proposal_id: str
+    claim_signature: str
+    surface_form: str
+    frame_category: str
+    polarity: Literal["affirms", "falsifies"]
+    evidence: tuple[MathReaderRefusalEvidencePointer, ...]
+    replay_evidence: AdmissibilityReplayEvidence | None
+    review_state: Literal["pending", "accepted", "rejected", "withdrawn"]
+    operator_note: str
+    provenance: MathProposalProvenance | None
+```
+
+This is deliberately not a `TeachingChainProposal` because its evidence floor
+is not cognition corpus evidence.
+
+It is also deliberately not a runtime frame registry entry. It is a proposal.
+
+---
+
+## Evidence floor
+
+A `MathFrameClaimProposal` is eligible only if it has:
+
+1. at least one audit/refusal evidence pointer,
+2. a deterministic audit-row digest,
+3. a normalized claim signature,
+4. a known `missing_operator` subtype mapping to `FrameClaim`,
+5. an allowlisted `frame_category`,
+6. `boundary_clean=True`, and
+7. `polarity in {"affirms", "falsifies"}`.
+
+Audit evidence must include enough provenance to replay the claim:
+
+- case id
+- sentence index
+- token/span index when available
+- missing operator
+- refusal reason/detail
+- recognized terms digest
+- audit row canonical digest
+
+The evidence pointer source must be a math-specific value such as:
+
+```text
+source="math_audit"
+```
+
+It must not be `source="corpus"` unless and until a real reviewed math corpus
+exists.
+
+---
+
+## Replay gate
+
+The adapter uses the math-domain replay gate:
+
+```text
+run_admissibility_replay_gate
+```
+
+Replay remains a precondition, not permission.
+
+If replay regresses any protected metric, the proposal auto-transitions to
+`rejected` with an `auto_rollback_regression` note.
+
+If replay passes, the proposal remains `pending` until explicit operator
+review.
+
+---
+
+## Accepted proposal effect
+
+Accepting a `MathFrameClaimProposal` may only append or propose append to a
+reviewed frame mapping artifact.
+
+It must not directly mutate:
+
+- active runtime state
+- solver code
+- parser code
+- graph verifier code
+- arithmetic semantics
+- cognition corpus
+- cognition packs
+
+Acceptance should produce an append-only provenance record linking:
+
+```text
+proposal_id -> claim_signature -> target artifact row -> reviewer
+```
+
+---
+
+## Idempotency
+
+`proposal_id` must derive from canonical claim identity, not clock time.
+
+Recommended identity:
+
+```text
+sha256(domain | subtype | surface_form | frame_category | polarity | evidence_digest_set)
+```
+
+Equivalent evidence should deduplicate. Adding a second audit row for the same
+claim may either:
+
+1. append evidence to the existing proposal record, or
+2. create a new event referencing the existing proposal id.
+
+It must not create a second independent mutation opportunity for the same
+claim.
+
+---
+
+## Partition guarantees
+
+The adapter is math-domain only.
+
+It must not:
+
+- consume cognition corpus evidence,
+- emit cognition TeachingChainProposal records,
+- append to cognition chains,
+- read cognition semantic-domain classifiers,
+- use cognition replay gates.
+
+It may share infrastructure patterns from ADR-0057, but not evidence identity.
+
+---
+
+## Acceptance gates for implementation
+
+A future implementation PR must prove:
+
+- deterministic claim signature
+- deterministic proposal id
+- duplicate evidence deduplication
+- append-only proposal log behavior
+- replay-gate selection = math admissibility replay
+- replay pass leaves proposal pending, not accepted
+- replay regression auto-rejects
+- operator accept is required for mutation
+- accept writes only the reviewed math frame target artifact
+- active corpus and active pack bytes are unchanged during replay
+- audit evidence is never serialized as cognition corpus evidence
+- case 0050 remains safe
+- recognized-but-uninjectable remains refused unless fully admitted correctly
+
+---
+
+## Non-goals
+
+This ADR does not implement:
+
+- FrameClaim runtime admission
+- frame mapping artifact schema
+- workbench rendering
+- CompositionClaim
+- ReferenceClaim
+- SlotClaim
+- reviewed math corpus substrate
+- automatic acceptance
+
+This is only the bridge decision that makes future FrameClaim implementation
+compatible with ADR-0057.
+
+---
+
+## Decision summary
+
+> Use a dedicated `MathFrameClaimProposal` adapter for math-domain FrameClaim
+> evidence. Preserve ADR-0057's replay/review discipline, but do not impersonate
+> ADR-0057's cognition corpus evidence floor. Audit evidence stays audit
+> evidence; operator-reviewed accepted proposals may later append to a reviewed
+> math frame artifact under deterministic replay gates.