The original "Why does light exist?" complaint that motivated ADR-0084
was specifically about CAUSE-intent surfaces. ADR-0084 (substrate) +
PR #65 (content) already moved DEFINITION/RECALL to gloss-grounded
surfaces ("Light is visible medium that reveal truth."). But CAUSE
still dispatched through the chain-walk path:
Before: light — teaching-grounded (cognition_chains_v1):
cognition.illumination; logos.core.
light reveals truth (cognition.truth).
No session evidence yet.
After: Light exists as visible medium that reveal truth.
pack-grounded (en_core_cognition_v1).
The chain-walk is structurally correct but the wrong SHAPE for a why-
question — it's a graph traversal, not an explanation. ADR-0085 fixes
the shape using the same gloss material that DEFINITION/RECALL already
consume, with no new content authoring.
Additive composer
chat/pack_grounding.py:gloss_aware_cause_surface()
- Resolves gloss via lexicon-residency-checked resolve_gloss().
- Frames POS-aware:
NOUN -> "{Lemma} exists as {gloss}."
VERB -> "To {lemma} is to {gloss}."
ADJ -> "To be {lemma} is to {gloss}."
* -> falls back to _frame_gloss (predicate-identity).
- Threads anchor lens via the existing helper (ADR-0073c parity).
- Returns None when no gloss exists — runtime falls through to the
existing chain-walk path. Additive: no CAUSE case loses its surface.
Runtime dispatch
chat/runtime.py — IntentTag.CAUSE tries gloss path FIRST under the
flag; falls through to teaching_grounded_surface* on None.
Unconditional fallback — never silent.
Opt-in flag
core/config.py — RuntimeConfig.gloss_aware_cause: bool = False
Default off preserves pre-ADR-0085 chain-walk surfaces byte-
identically (null-drop invariant, CI-pinned).
Prompt-diversity classifier update
evals/prompt_diversity/runner.py — _CAUSE_MARKERS widened with the
explanation-frame markers ("exists as", "is to", "to be", "is for",
"purpose of") plus bare-form predicates ("reveal" alongside
"reveals"). Neither composer path is penalised on shape_fit just on
inflection grounds.
v1/public lift (flag OFF vs ON, 26 cases)
intent_accuracy : 65.4% -> 65.4% ( — )
versor_closure_rate : 100.0% -> 100.0% ( — )
response_shape_fit : 57.7% -> 57.7% ( — , both frames recognized)
audit_in_surface_rate : 42.3% -> 42.3% ( — , envelope ADR's job)
gloss_quote_rate : 11.5% -> 23.1% (+11.5pp, structural lift)
Tests (15)
- 5 pure composer (NOUN/VERB frame, unknown/empty None, no chain-
walk artifacts in surface)
- 5 runtime dispatch (flag-off chain-walk, flag-on gloss, parametrized
across glossed subjects, VERIFICATION unchanged under flag, no-
gloss fallback engages)
- 5 cognition lane invariance (aggregate metrics byte-identical
under both flag states; surfaces deliberately shift on the 2 CAUSE
cases with glossed subjects — the structural-change-vs-metric-
invariance both-sides invariant)
Lanes
smoke 67/0, cognition 120/0/1 skipped, packs 6/0, teaching 17/0,
runtime 19/0. core eval cognition byte-identical 100/91.7/100/100
under both flag states.
Scope limits (per ADR §Scope limits)
- CAUSE only; VERIFICATION still chain-walks (different shape).
- English pilot only; Greek/Hebrew packs not opted into definitional
layer yet (ADR-0084 scope limit).
- Single-lemma subjects; compound/anaphoric fall through.
- Opt-in until cognition holdout confirms the lift transfers off-
fixture. Future PR flips default on.
Out of scope
- Surface-vs-envelope cleanup ("pack-grounded (...)" still leaks).
- Predicate licensing (ADR-0086).
- Content style pass (bare lemma forms in glosses — separate brief).
Shay