Implements ADR-0182's first win on top of EX-6 (#473). The distractor-quantity
confuser 0014 misfired (20x3x5=300) because a blunt product-of-all was the *unique*
self-verifying reading: the completeness clause forces the distractor into it, and
no rival reading existed to trigger the wrong=0 disagreement rule. No tight cue rule
separates it from the legitimate cross-unit products (`for` licenses both the 0014
distractor AND the correct train-0021 product) -- that is the deferred cue-precision
problem. So instead of a reactive patch, let the disagreement rule do the refusing.
Mechanism (sealed lane; chat/ does not import these -> serving 3/47/0 frozen):
- verify.classify_derivation: a derivation is `complete` (commit-eligible),
`exempt` (verified but for an isolated-foreign unused quantity -> commit-
INELIGIBLE), or None. Refactored self_verifies into _base_reasons +
_unused_quantities so the two share logic and cannot drift (behavior identical;
385 derivation tests + smoke 67 green).
- accumulate.accumulation_candidates: exposes the ungated readings, incl. a
distractor-skip reading that drops an isolated-foreign quantity from a multi-
quantity change clause (20+5=25). compose_accumulation is byte-identical
(drop_isolated_foreign=False + the same gate).
- search.multiplicative_candidates / multistep.candidate_chains: ungated candidates.
- pool.resolve_pooled: pools every composer's readings; disagreement -> refuse; a
single answer commits only if a `complete` candidate produced it (exempt-only ->
refuse, so the commit-path completeness guarantee from ADR-0175 is untouched).
- confuser runner: _engine_answer now delegates to resolve_pooled (the prior
first-composer-wins order could not notice it held two incompatible readings).
Result (the microscope):
- confuser wrong 5 -> 2. distractor 0014 refuses (product 300 vs additive 25);
BONUS: both disguised-polarity cases (0001/0003) refuse -- the spurious
"buys X for N coins" product disagrees with the accumulation reading. Remaining
wrong: 0016 (distractor in the anchor clause -> needs anchor-skip, separate step)
and 0020 (temporal-scope). pair-tells 4 -> 1.
- genuine positives still 7 solved, 0 wrong.
- train_sample 3/47/0 and practice 3/47/0 byte-identical (they call
compose_accumulation/search directly -- unchanged -- not the pool).
- smoke 67, architectural invariants 40, lane-SHA freeze 8/8.
Tests:
- test_adr_0182_pool.py: classify (complete/exempt/None incl. narrow-exemption
edges) + resolve_pooled, with the wrong=0 obligation test_exempt_only_never_commits
(a distractor with no multiplicative cue must refuse, not commit 25 -- fails loudly
if the exemption is made commit-eligible).
- test_adr_0163_f2_confusers.py: baseline tightened wrong 5->2, pair_tells 4->1;
new test_distractor_0014_refuses_via_pooling + test_disguised_polarity_does_not_misfire.
Stacked on #473 (EX-6); merge #473 first. 0016 + the remaining wrongs are follow-ups.
ADR-0175 Phase 3b — the first live attempt generator. Runs only in the sealed
practice lane, only on cases the engine refused; every proposal is gated by the
Phase 3a self-verification gate.
generate/derivation/:
- extract.py: extract_quantities() — lexeme-level (number + unit word; ADR-0165).
- search.py: search_multiplicative() — one in-clause product candidate per
sentence with >=2 quantities + a present multiplicative cue; gated by
select_self_verified. Per-sentence scope + multi-candidate disagreement give
the uniqueness gate real teeth (two qualifying sentences -> refuse). The cue
set {each,every,for,per,times} is an explicit PROVISIONAL hypothesis the
practice loop refines, not a claimed-correct grammar.
evals/gsm8k_math/practice/v1/search_runner.py: search_augmented_scorer +
build_search_report — base scorer, then a practice-only attempt on refusals.
MEASUREMENT (the deliverable, per the breadth-of-impact test):
practice with search: correct=4 wrong=9 refused=37 (baseline 3/0/47)
- Flips +1 (0021, the clean in-clause aggregate) and its renumbered/reworded
variants (ADR-0114a perturbation guard) -> a real capability, not memorisation.
- 9 wrong attempts -> elimination records (§9), the learning signal. The naive
full-product cue model over-attempts; the eliminations are exactly the signal
that refines it.
HONEST FINDING: self-verification (grounding ∧ cue ∧ unit ∧ uniqueness) is
NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT — 9/13 self-verified attempts were wrong vs gold.
The gap is cue PRECISION / which-quantities-compose (the knowledge axis), not
'can we multiply' (skill). This is why the search runs sealed: gold catches the
9, and case 0050 (canary) attempted-and-failed IN PRACTICE without touching
serving -> validates the seal.
Invariants: #1 seal (serving still 3/47/0; 0050 refuses in serving; no
generate/chat import of the lane), #3 determinism. Serving wrong=0 untouched.
Verified: 3a+3b 31/31; ruff clean; serving lane 4/4; smoke 67/67.
Shay