* feat(adr-0182): anchor-skip + intra-clause accumulation — distractor 0016 refuses, twin 0017 solves (confuser wrong 1->0)
The last confuser wrong. 0016 ("A train travels 60 miles per hour for 2 hours. Tom
has 8 tickets and buys 4 more tickets. How many tickets?") committed the blunt
product 60x2x8x4=3840 because it was the unique complete reading: the train sentence
is an all-foreign anchor-position block (2 quantities, can't seed an anchor) and the
Tom sentence packs state+change in ONE sentence ("has 8 ... and buys 4 more"), which
the sentence-level reader couldn't decompose -> accumulation_candidates was empty ->
no rival reading -> product committed.
The microscope confirmed intra-clause state+change is a REAL GSM8K pattern (train-0010
"Yun had 20 paperclips initially, but then lost 12"; practice-0121 "Sam has 30 apples
and gives 10 to Anna") -- so this is genuine comprehension, not a 0016-only patch.
Mechanism (added to accumulation_candidates ONLY -> feeds only the pool; train_sample
serving + practice use compose_accumulation, unchanged -> 3/47/0 byte-identical by
construction):
- _sub_clauses: sentence clauses further split on coordinating conjunctions
(and / then / and then). LOCAL to the ungated candidate generator -- the global
segmenter (GB-1/GB-2/serving) is untouched.
- _build_accumulation_anchor_skip: anchor = first single-quantity sub-clause (leading
non-anchorable all-foreign blocks are skipped); chain the conjunction-mate change
("buys 4 more" -> +4). Referent guard + polarity-cue requirement still gate it
(a no-cue sub-clause -> refuse), so GB-2 same-unit lists ("6 apples and 4 apples")
produce no spurious candidate.
Result (sealed lane):
- confuser wrong 1 -> 0. distractor-quantity 0 wrong / 2 refused: 0016 refuses
(product 3840 [complete] vs additive 12 [exempt] disagree). BONUS: the clean twin
0017 ("Tom has 8 tickets and buys 4 more tickets", no distractor) now *solves* 12
-- genuine comprehension of a real positive, the comprehension-vs-surface-match
discrimination the corpus exists to measure. genuine positives 7 -> 8 solved.
- the only non-clean verdict left is 1 spurious (0010 multi-referent "altogether" --
a separate H1 graduation question, not this lever).
- train_sample 3/47/0 and practice 3/47/0 byte-identical; 243 derivation/pool tests
+ 40 architectural invariants green.
Tests:
- test_adr_0182_pool.py TestAnchorSkipIntraClause: intra-clause twin resolves to 12;
the 0016 anchor-skip candidate classifies `exempt`; 0016 refuses via disagreement;
no spurious extra candidate without a conjunction.
- test_adr_0163_f2_confusers.py: baseline wrong 1->0, positives_solved 7->8; renamed
test_distractor_quantity_refuses asserts BOTH 0014 and 0016; new
test_intra_clause_twin_0017_solves.
Stacked on #480 (prior-state guard); merge #480 first. Confuser arc wrong 7->5->2->1->0.
* test(adr-0182): close anchor-skip refuse-branch coverage gap (lookback finding)
The four-PR lookback review (EX-6/pooling/prior-state/anchor-skip) found the
anchor-skip refuse branches in _build_accumulation_anchor_skip untested: the
referent guard (new named actor -> refuse) and the polarity-cue requirement were
asserted but not proven (no test would fail if removed). Per the schema-obligation
discipline, add NON-VACUOUS failing-under-violation tests:
- test_anchor_skip_referent_guard_discriminates_actor: identical structure, change
sub-clause subject is a pronoun ('he', same referent -> 12 IS produced) vs a new
name ('Sara' -> guard suppresses it). Removing _same_referent makes the new-actor
case also produce 12 -> the second assertion fails. (Non-vacuous: the positive
control proves the path is reachable, so the negative isn't trivially-empty.)
- test_anchor_skip_requires_a_polarity_cue: 'gets 4 more' (cue -> 12) vs 'owns 4'
(no cue -> not guessed). Removing the polarity gate makes the no-cue case produce
a reading -> fails.
- test_anchor_skip_refuses_without_single_quantity_anchor: no single-quantity
sub-clause -> () (does not force a multi-quantity clause to anchor).
No code change; behavior unchanged. Confuser wrong stays 0; 281 derivation tests +
40 invariants green.
The wrong=0-critical clause in pool.resolve_pooled (an exempt-only answer
never commits; a complete reading is required to resolve) had no test that
failed when it was removed: the _EXEMPT_ONLY fixture's pool also contained a
complete product (20*3*5=300), so refusal came from the disagreement rule,
not commit-ineligibility. Mutation-disabling the clause left all tests green.
Inject a single-exempt pool directly (the aggressive composers manufacture a
competing complete product for any natural text, so a corpus fixture cannot
isolate the branch). Removing the clause now commits 25 and fails loudly.
Rename the old fixture/test to state honestly that it refuses via disagreement.
The "before/left" reading-rule lever. The microscope showed only the question-time
reading is cleanly achievable: "for N money = spend" is cue-precision-blocked (the
`for` cue is overloaded across train_sample -- `for $2`, `for 14 days`, `for 10 reps`
-- so a spend rule risks regressing train-0021/0003 and is the overfitting trap),
and the disguised-polarity cases already refuse via pooling. "left" is already handled
by loss verbs.
What ships: a question-scope guard. A question asking for a state *before* a stated
change ("How much did Lisa have before lunch?", gold 50) asks for a temporal point
the forward composers do not compute -- they derive the final/net state (50-20=30).
Until a question-time reader exists that is a refusal, never a guess at the wrong
point. target.asks_prior_state detects before/initially/originally/at first/to begin
with/to start with/at the start in the QUESTION CLAUSE only (the last `?`-sentence),
so body narrative does not trip it -- verified safe against train-0003 ("sells before
school starts"), 0010 ("had 20 initially, then lost 12"), 0028. `used to` is excluded
(the purpose infinitive "beads used to make a bracelet" is a false positive).
resolve_pooled refuses when asks_prior_state holds.
Result (sealed lane; chat/ does not import these -> serving 3/47/0 frozen):
- confuser wrong 2 -> 1 (only 0016 distractor-anchor-skip remains). temporal-scope
category cleared (0 wrong / 2 refused). pair-tells 1 -> 0: 0020 ("before lunch")
refuses while its minimal-pair twin 0021 ("left", gold 30) still solves the net --
the discrimination the corpus is built to measure.
- genuine positives still 7 solved, 0 wrong.
- train_sample 3/47/0 and practice 3/47/0 byte-identical.
- 205 derivation/target/pool tests + 40 architectural invariants green.
Tests:
- test_adr_0182_pool.py TestPriorStateQuestionGuard: detector true/false edges
(before-in-question vs before-in-body vs `used to make` false positive vs the
`left` twin) + resolve_pooled refuses the before-question while the left-twin
resolves forward to 30.
- test_adr_0163_f2_confusers.py: baseline wrong 2->1, pair_tells 1->0; new
test_temporal_scope_does_not_misfire + test_before_left_minimal_pair_discriminated.
Stacked on #476 (pooling); merge #476 first. 0016 anchor-skip is the next lever.
Pairs with ADR-0163-F2 graduation amendment (#478).
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.
Shay