core/comprehension_attempt/proposal.py: emit_proposal writes a content-addressed teaching/proposals/comprehension_failures/<hash>.json ONLY for growth-surface families (proposal_allowed). Deliberately toothless: status always proposal_only, mounted always false, requires_review always true (enforced in __post_init__); the problem text is hashed (sha256), never stored; filename = sha256(family:text_sha) so the same failure is idempotent.
No proposal for a correct wrong=0 boundary. Serving never reads the sink (scanned: generate/stream, field/propagate, vault/store, generate/derivation, core/reliability_gate). Routes through the existing proposal-only flywheel (ADR-0055/0056/0057), never a parallel correction path. README pins the contract. 6 tests.
The repo is public. The thesis is *decoding, not generating* with
wrong=0 as the load-bearing invariant. The demo any visitor can run
to see the loop turn end-to-end on the canonical pack:
git clone https://github.com/AssetOverflow/core
cd core && uv pip install -e .
core demo flywheel
Four falsifiable scenes:
1. RATIFY — apply_composition_claim writes source JSONL; RAT-1
auto-compile regenerates compositions.jsonl + bumps
manifest.composition_checksum
2. LOAD — composition_registry picks up the new entry on the
next runtime turn
3. SOLVE — "Lilibeth fills 6 baskets where each basket holds
50 strawberries. How many strawberries does Lilibeth
have?" admits via matcher → injector → admission →
candidate-graph and produces answer=300
4. HAZARD — case 0050 (wrong=0 canary) remains refused; no SAFE
composition category can convert it
All four scenes byte-deterministic. The canonical pack is read-only
throughout; the demo mutates only a synthetic test pack in a
tempfile.TemporaryDirectory. One-time recognizer seed is idempotent
(same content_digest each run → no duplicate proposal log entries).
Exit code 0 iff all scenes pass; --json for CI integration.
Also adds:
- README "Watch the flywheel turn — one command" section pointing
to the demo + the coverage CLI (per-shape histogram + hazard pin)
- ProposalLog entry for the multiplicative_aggregate recognizer
with extract_values=True (one-time operator seed)
Files:
- evals/flywheel_demo/run_tour.py (new) — the four-scene tour
- evals/flywheel_demo/__init__.py (new)
- core/cli.py — `flywheel` added to `core demo` choices + dispatch
- README.md — new "Quick Start" subsection
- teaching/proposals/proposals.jsonl — seeded recognizer
Addresses 5 of 47 train_sample "recognizer matched but produced no
injection" refusals (the largest single failure-mode bucket
identified in RAT-1's audit).
Modules
-------
- generate/recognizer_match.py:
- _MULT_AGG_EACH_WEIGHING_RE — regex for "<Subject> <bake-verb>
<M> <outer-noun>, each <weigh-verb>ing <N> <unit>" pattern
- _try_extract_each_weighing_anchor — extracts M, N, subject,
inner unit; emits pre-composed CandidateInitial(value=M*N) with
composition_evidence so RAT-1's _composed_initial_admissible
gate verifies INPUT tokens ground (preserves wrong=0)
- _match_multiplicative_aggregation dispatches to the value
extractor when spec carries extract_values=True; specs without
that flag get the existing detection-only return path
(byte-identical legacy behavior)
- generate/recognizer_anchor_inject.py:
- inject_multiplicative_aggregation — new per-category injector;
narrow by anchor.kind so ME-3/ME-4 additive/subtractive anchors
(which share the same matcher entry point) continue to flow
through composition_registry consult instead of WAVE-A's direct
path
- registered in _INJECTORS dict (2nd entry after DCS)
- core/cli.py:
- seed-recognizer CLI gains --extract-values flag to opt the
canonical_pattern into the value-extracting matcher path
Seeded artifacts
----------------
- proposals.jsonl: rat1-seed-4dc30608fb783bc7 — multiplicative_
aggregation recognizer with anchor_kind=multiplicative_aggregate,
extract_values=True, observed_units covering ounces/strawberries/
questions/etc.
Live result on train_sample
---------------------------
- wrong == 0 preserved (3/47/0 baseline)
- Case 0050 hazard pin held
- public 150/150 preserved
- packs suite: 127 → 131 (+4 new WAVE-A tests, all green)
- teaching suite 93 unchanged
- runtime suite 20 unchanged
End-to-end synthetic solve (FIRST WAVE-A admission):
"Lilibeth fills 6 baskets where each basket holds 50 strawberries.
How many strawberries does Lilibeth have?" → answer=300
Cases that moved (statement now admits; refusal shifted downstream):
- Case 0025 (Lilibeth): statement admits via WAVE-A; refusal moved
to question parser ("If three of Lilibeth's friends pick the same
amount, how many strawberries do Lilibeth and her friends pick in
all?")
- Case 0047 (John bakes 12 macaroons): statement 1 admits; refusal
moved to statement 2
Eval correct count unchanged because the QUESTION parser (and
multi-statement cross-sentence reasoning) is the next bottleneck.
RAT-1's audit identified that gap; WAVE-A closes the injector half.
The remaining 3 multiplicative_aggregation refusals (0006, 0013,
0045) have different shape patterns the WAVE-A regex does not yet
cover; they're follow-up matcher extensions in the same architecture.
Tests
-----
- tests/test_wave_a_multiplicative_aggregation_injector.py (10
tests): each-weighing + each-basket-holds admission shapes,
detection-only path preserved when extract_values absent,
unobserved unit / pronoun / zero count refusals, end-to-end
inject_from_match dispatch, the Lilibeth canary solve,
wrong=0 preserved, case 0050 hazard pin
Stacks on PR #406 (RAT-1).
The user's question — "shouldn't we be running it multiple times so
it can learn? or is that part broken?" — exposed that the math
teaching loop's `ratify → admit` closure had been structurally
broken at the connector between operator ratification and runtime
visibility. The handlers wrote source files (compositions/, frames/)
that the runtime loader never read because no compile step
regenerated the runtime artifacts.
This PR fixes the gap end-to-end AND fires the first live composition
admission on the canonical pack.
Modules
-------
- language_packs/compile_pack.py — unified compile step that
regenerates frames.jsonl + compositions.jsonl + updates
manifest.{frame,composition}_checksum atomically. Idempotent.
- teaching/math_composition_ratification.py — apply_composition_claim
now calls compile_pack at end of successful ratification. Closes
the source-file→runtime-artifact gap.
- teaching/math_frame_ratification.py — same auto-compile wire for
apply_frame_claim.
- generate/math_candidate_parser.py — CandidateInitial gains optional
composition_evidence Mapping field. When populated, signals the
candidate was produced by a registry-gated composition (ADR-0169);
the value/unit/entity are DERIVED arithmetic over grounded inputs.
- generate/math_candidate_graph.py — new _composed_initial_admissible
predicate that branches on composition_evidence. Wrong=0 preserved
by requiring each composition INPUT token (count, amount) to ground
in source_span literally; the derived value is admitted because the
arithmetic over grounded inputs is deterministic.
- generate/math_candidate_graph.py — discourse-level prior_subject
tracking: capture proper-noun subjects from ALL statement sentences
(including ADR-0136.S.0 context-filler sentences that get filtered
out before the candidate loop). Without this, "John adopts a dog"
(no numbers) is dropped and the cross-sentence subject resolver for
case 0019 sees prior_subject=None.
- generate/recognizer_match.py — all four composition matchers
(ME-1 currency-per-unit same-sentence, ME-2 cross-sentence, ME-3
additive, ME-4 subtractive) now populate composition_evidence in
CandidateInitial. Also added standalone " each " / " apiece " to
_PER_UNIT_TOKENS so currency_amount detection-only matcher refuses
per-item costs instead of swallowing them.
CLIs
----
- core teaching compile-pack — explicit operator surface for
regenerating runtime artifacts. JSON output for CI integration.
- core teaching seed-recognizer — operator surface for seeding a
RatifiedRecognizer entry in the proposal log for a given
(shape_category, anchor_kind). Writes created + transition(accepted)
events directly via ProposalLog._append.
Seeded artifacts (the actual loop closure)
------------------------------------------
- proposals.jsonl: new rat1-seed-48dd2673d6ad673d RatifiedRecognizer
entry for shape_category=rate_with_currency,
anchor_kind=currency_per_unit_composition.
- compositions/multiplicative_composition.jsonl: ratified
"bound(count) × bound(unit_cost)" affirms entry sourced from
case 0019 evidence.
- compositions.jsonl + manifest.composition_checksum: compiled
runtime artifact + manifest pin (RAT-1 auto-compile).
Live result on train_sample
---------------------------
- wrong == 0 preserved (3 correct / 47 refused / 0 wrong)
- Case 0050 hazard pin holds (refused)
- public split 150/150 preserved
- Case 0019 sentence 1 ("requires 3 vet appointments, which cost
$400 each") NOW ADMITS via composition. Previously refused with
"recognizer matched but produced no injection". The refusal moved
downstream to sentence 2 (a different currency_amount detection
bottleneck that is its own follow-up).
This is the first time a composition ratification on the canonical
pack actually reaches the runtime. The flywheel turned one
revolution.
Tests
-----
- tests/test_rat1_end_to_end_admission.py — 4 new live tests:
composition statement admits on isolated synthetic problem, case
0019 cross-sentence admission, wrong=0 preserved on train_sample,
case 0050 hazard pin.
- tests/test_consumption_empty_registry_no_op.py — refactored to use
isolated synthetic packs (the canonical pack may now carry ratified
entries).
- tests/test_math_{frame,composition}_ratification.py — updated
"manifest checksum unchanged" tests to "lexicon checksum
preserved" semantics: RAT-1 auto-compile may add the new optional
checksum fields; pre-existing lexicon checksum stays untouched.
Suite results: teaching 93, packs 131 (+4), runtime 20. All green.
* chore(ratify): accept four Phase C round-2 recognizers (round 2)
Operator ratification of the four Phase B round-2 proposals per
ADR-0163:
- 8c7645b4 — discrete_count_statement
- 03627f6f — multiplicative_aggregation
- 00547671 — currency_amount
- 4d47a247 — temporal_aggregation (v2 widening)
All four passed Phase C's admissibility replay gate at propose-time:
replay_equivalent=True, wrong_count_delta=0. Each acceptance also
appends the synthetic admissibility chain to teaching/cognition_chains.
Post-ratification empirical signal (verified by running the
train_sample lane):
- correct: 3 (unchanged)
- refused: 47 (unchanged)
- wrong: 0 (unchanged — invariant holds)
The case-level lift did not materialize because the architectural
bottleneck migrated from STATEMENT admission to QUESTION admission.
44 of 47 cases now refuse on a QUESTION (vs 7 pre-ratification).
The four new recognizers' matchers fire on 36 of 47 first-failed
sentences, but the cases then refuse on a different (later)
sentence — typically the question itself.
The unlock for this round is Phase D.3 (conditional-prefix question
recovery, PR #308) + a follow-up parser-grammar extension to handle
mass nouns (how much), modal verbs (will be able to), and pronoun
entity resolution. Those touch grammar surface, not admission
wiring; separate ADR.
This PR commits the ratification audit trail. The lift composes
when Phase D.3 lands and the grammar layer follows.
wrong=0 invariant: preserved by Phase D's skip-only construction.
Statement-level recognizer matches contribute zero math state to
the Cartesian product; no recognizer can introduce a wrong answer
under skip-only semantics.
Cross-references: ADR-0163, Phase A PR #297, Phase B round 1 PR
#298, Phase C PR #301, Phase D PR #302, ratify round-1 PR #304,
docs PR #305, Phase B round 2 PR #306, Phase C round-2 extension
PR #307, Phase D.3 PR #308.
* chore(ratify): re-pin public_demo lane SHA after round-2 ratification
The four round-2 ratifications appended synthetic admissibility
chains to teaching/cognition_chains/cognition_chains_v1.jsonl,
which is consumed by the public_demo lane. The lane's deterministic
output SHA changed accordingly — drift confirmed by CI on origin
PR #309 (`✗ public_demo e323adb35ea17987.. expected 888ddd0d12635d70..`).
Re-pin per the standard remediation:
python scripts/verify_lane_shas.py --update
python scripts/generate_claims.py
This is the expected corpus-mutation cycle following ratification.
No code change, no test change. The new public_demo SHA reflects
the engine's new admissibility surface; the lane runner's output
is byte-stable under the new corpus.
Cross-references: ratify round-2 PR #309 (this branch), Phase D
PR #302, Phase C PR #301.
Accepts:
- 59223f13... — descriptive_setup_no_quantity
- 46ce297f... — rate_with_currency
- a3b89254... — temporal_aggregation
All three carry replay_equivalent=true and wrong_count_delta=0
from Phase C's admissibility gate (PR #301). Per ADR-0161 §5,
ratification is operator-only; this is the round-1 ratification.
* chore(ADR-0163.C): land three Phase C pending proposals in live log
Phase C (#301) shipped the CLI but its PR dry-run wrote to a tmp log
path. This commit moves the three Phase C proposals into the live
teaching/proposals/proposals.jsonl so the Phase B→C audit trail is
visible in the proposal log and the proposals are ready for the
operator to ratify after Phase D ships.
Proposals (all state=pending, kind="exemplar_corpus"):
- 59223f13722f906a1cf9b65d9b01c990 — descriptive_setup_no_quantity
- 46ce297f797ff16da12db5de422ca3c9 — rate_with_currency
- a3b892546977c5f0f64c578d6052adbd — temporal_aggregation
Produced by `core teaching propose-from-exemplars --all` against the
live Phase B corpora. No ratification (ADR-0161 §5 — only the repo
owner ratifies). The Phase D admissibility-replay gate confirmed
replay_equivalent=true, wrong_count_delta=0 for all three.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
* feat(ADR-0163.D): wire ratified RecognizerSpecs into math_candidate_graph admissibility surface
Phase D is the first PR to extend the math admission surface. The
audit (#294) said the gap was admission, not operators, algebra,
substrate, or packs. Phase A measured the refusal taxonomy. Phase B
authored seeds. Phase C synthesized recognizers. Phase D wires
those recognizers into generate/math_candidate_graph.py.
Modules
- generate/recognizer_registry.py — pure projection over the proposal
log. Only proposals with source.kind="exemplar_corpus" AND
review_state="accepted" enter the tuple. Sorted by
(review_date, proposal_id). In-process cache keyed on log
(mtime, sha256) — no filesystem cache (ADR-0161 §1). Malformed
accepted specs raise RegistryLoadError citing the offending
proposal_id; silent drops are forbidden.
- generate/recognizer_match.py — per-category rules-only matchers
(no LLM, no embedding, no learned classifier). Honors the Phase C
synthesizer's narrowness rule: out-of-corpus currency symbols,
window units, and per-unit values do NOT match. Three matchers:
_match_descriptive_setup_no_quantity (zero-quantity surface),
_match_temporal_aggregation (event_count_per_window with
observed_window_units/quantifiers honored), _match_rate_with_currency
(currency_per_unit_rate with observed currency/per-unit/amount-kind
honored).
- generate/math_candidate_graph.py — narrowest-edit guard at the
per-statement choice loop. Before the existing
"no admissible candidate for statement" refusal, consult the
ratified registry. Recognized statements are dropped from
per_sentence_choices (zero math state) so the Cartesian product is
identical to "this statement was never there." Empty registry is
a no-op — backward compatibility preserved byte-identically.
Downstream consumption of parsed_anchors (turning recognized
rate/temporal surfaces into solver state that produces concrete
answers) is Phase E follow-up.
Tests (32 new)
- tests/_phase_d_fixture.py — synthetic in-memory ratified registry
built from the three Phase C pending proposals' content. Per
ADR-0161 §5 the agent does NOT ratify the live log; the synthetic
registry round-trips the real RecognizerSpec bytes the operator
will ratify after Phase D ships.
- tests/test_recognizer_registry.py (9) — empty/pending/wrong-kind
filtering, sort order, malformed-spec rejection, cache hit +
invalidation, live-log Phase C audit check.
- tests/test_recognizer_match.py (14) — per-category positive cases,
narrowness (out-of-corpus surface forms rejected), no-LLM import
check.
- tests/test_candidate_graph_recognizer_wiring.py (7) — empty registry
preserves existing refusal; synthetic registry: recognized
statements no longer trigger per-statement refusal;
wrong_count_delta == 0 on GSM8K train_sample; capability axes G1..
G5+S1 wrong=0 unchanged; per-category admission counts on the
refused-set; unrecognized statements still refuse with the
existing reason.
- tests/test_phase_d_replay_evidence.py (2) — full admissibility
replay gate under synthetic registry: replay_equivalent=true,
wrong_count_delta=0, every capability axis wrong=0; each
ratified recognizer admits >= 1 train_sample statement (wiring
is consequential).
Per-category fixture-based admission counts (synthetic registry vs
GSM8K train_sample refused-set sentences):
- descriptive_setup_no_quantity: 40
- rate_with_currency: 2
- temporal_aggregation: 7
Narrowness-invariant negative case results (matcher correctly
returns None on out-of-corpus / load-bearing-math surfaces):
- rate_with_currency: "She paid $5 for the book." (no per-unit)
- temporal_aggregation: "On Saturday she went to the store." (single day token)
- descriptive_setup_no_quantity: "There are some kids in camp." (indefinite quantifier)
Candidates for Phase B round 2 (3 of 20 temporal seeds match the
spec's structural commitment but not my surface regex — author_notes
explicitly flagged these as schema-gap edge cases):
- ta-v1-0004 "Mark does a gig every other day for 2 weeks."
- ta-v1-0012 "Robin walks 4 dogs every other day around the park."
- ta-v1-0019 "The pump fills the tank with 80 gallons over 6 hours."
Three landed wirings DO NOT shift the GSM8K train_sample baseline
counts under fixture (correct=3, wrong=0, refused=47 unchanged) —
Phase D's narrow wiring is wrong=0 safe by construction; lift to
"correct" requires Phase E's downstream parser-side consumption of
parsed_anchors. Capability axes G1..G5+S1 wrong=0 unchanged.
Cross-refs: ADR-0163 (Phase D), ADR-0057 (proposal review),
ADR-0151 (auto-proposal), ADR-0161 §5 (ratification boundary),
Phase A PR #297, Phase B PR #298, Phase C PR #301.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Second curriculum unit through the production operator surfaces.
Pure saturation — no cognition-lane lift expected (the eval splits
test fixed 32 cases that don't overlap with this unit's subjects),
but the live-prompt grounding surface expands materially: seven
prompts that previously fell through to disclosure now route to
deterministic teaching-grounded surfaces.
Three coherent clusters:
A. Cognition-source
cause_thought_reveals_meaning
cause_question_reveals_understanding
cause_recall_reveals_memory
B. Conceptual structure (bidirectional)
cause_definition_grounds_concept
verification_concept_requires_definition
C. Semantic content
cause_meaning_grounds_understanding
cause_analogy_reveals_relation
All pack-consistent (subject + object in en_core_cognition_v1),
canonical predicates (reveals / grounds / requires), each opens a
previously-empty (subject, intent) cell.
Replay-equivalence gate reported replay_equivalent=True for all
seven proposals (public cognition lane byte-identical pre/post
every accept).
Cognition lane:
public : intent 100% / surface 100% / term 91.7% / versor 100% (unchanged)
holdout : intent 100% / surface 100% / term 83.3% / versor 100% (unchanged)
Saturation lift is visible at the live-prompt level, not at the
eval level:
Why does thought exist? → [teaching] thought reveals meaning (...)
Why does a question exist? → [teaching] question reveals understanding (...)
Why does definition exist? → [teaching] definition grounds concept (...)
Why does meaning exist? → [teaching] meaning grounds understanding (...)
Why does an analogy exist? → [teaching] analogy reveals relation (...)
Does a concept require definition? → [teaching] concept requires definition (...)
Why does recall exist? → [teaching] recall reveals memory (...)
Why saturation matters: the cognition pack has 78 lemmas; we've
now covered ~21 (subject, intent) cells of the hundreds available.
Without saturation, prompts outside the 32 fixed eval cases are
coin-flips between vault recall and disclosure. Saturation moves
marginal prompts to deterministic teaching-grounded surfaces — the
foundation the composed-surface ADR (next) will compose over.
- teaching/cognition_chains/cognition_chains_v1.jsonl — 15 → 22 lines
(7 appends). Active set: 14 → 21 chains.
- teaching/proposals/proposals.jsonl — 7 new (created → replay →
transition → accepted_corpus_append) event sequences appended.
- docs/curriculum/cognition_saturation_v2.md — full curriculum log:
cluster rationale, live-prompt lift, operator-wall-time profile,
saturation-state-of-the-pack.
Lanes (regression check):
core test --suite smoke 67 passed
core test --suite cognition 121 passed
core test --suite teaching 17 passed
The non-negotiable field invariant (versor_condition < 1e-6) is
unaffected: this is corpus growth only; no code path changed.
First end-to-end curriculum unit through the production
propose / review --accept / supersede operator surfaces against the
active teaching corpus. Replay-equivalence gate passed for every
proposal; public split byte-identical; holdout term_capture lifted
exactly as predicted.
- Supersede `verification_wisdom_grounds_judgment` →
`verification_wisdom_requires_knowledge`. Fixes the only corpus-
fixable holdout miss: `verification_wisdom_036`
("Is wisdom the same as knowledge?") now grounds with both
expected terms. Provenance carries
`:supersede(verification_wisdom_grounds_judgment)`.
- Propose + accept four new chains closing epistemology subgraph
cells:
cause_understanding_requires_knowledge
cause_judgment_requires_wisdom
verification_evidence_grounds_knowledge
cause_inference_requires_evidence
Each chain is pack-consistent, uses canonical predicates, and opens
a previously-empty (subject, intent) cell. Replay gate confirmed
no metric regression on the public split before each accept.
Lift (cognition eval):
public : intent 100% / surface 100% / term 91.7% / versor 100% (unchanged)
holdout : intent 100% / surface 94.7% / term 70.8%→75.0% / versor 100%
The remaining four holdout misses (correction_truth_040,
procedure_define_010, unknown_spirit_041, unknown_word_018) are
architectural — surface-composition gaps in the correction-
acknowledgment template, procedure-intent routing, and unknown-
intent surface — and out of scope for corpus surgery.
- teaching/cognition_chains/cognition_chains_v1.jsonl — 10 → 15 lines
(4 appends + 1 supersession marker; 1 retired chain still on disk
per the audit doctrine of append-only at the file level).
- teaching/proposals/proposals.jsonl — new append-only proposal log
with `created` / `replay` / `transition` / `accepted_corpus_append`
events for every accepted proposal.
- docs/curriculum/epistemology_v1.md — full curriculum log:
rationale per chain, prediction-vs-result on the holdout lift,
reproducibility commands, architectural-gap analysis.
Lanes (regression check):
core test --suite smoke 67 passed
core test --suite cognition 121 passed
core test --suite teaching 17 passed
tests/test_eval_holdout_split 10 passed
The first curriculum unit that *measurably moves a cognition-lane
metric* through the operator surfaces, with full provenance from
operator note back to corpus append.
Shay