The curriculum composer committed on question SHAPE — any `Does …?` text —
and then, being fail-closed, always returned a surface. With the flag on,
"Does the build pass?" would have been taken away from the rest of dispatch
and answered "I haven't been taught the or pass"; "Does anyone know the
time?" likewise. Found by checking the flag's readiness before recommending
ratification; never live, since the flag is default-off.
The asymmetry is the lesson: the deduction composer may commit on shape
because a sentence-initial "therefore" IS a signal of intent — text shaped
that way is an argument. `Does …?` is one of the most common ways to open
any English question and signals nothing. A fail-closed composer is only as
safe as its commit gate is narrow.
The gate is now `is_curriculum_question`: claim the turn only when the
question parses to three tokens AND its terms are vocabulary a served
subject actually teaches. Everything past the gate stays fail-closed —
including `ambiguous_reading` (both terms taught, two subjects claim them)
and `out_of_curriculum` (terms taught, relation unknown), which are real
curriculum questions with honest answers. The DECIDER is unchanged, so the
lane still records untaught-vocabulary probes as declined: the curriculum
path declines them AND does not speak for them.
[Verification]: tests/test_curriculum_serve.py 28 passed (+8: five ordinary
`Does …?` questions pass through untouched, three routable ones still
answered); core test --suite deductive 268 passed; curriculum lane 32/32
wrong=0 with its pinned report SHA unchanged.
Phase 2 of the generalization arc, implementing the plan's §4
curriculum-entailment gold contract. "Does force cause acceleration?" is
answered from the ratified physics chain corpus and nothing else; "Does
gravity cause acceleration?" is declined because gravity is in no pack
CORE has been taught; "Does force cause motion?" is unsettled even though
the curriculum contains both links, because nothing ratified says
causation composes.
Path (flag-gated, default off): closed question grammar -> subject routing
by ratified vocabulary -> family-scoped premise compilation from reviewed,
pack-resident chains -> the SAME argument bands (ADR-0260/0261) -> the
ROBDD engine. Zero subject-specific decision code: physics differs from
philosophy only in which rows load.
Epistemology enforced mechanically, not by convention:
- gold is a function of (curriculum, question); cases pin chain ids and
the runner FAILS a case whose pinned chain is absent or unratified;
- untaught => UNKNOWN, never "no" (open-world; silence is not denial);
- an independent oracle (own loader, ratification predicate, family table,
agreement rules, verdict rule) re-derives every gold — it disagreed once,
on "entropy reveals energy" vs "entropy causes energy", and the ORACLE
was the side that was wrong;
- anti-recall probes are a lane GUARD: a split without >=3 true-but-untaught
probes refuses to run.
Findings recorded rather than worked around (ADR-0262 §5):
- every curriculum band is UNEARNED and every answer is hedged. A band needs
n>=657 with a real outcome mix; physics teaches 7 causal + 9 modal
relations, so at most 16 questions in the subject can ever be ENTAILED.
A balanced band needs ~219 taught relations per subject×family — a ~25x
gap that only ratified curriculum content closes. Phase 2's blocker is
curriculum volume, not machinery.
- REFUTED is unreachable from present corpora (every chain is positive).
- there is NO biology domain-chain corpus; the biology OOD lane measures
fluency, not truth. The four subjects with ratified chains and mounted
packs are physics, mathematics_logic, systems_software,
philosophy_theology — the composer serves all four.
[Verification]: curriculum lane 32/32 wrong=0 with 5 anti-recall probes and
all three contract guards passing; tests/test_curriculum_serve.py 20 passed;
core test --suite deductive 252 passed; lane pinned as curriculum_serve_v1.
