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.
The first cross-clause comprehension reading: one actor's quantity changes over
successive clauses ("Sam has 14 apples. He buys 9 more." -> 14 + 9). It is the
safe specialisation of the cross-clause sum that GB-3a refuses wholesale (the
Alice/Tom hazard) — we chain only when (same referent) AND (a licensed change
cue of unambiguous polarity), else refuse.
generate/derivation/accumulate.py — compose_accumulation:
- anchor on clause 1's single quantity; apply +M (gain) / -M (loss) per later
change clause, operand taken in the anchor's unit (accumulation is same-dimension);
routed through the unchanged self-verification gate.
- polarity (ordered, so ambiguous "gives" is resolved not guessed): "more" -> gain;
else unambiguous loss verb -> loss; else gives/gave + to/away -> loss; else
unambiguous gain verb -> gain; else REFUSE.
- referent guard (the ADR-0174 multi-actor hazard's defensive fix, built minimally
in the clean lane — NOT the retired gender-blind resolver): a later clause's
subject token must be a pronoun or the anchor's name; a NEW named subject (Tom)
-> refuse. Pronoun gender/number is not matched; a new name is the only signal.
evals/.../accumulation_runner.py — practice scorer: on a base refusal, attempt
compose_accumulation and gold-check (mirrors search_runner). Sealed: fires only
on already-refused cases, never alters serving.
Measured (sealed practice additive lane): 0 -> 55 correct, wrong unchanged at 1
(the base scorer's pre-existing one; accumulation added 55 correct, 0 wrong). The
36 still-refused are multi-change (GB-3b.2) or unrecognised verbs (vocab growth) —
conservative, never wrong.
Proof obligations (tests fail under the violation): new-named-actor refuses (H1),
no/ambiguous change cue refuses, list anchor refuses, multi-change refuses,
determinism. 136 targeted tests + architectural invariants green; serving 3/47/0
byte-identical (lane-SHA 8/8, claims --check OK).
Shay