First composition lift-target built end-to-end: cv-0005 (train_sample 0037)
now resolves in the sealed pool as goal - Σprogress = 10 - 3 - 4 = 3.
- generate/derivation/goal_residual.py: new R4 production. Reads a GOAL anchor
(goal-intent lexeme) + a residual question, subtracts each same-referent
progress quantity (progress reduces the residual regardless of world-polarity).
Gated by the unchanged self-verification gate.
- wrong=0 firewall (test_reads_goal_not_possession): on a gain goal the
goal-residual (20-5-6=9) DIVERGES from possession-accumulation (20+5+6=31);
the production gives 9 and is all-subtract -> it reads the goal, not the
possession. This is the coincidental-correctness trap cv-0005 alone hides
(10-3-4 == 10-(3+4)).
- pool.py: goal_residual added to pooled_candidates (sealed). Verified: fires on
exactly one train_sample case (0037, correct), zero new pool wrong-commits
(the 8 are pre-existing, gated off serving by product_bridge).
Does NOT move the serving metric: train_sample stays 6/44/0 byte-identical
(serving = candidate-graph; product_bridge promotes only pure products, never a
subtract chain). The serving promotion gate for goal-residual is the next,
separately-gated step (needs the sealed 1,319 verdict). Smoke 73, math 4,
derivation/pool/practice 196, corpus, completeness-guard all green.
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