The word "expert" in the previous status name implied raw-capability parity
with frontier LLMs on the same benchmark — which the gate does NOT verify.
What the gate actually verifies is CORE *claim-shape compliance*:
* signed digest (replay-reproducible from on-disk lane results)
* replay determinism (same inputs → byte-equal trace_hash)
* typed refusal (fabrication refused, not paraphrased)
* exact recall (no ANN, no cosine, no attention bottleneck)
* grounding-source provenance
These are claim shapes a transformer LLM cannot structurally produce
regardless of raw accuracy. A frontier LLM might score higher on the
same benchmark but cannot pass this contract.
Rename scope (semantics only, per ADR-0113):
status string "expert-demo" → "audit-passed"
predicate key predicates.expert_demo → predicates.audit_passed
reason key expert_demo_reason → audit_passed_reason
YAML key expert_demo_claims → audit_passed_claims
CLI command core demo expert → core demo audit-passed
output dir evals/expert_demos/ → evals/audit_passed/
artifact filenames expert_demo.{json,html} → audit_passed.{json,html}
HTML title CORE Expert-Demo: X → CORE Audit-Passed: X
Internal Python identifiers (module/file/function/class names like
`expert_demo.py`, `evaluate_expert_demo`, `ExpertDemoClaim`,
`expert_demo_claim_for`) are deliberately kept to minimize churn. ADR
file titles (ADR-0106..0112) preserved as historical record.
`expert` namespace reserved for ADR-0114+: an actual capability tier
above `audit-passed` backed by a public benchmark with a stated
threshold. ADR-0114 proposes the first such target — GSM8K-math —
laying out a falsifiable 7-phase arc (parser → solver → verifier →
stepped-realizer → eval lane → first `expert` ledger tier promotion).
Tests: 184 directly-affected tests green (140 capability/expert-demo
suite + 34 demo/audit-tour + 10 correction-cue). Smoke suite 67/67.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ADR-0111 landed via PR #123 (merge commit 4b5e6b7). The structural docs
(README, ADR index, reviewers.yaml, CLAIMS.md) were updated in that PR.
The narrative docs that reference the worked-promotion arc by ordinal
("first promotion / one demonstrated domain") needed a follow-up sweep:
- docs/PROGRESS.md — ADR-0100 footnote, ADR-0111 row, ledger table,
Open-within-Phase-6 changed from "second" to "third" promotion
- docs/runtime_contracts.md — narrative line on contract demonstration
- docs/Whitepaper.md §XIII — chain range, demonstration paragraph,
"two domains demonstrated" line, full-chain pointer
- docs/capability_roadmap.md — Phase 6 worked-promotion narrative step 5
and exit-criteria checklist (5th item now ☑, 6th open as "third")
docs/Yellowpaper.md is unchanged: its expert-demo section is the formal
contract spec, domain-agnostic. docs/eval_methodology.md unchanged for
the same reason. docs/sessions/SESSION-2026-05-22-contract-layer-arc.md
is left as the historical snapshot of the original session.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
PROGRESS.md was last updated mid-Phase-5 (~ADR-0021). The pack-layer
chain (ADR-0027..0045), forward-graph+surface composer chain
(ADR-0046..0089), and evidence-governed domain layer (ADR-0091..0110)
were all absent.
capability_roadmap.md was last updated 2026-05-17 and predated the
expert-demo promotion contract entirely.
Added to both:
- Phase 6 — Evidence-Governed Domain Layer section covering ADR-0091
contract chain through ADR-0110 expert-demo arc, including the
refused-amended-succeeded narrative and the current ledger state
(math at expert-demo, four others at reasoning-capable).
- Backfill subsections for ADR-0027..0045 (pack-layer chain) and
ADR-0046..0089 (forward-graph + surface-composer + register +
anchor-lens + contemplation-loop work) marked retrospective.
capability_roadmap.md also gains a '2026-05-22' status update at the
top alongside the existing 2026-05-17 entry. The full Phase 0-5
exit-criteria rewrite remains queued separately.
No code, no tests, no claims changes.
- Add docs/teaching_order.md as durable reference for curriculum ordering.
Five-layer rule (identity axes -> atomic definitions -> binary relations ->
composed relations -> domain expansion), grounded in ratify.py G3,
MasteredCoursesIndex, and exact CGA distance. Linked from README.md.
- Mark formation_pipeline_plan.md as IMPLEMENTED (back half); enumerate the
open items not closed by Phases 1-7 (additional templates, first formation-
routed curriculum, G2 activation).
- Add 2026-05-17 status block to capability_roadmap.md covering the FSC chain,
epistemic schema closure, formation pipeline back half, FSC v3 proof matrix,
cost benchmark, and the pulse import fix.
Implement the eval infrastructure defined in ADR-0016 before building new
eval lanes. This establishes the discipline that governs the entire
capability roadmap.
- Generic eval framework (evals/framework.py): lane discovery, versioned
scoring, result persistence
- Cognition lane retrofitted into new convention: 45 cases split into
stratified dev (13) / public v1 (13) / holdout (19) sets with contract,
runner, and recorded results
- Generalized `core eval <lane>` CLI: dynamic lane discovery, --list,
--version, --split, --save, --json flags
- Holdout runner scaffold: plaintext fallback, encryption interface ready
- Baseline runner scaffold: pluggable frontier model interface
- Fix: CognitiveTurnPipeline.run() crashed on turn_log[-1] when the
unknown-domain gate returned a stub without appending to turn_log
- ADR-0016, eval_methodology.md, PROGRESS.md, capability gates session log
Phase 0 exit audit found two methodology issues:
1. Pipeline turn_log crash (fixed here)
2. Versor drift in multi-turn sessions (pre-existing, under investigation)
