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.
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).
GB-2 first increment (ADR-0178). compose_sequential() adds the structure the blunt
MS-3 shapes couldn't reach: a same-unit quantity LIST sums (additive cue), and any
stated comparative scales the sum (sum-then-scale, 0024-family). Op-per-step from
text structure (list => add; comparative => scale); operands are text quantities
(grounded) + comparative steps (cue-grounded) on the flat left-fold — no derived-
intermediate model needed (running value is the intermediate).
Deliberately narrow: same-unit lists only. A stated comparative is ALWAYS applied
(no bare-vs-scaled self-disagreement). A product base over the same list is added
WITHOUT a comparative tail purely as a disagreement-safety candidate -> a same-unit
list that also carries a mult cue (ambiguous) REFUSES. Product-of-all/cross-unit
products stay MS-3's job (avoids the product x comparative blowups a blunt all-bases
composer produced: 0024 -> 4.3M).
Clean-case capability proven: 8 tests (list-sum, sum-then-double/triple, mixed-units
refuse, ambiguous-disagreement refuse, determinism). Honest practice result: 3/2/45
— NO new flips (extraction wall: real cases like 0024 extract non-uniform units
'36 on' so they aren't seen as same-unit lists), 2 sealed eliminations (0037/0039:
list-sum was the wrong structure -> learning signal). Coverage gated by extraction
richness + cue precision, as predicted.
Sealed; serving untouched. Full derivation surface 53/53; ruff clean; smoke 67.
Continuation: richer relational ops (per/each->multiply, more/older->add), branch/
DAG (0033), and the extraction richness (uniform-unit extraction) that unblocks this
on real cases.
GB-1 — first slice of the comprehension-guided composer (ADR-0178). Reads the
problem one clause at a time and derives each clause's LOCAL contribution; GB-2
combines them across clauses.
generate/derivation/clauses.py:
- segment_clauses(text): sentence-level orthographic split (ADR-0165; not grammar).
- clause_local_results(text) -> tuple[ClauseResult]: per clause, 0 quantities =
context (hold), 1 = leaf (its value), >=2 = bounded local search (reuses MS-3
search_chain). Refuse-preferring: ambiguous multi-quantity clause -> unresolved
hold, not guessed.
Locality is the guidance that bounds the search + steers grouping. 9 GB-1 tests
(segmentation, leaf/context/local-product, ambiguous-holds, determinism,
per-clause structure of a multi-sentence problem). Full derivation surface 86/86;
ruff clean; smoke 67. Sealed; not wired into serving (ClauseResults ready for
GB-2 sequential combination).
MS-3 composes MS-1 (Target) + MS-2 (comparative chains + completeness) + the gate.
generate/derivation/multistep.py: search_chain(problem_text, target=None).
Shape-based, NOT blind enumeration: enumerates a small principled candidate set
(product-of-all if a multiplicative cue is present; sum-of-all if an aggregation
hint is present; each optionally + comparative scalars), each using all
quantities, routed through select_self_verified (grounding ∧ cue ∧ unit ∧
completeness ∧ uniqueness). Bounded (MAX_QUANTITIES, refuse-on-overflow) +
deterministic. Target supplies the aggregation cue + question quantities; target-
UNIT matching is deferred (answer_unit=start.unit is wrong for cross-unit products
-> a unit gate would over-refuse; documented).
Honest practice measurement (sealed lane): 4 correct / 9 wrong / 37 refused
(baseline 3/0/47). +1 flip is the unambiguous whole-problem product (0021); the 9
wrongs are product-of-all eliminations on multi-step problems (caught by gold,
the learning signal). Whole-problem shapes add no coverage beyond the unambiguous
product WITHOUT cue precision: when product and sum both self-verify they disagree
-> uniqueness refuses (safe-but-low-coverage by design). The lever remains cue
precision (the ADR-0175 learning loop).
Microscope finding: 0003-class flips (48*24*0.75=864=gold) are blocked by a
DECIMAL/currency grounding gap -- '$0.75' tokenizes to 0/75 so '0.75' is not
grounded by the shared round-trip primitive. Not a search bug; deferred
extraction-richness work (won't casually change the serving round-trip primitive).
A test documents the current refusal so the fix is detectable.
wrong=0: serving untouched (sealed); ambiguity + no-licensed-cue refuse; routes
through the proven gate. 8 MS-3 tests; full derivation surface 77/77; ruff clean;
smoke 67.
MS-2 of multi-step composition. Extends the derivation model so a chain mixes
text-quantity operands and COMPARATIVE-scalar operands (twice->x2, 'N times'->xN,
half->x0.5), self-verifying the whole chain with completeness over body+question
and question-target matching.
- model.py: Step gains comparative flag.
- comparatives.py: ComparativeScalar gains number_token (the '<N> times' number,
so completeness counts the consumed body quantity); comparative_step(cs) bridges
a scalar into a Step (operand grounded by cue, not a text value token).
- verify.py: self_verifies exempts comparative operands from value-grounding
(clause 1) — they are cue-grounded (clause 2); completeness (Counter) counts a
digit comparative's number_token as consuming the body quantity. Adds target_units
to select_self_verified: a chain whose answer_unit isn't the asked unit is dropped
(question-target match; empty target_units imposes no constraint).
Proves the multi-step shapes from the gold structures: 0024 (text sum then 'three
times' scale -> 438), 0033 father-chain (digit-comparative '7 times' + fixed 'half'
+ text add -> 47). Full 0033 DAG (quantity reuse + the question's 25) deferred.
25 MS-2 tests; full derivation surface 69/69 (3a/3b/comparatives/ms1/ms2); ruff
clean; smoke 67. Not wired into serving (model ready for MS-3 target-guided search).
MS-1 of multi-step composition. Turns the question into a Target = what the
problem asks for, the search's pruning signal + stopping criterion (MS-3).
Lexeme-level only (ADR-0165): the existing question parser returns nothing on
these GSM8K questions, and 0165 forbids new question-shape grammar regex. Three
robust signals:
- quantities: numbers stated IN the question (0033's 'when she is 25') via the
body's lexeme extractor — they participate in the derivation.
- aggregation: presence of an aggregation lexeme (total/altogether/combined/sum/
'in all'/'in total') — soft hint the final step is a sum.
- units: asked units resolved by INTERSECTION with the body's known units
(precise lexeme match, e.g. 'jumping'). Superordinates (weight<->pounds) are
NOT faked — deferred to a curated superordinate-units pack; until then the unit
signal is precise-but-incomplete and the search leans on completeness.
Refuse-preferring: empty target field is not an error, just a weaker prune.
generate/derivation/target.py: Target + extract_target(question, known_units=()).
12 MS-1 tests (question-quantity, aggregation, body-unit intersection,
superordinate-not-faked, determinism, frozen). Verified: derivation suite 57/57;
ruff clean; smoke 67. Not wired into serving (Target ready for MS-2/MS-3).
The curated, irreducible world-fact primitives multi-step composition needs
(ADR-0175 section 10: the engine can't derive 'twice = 2' from arithmetic). The
microscope flagged these via the 0015/0025/0024/0033 wrongs.
language_packs/data/en_core_comparatives_v1/: 9 closed-set multiplicative
comparatives (twice/double/triple/quadruple/half/quarter + inflections) -> scalar
ops. manifest.json with sha256 of the bytes on disk (CLAUDE.md pack rule).
Refusal-preferring: non-terminating/ambiguous comparatives (a third, several)
deliberately excluded; expansion via HITL corridor.
generate/derivation/comparatives.py: extract_comparative_scalars() ->
ComparativeScalar(op, scalar, span, cue). Fixed lexemes + the '<number> times'
pattern (digit or word-number via WORD_NUMBERS). Lexeme-level (ADR-0165);
deterministic (text-order); supplies only the SCALAR primitive — referent
binding is the multi-step search's job (ADR-0176).
14 tests incl. refusal-preferring discipline + pack integrity (manifest checksum
matches bytes on disk). Verified: derivation suite 45/45; ruff clean; smoke 67;
packs 141. Not wired into serving (data + extractor ready for ADR-0176 MS phases).
ADR-0175 Phase 3b — the first live attempt generator. Runs only in the sealed
practice lane, only on cases the engine refused; every proposal is gated by the
Phase 3a self-verification gate.
generate/derivation/:
- extract.py: extract_quantities() — lexeme-level (number + unit word; ADR-0165).
- search.py: search_multiplicative() — one in-clause product candidate per
sentence with >=2 quantities + a present multiplicative cue; gated by
select_self_verified. Per-sentence scope + multi-candidate disagreement give
the uniqueness gate real teeth (two qualifying sentences -> refuse). The cue
set {each,every,for,per,times} is an explicit PROVISIONAL hypothesis the
practice loop refines, not a claimed-correct grammar.
evals/gsm8k_math/practice/v1/search_runner.py: search_augmented_scorer +
build_search_report — base scorer, then a practice-only attempt on refusals.
MEASUREMENT (the deliverable, per the breadth-of-impact test):
practice with search: correct=4 wrong=9 refused=37 (baseline 3/0/47)
- Flips +1 (0021, the clean in-clause aggregate) and its renumbered/reworded
variants (ADR-0114a perturbation guard) -> a real capability, not memorisation.
- 9 wrong attempts -> elimination records (§9), the learning signal. The naive
full-product cue model over-attempts; the eliminations are exactly the signal
that refines it.
HONEST FINDING: self-verification (grounding ∧ cue ∧ unit ∧ uniqueness) is
NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT — 9/13 self-verified attempts were wrong vs gold.
The gap is cue PRECISION / which-quantities-compose (the knowledge axis), not
'can we multiply' (skill). This is why the search runs sealed: gold catches the
9, and case 0050 (canary) attempted-and-failed IN PRACTICE without touching
serving -> validates the seal.
Invariants: #1 seal (serving still 3/47/0; 0050 refuses in serving; no
generate/chat import of the lane), #3 determinism. Serving wrong=0 untouched.
Verified: 3a+3b 31/31; ruff clean; serving lane 4/4; smoke 67/67.
ADR-0175 Phase 3 splits wrong=0-first: build the gate (3a) and PROVE invariant #2
before the bounded search (3b) that could exploit gaps.
generate/derivation/:
- model.py: Quantity / Step / GroundedDerivation. A derivation is a left-fold over
text-sourced quantities; each Step carries its licensing cue (the lexeme the
search claims licenses the op).
- verify.py: self_verifies() — grounded operands ∧ grounded operation cues ∧ unit
consistency ∧ no divide-by-zero. Grounding REUSES the canonical primitives from
math_roundtrip (_tokens/_token_in/_value_grounds) so the gate cannot drift from
the round-trip contract. select_self_verified() adds the uniqueness rule:
unique self-verifying answer resolves; zero or disagreeing refuse (wrong=0).
INVARIANT #2 proven (TestInvariant2_NoSpuriousSelfVerification): the gate refuses
to self-verify a derivation that is not grounded+unit-consistent+unique even when
its value coincides with gold — the 20/5==4 class:
- invented operand not in text -> refused
- operation cue not in text -> refused (division not licensed by any present cue)
- value coincidence (20/5=4) with ungrounded op -> still refused
- add across units (pounds + reps) -> refused
- divide-by-zero -> refused
Plus uniqueness: disagreeing grounded derivations -> refuse; agreeing -> resolve.
Phase 3a is inert (nothing wires generate.derivation into serving). 3b is the
bounded search that produces derivations for this gate + measures the flip-curve
in the practice lane under perturbation.
Verified: 16/16; ruff clean; smoke 67/67; no serving import.
