Phase 3.3 of the generalization arc. Estimation (ADR-0175), deduction
serving (ADR-0256) and curriculum serving (ADR-0262) had each written the
same seal -> ratify -> SHA-verify -> serve-gate machinery. core/ratified_ledger.py
now owns it and states the four rules once: only sealed practice writes;
tamper-evidence is structural (a load that cannot reproduce content_sha256
REFUSES); ceilings are not negotiable at the call site; absent evidence is
never a license.
Each capability keeps a thin adapter that names its artifact and preserves
its public API. One real difference is now declared rather than implied:
missing_ok distinguishes a ledger a capability SHIPS with (absence = broken
deployment, refuse) from one whose practice volume is still being built
(absence = nothing earned yet, serve disclosed) — curriculum serving is the
second kind today.
Safety property is byte-identity, asserted not assumed: re-sealing the
committed 25-band deduction ledger through the bridge reproduces it
byte-for-byte, so no artifact and no lane pin moves.
Effect: a new subject arena now needs a gold corpus and a band key, not a
re-implementation of ratification — which is what §3 meant by sequencing
the bridge ahead of the second subject.
[Verification]: tests/test_ratified_ledger_bridge.py 8 passed; core test
--suite deductive 252 passed; estimation/license test set 355 passed;
committed deduction ledger byte-identical after reseal.
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.
