Phase 3 of the ADR-0114 expert-capability roadmap. Re-applies every
step of a SolutionTrace from the input graph's initial state and
asserts byte-equal reproduction of answer_value. Pure function; same
(graph, trace) → byte-equal VerifierVerdict.
Why this is distinct from the solver
ADR-0116's solver enforces correctness at construction. ADR-0117's
verifier is a SECOND, INDEPENDENT implementation that re-derives
every value the trace claims. The verifier does NOT call solve(). It
re-implements the operation semantics from ADR-0116 directly inside
_verify_step. If the solver had a bug or was tampered with after the
fact, the verifier catches it.
Six checks per verdict (named, ordered, audit-logged):
1. graph_canonical_hash_matches
2. pack_id_matches
3. pack_lemmas_resolve
4. step_pack_lemma_ids_match_bindings
5. step_replay_matches_before_after
6. answer_value_reproduces
Seven named tamper classes all caught:
- mutated before_value / after_value / operand of any step
- mutated pack_lemma_id of any step
- mutated graph_canonical_hash
- mutated answer_value
- mutated pack_id
- mutated target_before / target_after of transfer step
ADR-0114a obligation update
#3 Replay-equal trace — now discharged at VERIFIER FIDELITY
(was solver-only under ADR-0116). A third party with only
(graph, trace, pack) can reproduce the answer byte-equal.
Five of ten obligations now load-bearing: #3, #4, #9, #10 plus
in-flight #2 (Codex's ADR-0118a OOD generator).
Tests: 62/62 verifier suite green; 67/67 smoke green; existing
solver + parser + schema suites unaffected.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Phase 2 of the ADR-0114 expert-capability roadmap. Consumes the
MathProblemGraph from Phase 1 and emits a SolutionTrace — ordered
operation applications ending at a numeric answer, byte-deterministic
across runs, with each step's operation bound to a pack-resolved
lemma identifier.
What landed
generate/math_solver.py
- solve(graph) -> SolutionTrace; pure function, no I/O, no globals
- SolutionStep dataclass with before/after values per step (for
verifier replay; ADR-0117 hardens)
- SolutionTrace with canonical_bytes() byte-deterministic JSON
- SolveError typed refusal: missing pack, division by zero,
unknown-references-nothing
language_packs/data/en_arithmetic_v1/
- 5 operator lemmas: add / subtract / multiply / divide / transfer
- role=operational_base (vocabulary-only; no domain claim)
- SHA-256-anchored lexicon + glosses; manifest carries
provenance=adr-0116:operator_seed:2026-05-22
tests/test_math_solver.py — 109 cases pinning five invariants:
1. Phase 2 exit criterion: ≥ 0.80 on parser-correct dev set
(current: 50/50 = 1.00)
2. Determinism: two solves produce byte-equal trace
3. Trace replay reproduces answer_value (verifier rehearsal)
4. Typed refusal on under-determined inputs
5. Every step.pack_lemma_id resolves to a real lexicon entry
in en_arithmetic_v1
ADR-0114a obligation discharge
Four of ten anti-overfitting obligations now have load-bearing
implementations in code:
#3 replay-equal trace — discharged (solver-layer)
#4 typed refusal — discharged (solver-layer)
#9 determinism — discharged (solver-layer)
#10 operation provenance via pack — DISCHARGED IN FULL
Removing the en_arithmetic_v1 pack now breaks every solve loudly.
The "operations bind to concepts, not hardcoded strings" claim is
architecturally true, not rhetorical.
Tests: 109/109 green on solver suite; 67/67 smoke suite green;
parser + schema suites still green from prior phases.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Documentation-only amendment to ADR-0114. Locks in the 10-point
falsifiable proof framework that any future `expert` ledger-tier
promotion (ADR-0120+) MUST require.
The obligations:
1. Sealed-holdout discipline
2. OOD surface variation ≥ 0.95 of public
3. Every correct answer ships with replay-equal trace
4. Refusal is first-class; misparse rate zero; zero `wrong` answers
5. Reasoning-isolation perturbation suite (invariance + predictable change)
6. Compositional-depth curve flat within documented ε
7. Frontier-baseline comparison on identical items, published
8. Adversarial generation; misparse rate zero
9. Determinism across release boundaries
10. Operation provenance via the pack (not hardcoded strings)
Each obligation is load-bearing and falsifiable: a domain that
cannot satisfy any one stays at `audit-passed`. ADR-0114a binds
ADR-0116..ADR-0120 to carry the obligations into implementation;
ADR-0120 finally invokes all ten as hard gates.
The audit-passed tier (ADR-0106/0109/0113) is unaffected. The two
tiers measure orthogonal properties: audit-passed verifies CORE
claim-shape compliance (transformer-unreachable invariants); expert
verifies capability with anti-overfitting proof.
No code change. Pure forward contract for the next phase of work.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Closes Phase 1.3 of the ADR-0114 expert-capability roadmap. Turns a
grade-school word problem into a typed MathProblemGraph deterministically
(no LLM, no sampling). Same input string always produces the same
graph; unsupported constructions raise ParseError rather than guessing.
What the parser handles
Initial possession: "<E> has <N> <unit>."
Add verbs: buys, gets, finds, receives, earns, adds
(+ "<N> more" / unit elision via state.last_unit)
Subtract verbs: eats, loses, sells, donates, uses, spends, drops, removes
Transfer verbs: gives, sends, hands, passes, mails (with target)
Multiply (scalar): "X doubles <obj>" / "X triples <obj>"
Divide (split): "X splits {them|his Y|N Y} evenly into M groups [and keeps one]"
Compound sentences: "X buys 5, then donates 3."
Sentence opener: "Then X eats 1." (inherits subject + unit)
Pronoun anaphora: he/she/it → last-introduced singular subject
Object pronoun: them/these/those → state.last_unit
Trailing PP: "finds 7 buttons on the floor" — discarded
Singular→plural: "Iris has 1 coin" → canonical unit "coins"
Questions:
"How many <unit> does <E> have [left|now|in total|altogether]?"
"How many <unit> do they have [in total|altogether|left|now]?"
What it explicitly rejects
- Conditional / time-modal ("If X had ...")
- Compound questions (two unknowns)
- Multiple "?" sentences
- Questions referencing entities never introduced
- Empty / whitespace-only input
Verification
- tests/test_math_parser.py: 20 cases (5 byte-equal parametrized
+ 5 determinism parametrized + 1 exit-criterion gate + 6 typed-
refusal + 2 purity + 1 type check)
- tests/test_math_problem_graph.py: 26 schema cases still green
- On the 5 seed cases: 5/5 = 100% byte-equal
- On Codex's PR #128 50-case dev set (locally tested):
49/50 = 98% byte-equal. Single failure (gpd-021) is a case-
quality issue, not a parser limit; feedback filed on #128 to
rewrite (mixed units + metaphor not in pattern registry).
- Phase 1.3 exit criterion (≥ 0.90): met.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
First Phase of ADR-0114's expert-capability roadmap. Decomposed into four
sub-phases so each lands as its own auditable step:
1.1 schema + 5 seed cases + invariants ← this commit
1.2 45 more dev-set cases ← delegated (Codex)
1.3 the parser itself ← exit: ≥0.90 on dev set
1.4 runtime binding ← if non-trivial
What landed
- generate/math_problem_graph.py — typed dataclasses (Quantity,
InitialPossession, Operation, Unknown, MathProblemGraph) + frozen
validation + canonical_bytes() byte-deterministic serialization +
graph_from_dict roundtrip.
- evals/gsm8k_parser_dev/cases.jsonl — 5 seed cases (gpd-001..005)
covering single-add, single-subtract, multi-step, two-entity
transfer, and multi-entity sum constructions. Every case carries a
ground_truth_graph and the documented patterns it exercises.
- evals/gsm8k_parser_dev/README.md — authoring contract: schema,
pattern registry, canonicalization rules, Phase 1.1 scope boundary,
hand-solving rubric, distribution target for the remaining 45
cases. This is the spec Phase 1.2 authors work against.
- tests/test_math_problem_graph.py — 26 cases pinning four invariants:
round-trip byte equality, canonical_bytes() determinism, schema
rejection of malformed graphs, and ground_truth_graph ↔
expected_answer agreement (a hand-solver inside the test module
falsifies mis-authored cases).
Why this is sticky
The Phase 1.1 schema is load-bearing for Phase 1.2 (the 45 authored
cases will be written against it) AND Phase 1.3 (the parser will be
graded byte-equal against ground-truth graphs in this schema). Changing
the schema after Phase 1.2 lands requires an amendment ADR + rewriting
authored cases. The schema choices here are intentionally conservative.
Tests: 26/26 new; 67/67 smoke green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
Closes the asymmetry between the `expert-demo` ledger status (audit
artifact only) and the actual `core demo` surface (runnable
walkthroughs producing HTML + JSON). Until this commit the word
"demo" in `expert-demo` was aspirational; now it corresponds to
something a reader can open.
What it does
- Reads the signed expert_demo_claims entry from docs/reviewers.yaml
- Loads latest on-disk result files for each attached lane × split
- Re-derives the evidence-bundle digest and asserts byte-for-byte
match against the signed claim_digest — this is the load-bearing
audit step, now exercised at two independent enforcement points
(ledger gate + showcase)
- Runs each lane's metrics through the ADR-0109 lane-shape registry
and surfaces the verdict
- Picks the first three cases from each split verbatim (deterministic
by file order) and renders them as HTML for inspection
- Emits expert_demo.json (canonical bytes, deterministic) + expert_demo.html
Surface
core demo expert --domain mathematics_logic
core demo expert --domain physics
# → evals/expert_demos/<domain>/latest/expert_demo.{json,html}
Read-only by construction: cannot mutate docs/reviewers.yaml or any
lane result file. Tested. Unpromoted domains raise ValueError —
no silent fallback, no "preview" mode that fakes a showcase.
Generated artifacts are gitignored — the inputs they derive from are
already committed, so duplicating the renders would just churn the
tree.
Tests: 16 new cases pinning all five ADR-0112 invariants. Smoke suite
still 67/67 green.
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>
Second worked promotion exercising the ADR-0106 + ADR-0109 contract
on a domain distinct from mathematics_logic. No contract change.
Evidence:
- foundational_physics_ood: accuracy=1.0 (117/117 public, 39/39 holdout)
- inference_closure: all_pass_rate=1.0 (shared with math, distinct digest via domain_id)
- fabrication_control: refused=n, fabricated=0 across all classes (shared)
Signed claim digest: a104cad136f3219df05dc7ce6a78437c02f7b5827cd3cdce568db3acda6a43ed
Bridge landed: cases_plaintext.jsonl dev-mode fallback for
foundational_physics_ood (matches ADR-0105 convention; analogous to the
math/inference bridges in ADR-0110). One small file, not a contract change.
Tests:
- tests/test_adr_0111_physics_expert_demo.py — 4 invariants, 6 cases
- tests/test_adr_0110_math_expert_demo.py — relaxed "only math promoted"
to "math stays promoted" (load-bearing for ADR-0110 is persistence)
- tests/test_capability_reports.py — physics row now expert-demo
Retires the "first promotion was math-specific" objection: the bridges
ADR-0110 landed were correctly scoped, and the contract holds across
two distinct domains using shared lane infrastructure with distinct
digests.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Closes the documentation audit. All four lower-priority surfaces from
the earlier scan now reflect the post-ADR-0110 reality.
New:
- docs/sessions/SESSION-2026-05-22-contract-layer-arc.md: full
narrative of the ADR-0103 -> ADR-0110 arc, including the
refused/amended/succeeded narrative, infrastructure bridges, and
ledger state at session close. Pairs with the 2026-05-21
articulation-arc session log.
Extended (additive, no rewrites):
- docs/runtime_contracts.md: new 'Expert-Demo Promotion Contract
(ADR-0106 + ADR-0109)' section. Surfaces ledger_report() shape,
reviewer-yaml schema, lane-shape registry, replay invariant,
fail-closed registry behavior, and trust boundary.
- docs/eval_methodology.md: new 'Lane-shape registry (ADR-0109)'
section. Documents what to do when adding a new eval lane:
pick a shape or amend ADR-0109. Notes the holdout-runner gating
(cases_plaintext.jsonl vs sealed). Header bumped to 2026-05-22.
- docs/Whitepaper.md: new section XIII 'Evidence-Governed Domain
Layer' between XII (Forward Semantic Control) and the
Extensions/closing. Narrates the contract chain at the
philosophical / external-reader level. The original §XIII
becomes §XIV.
- docs/Yellowpaper.md: new section XII 'Ratification Contract
(ADR-0091 + ADR-0106 + ADR-0109)'. Formal specification of the
nine predicates, the promotion predicate (with explicit logical
form), the digest function, and the lane-shape registry table.
The original §XII becomes §XIII.
No code, no tests, no contract changes.
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.
- README.md: fix broken evals/CLAIMS.md link to root CLAIMS.md;
add 'Evidence-Governed Domain Layer' section pointing to the
ADR-0091/0096/0106/0109 contract chain and current ledger state
(math at expert-demo, four other domains at reasoning-capable).
- docs/decisions/README.md: extend the 'fully accepted' slate from
0091..0105 to 0091..0110 with ADR-0106 through 0110 entries; extend
the 'Evidence-governed domain chain' chain-notes section to reflect
the expert-demo arc (refused-amended-succeeded narrative).
Between 2026-05-17 and 2026-05-22 the inference_closure lane regressed
from all_pass_rate=1.0 to 0.4 on public. Root cause: the
_DECLARATIVE_RELATION_RE branch in generate/intent.py runs ahead of the
_RULES loop and swallowed sentences beginning with 'Actually' into the
subject phrase, routing them to VERIFICATION. The lane's premise emit
path is gated on CORRECTION intent, so PackMutationProposal records
stopped being emitted for any non-'is' relation (precedes / grounds /
causes / reveals). Only the four transitive_is cases passed because
'is' is not in the declarative-relation verb list.
Fix: _CORRECTION_CUE_PREFIX_RE guard. When the text begins with a
correction cue ('Actually', 'Incorrect, ', 'No, ', 'Correction'), the
declarative-match branch is skipped and the sentence falls through to
the _RULES CORRECTION rule. Plain declarative-relation assertions still
route to VERIFICATION unchanged.
Lane on 2026-05-22 post-fix:
dev/v1: all_pass_rate=1.0, overall_pass=True (5 cases)
public/v1: all_pass_rate=1.0, overall_pass=True (20 cases)
- tests/test_correction_cue_prefix_routing.py pins both halves of the
guard (10 new tests).
- evals/inference_closure/gaps.md documents the regression + fix in a
new section, preserving the 2026-05-17 resolution narrative.
- evals/inference_closure/results/ now carries canonical v1_dev and
v1_public reports (the lane had no checked-in results before; ADR-0110
will reference these).
This unblocks the second of ADR-0107's two named blockers. ADR-0110
(math expert-demo re-attempt) now becomes feasible once the math
domain's three lanes have signed-and-digested evidence.
Replaces the cognition-shape-uniform threshold dispatch in
core/capability/expert_demo.py with an explicit LANE_SHAPE_REGISTRY
mapping 8 ratified lane ids to 5 shapes:
cognition -> cognition_shape
elementary_math_ood -> accuracy_shape
foundational_physics_ood -> accuracy_shape
symbolic_logic -> symbolic_logic_shape
hebrew_fluency -> accuracy_shape
koine_greek_fluency -> accuracy_shape
inference_closure -> inference_shape
fabrication_control -> refusal_shape
Each shape has a documented threshold checker. Unknown lane ids
fail-closed with a named reason. ADR-0106 \xc2\xa71.1/\xc2\xa71.3/\xc2\xa71.4/\xc2\xa71.5
unchanged; only \xc2\xa71.2 (threshold rules) dispatches by shape.
tests/test_lane_shape_thresholds.py pins all four ADR-0109 invariants
plus dead-shape and threshold-value gates (13 new tests).
tests/test_expert_demo_contract.py fixtures updated to provide
shape-appropriate metrics (no semantic change to those tests; same
12 cases still pin the ADR-0106 contract).
ADR-0109 status: Proposed -> Accepted. README sequencing updated
(ADR-0110 now only blocked by inference_closure, not by metric-shape
amendment).
Ledger: all five domains remain reasoning-capable, expert_demo=false.
Amends ADR-0106 \xc2\xa71.2 to dispatch threshold rules by lane shape rather
than imposing cognition-pack-shape metrics uniformly. ADR-0107
surfaced that every non-cognition lane was failing the gate by
absence-of-key, not by substance.
Status: Proposed. Ships five shapes covering every lane currently
attached to a ratified pack: cognition_shape, accuracy_shape,
inference_shape, refusal_shape, symbolic_logic_shape. Four invariants
pinned. Unknown lanes fail closed; new shapes require ADR amendment.
\xc2\xa71.1 (reasoning-capable prereq), \xc2\xa71.3 (signature scoping), \xc2\xa71.4
(domain-aware), \xc2\xa71.5 (replay byte-equality) all preserved. ADR-0106
status remains Accepted.
The ADR-0106 contract correctly refused promotion. ADR-0107 records the
deferral and reserves two follow-up ADRs:
- ADR-0109 (lane-shape-aware threshold amendment): ADR-0106 \xc2\xa71.2
prescribes cognition-pack-shape metrics uniformly, but math /
physics / systems / hebrew-greek lanes carry native shapes
(accuracy, passed_rate, all_pass_rate). Prerequisite for any future
expert-demo promotion.
- ADR-0110 (math re-attempt): conditional on ADR-0109 landing and
inference_closure substantively passing (currently all_pass_rate=0.4
on public).
tests/test_adr_0107_deferral.py pins adr_0107_no_silent_promotion: math
stays at reasoning-capable, has no expert_demo_claims entry, and the
ledger row carries a named refusal reason.
No change to core/capability/expert_demo.py or reporting.py -- the
contract is honored, not amended. README sequencing updated to reflect
ADR-0107 acceptance and the new ADR-0109/0110 prerequisites.
Closes ADR-0106 acceptance evidence:
- ExpertDemoClaim dataclass + additive expert_demo_claims block on
ReviewerRegistry (schema_version stays at 1; backward-compatible).
- New core/capability/expert_demo.py with derive_evidence_digest,
evaluate_expert_demo, collect_domain_lanes, materialise_lane_results.
- core/capability/reporting.py: replaces the cognition-lane-only
predicate (previous lines 418-433) with a domain-aware,
reviewer-signed gate; ledger rows now also carry
expert_demo_reason for operator legibility. Reviewer registry is
fail-closed: an unloadable registry yields zero claims, so a broken
registry never silently grants expert_demo=true.
- tests/test_expert_demo_contract.py covers all three ADR-0106
invariants: requires_signature, domain_aware, replay_byte_equality;
plus threshold + production-ledger-untouched gates. 12 new tests.
- tests/test_reviewer_registry.py extended with TestExpertDemoClaimsSchema
covering omitted block, valid parse, unknown signer rejection,
malformed digest rejection, duplicate domain rejection. 5 new tests.
- README index row + table preface updated to note expert_demo is
contract-gated. Frontier list trimmed (ADR-0106 has landed).
- ADR-0106 Status flipped Proposed -> Accepted.
No domain row's expert_demo field flips by this PR -- only the contract
changes. Promotion of any ratified domain requires a follow-up ADR
(ADR-0107 reserved for mathematics_logic) plus a signed claim.
- ADR-0108 Status: Proposed -> Accepted
- README index row updated to Accepted
- 'Current frontier' rewritten with the ranked Proposed-ADR list mandated
by ADR-0108 \xc2\xa7Decision; removes the now-false 'No ADR currently sits in
a "Proposed but unimplemented" state' sentence
- Open candidate directions (no-ADR-yet) section retained for the
multi-reviewer governance frontier item from ADR-0105
Makes the post-ADR-0105 sequencing of ADR-0080 / 0084 / 0087 / 0106
explicit, durable, and revisable. Status: Proposed. No content of the
four sequenced ADRs is modified — sequencing is meta, not content.
Defines a domain-aware, reviewer-signed expert_demo promotion gate to
replace the current cognition-lane-only predicate in
core/capability/reporting.py:418. Status: Proposed. This ADR does not
promote any domain — it defines the contract that a follow-up ADR (likely
mathematics_logic as ADR-0107) will consume as the first worked
promotion.
Sibling reconciliation PR to #104. The four ADRs explicitly called out as
the 'current implementation frontier' in PR #104 are already implemented
to the same evidence bar as the eight ADRs that PR accepted:
- ADR-0094: teaching/source.py + proposal schema widening + migration
script; tests/test_proposal_source.py green
- ADR-0095: teaching/from_miner.py + miner_loop_closure lane;
SHA-pinned in scripts/verify_lane_shas.py; tests/test_miner_proposals.py
green
- ADR-0098: core/demos/contract.py + adapter surface + demo_composition
lane; SHA-pinned; tests/test_demo_composition.py green
- ADR-0099: core/demos/showcase.py + public_demo lane;
SHA-pinned; tests/test_public_showcase.py green
Three of four lanes are SHA-pinned in CI (a stricter bar than several
already-accepted ADRs). Local pytest run: 85/85 passed across the four
tests/test_*.py files in 17s.
Also refreshes docs/decisions/README.md:
- flips the four table rows to Accepted (2026-05-22)
- rewrites the 'Current frontier' section now that no ADR-0091..0102
entry is unimplemented
- enumerates candidate next directions (curriculum proposals,
language-specific holdout splits, expert-demo ratification)
Docs-only change; no runtime code touched.
