Per teaching_order.md §5 — pick one commercial domain and run the
full 1→4 progression inside it before opening a second. Kinship is
the doctrinally classic starter: tight DAG, well-bounded primitives,
and orthogonal to the cognition pack.
Lemmas (8): parent, child, sibling, family, ancestor, descendant,
spouse, offspring. Each carries ≥2 semantic_domains under a
deterministic taxonomy (kinship.*, lineage.*, biology.*, social.*).
Deliberate exclusions:
- `person` — lives in en_core_cognition_v1; orthogonality test
pins that boundary.
- Specializations (mother/father/son/daughter/grandparent/...) —
derived from v1 primitives; land in v2 after v1 produces
reviewed chains.
- Quantifiers (one/two/many) — separate domain
(en_core_quantification_v1); cross-domain triples come last.
- Verbs of relation (begets/marries/...) — separate composer
work; no relations_chains_v1.jsonl yet.
Engagement is opt-in:
- Pack is NOT in RuntimeConfig.input_packs defaults.
- Programmatic mount via RuntimeConfig(input_packs=(..., "en_core_relations_v1")).
- CLI: core chat --pack en_core_relations_v1 (existing surface).
- Default-not-mounted preserves the cognition lane unchanged
until cross-pack teaching-grounded composition exists.
- language_packs/data/en_core_relations_v1/lexicon.jsonl
— 8 entries, JSONL format matching en_core_cognition_v1.
- language_packs/data/en_core_relations_v1/manifest.json
— pack_id, language, role=operational_base, checksum
(SHA-256 of lexicon bytes per CLAUDE.md pack-discipline),
version 1.0.0, determinism_class D0, oov_policy tagged_fallback.
- tests/test_en_core_relations_v1_pack.py — 6 tests pin:
checksum-match load, lemma roster, per-lemma primary domain,
≥2 domains/lemma (composer headroom), zero collision with
cognition pack (kinship DAG stays orthogonal), pack-not-in-
default-input-packs (opt-in engagement contract).
- docs/curriculum/relations_pack_v1.md — full pack log:
rationale per included/excluded lemma, opt-in engagement path,
4-step ADR roadmap (cross-pack composition → first kinship
chains → pronoun v2 → cross-domain triples).
Mounted-manifold sanity check (en_core_cognition_v1 +
en_core_relations_v1): 93 lemmas combined, no collisions, both
packs' surfaces individually addressable.
Lanes (regression): smoke 67 / packs 6 / algebra 132 / relations-pack 6.
The non-negotiable field invariant (versor_condition < 1e-6) is
unaffected: this is pure pack data + a contract test.
Second curriculum unit through the production operator surfaces.
Pure saturation — no cognition-lane lift expected (the eval splits
test fixed 32 cases that don't overlap with this unit's subjects),
but the live-prompt grounding surface expands materially: seven
prompts that previously fell through to disclosure now route to
deterministic teaching-grounded surfaces.
Three coherent clusters:
A. Cognition-source
cause_thought_reveals_meaning
cause_question_reveals_understanding
cause_recall_reveals_memory
B. Conceptual structure (bidirectional)
cause_definition_grounds_concept
verification_concept_requires_definition
C. Semantic content
cause_meaning_grounds_understanding
cause_analogy_reveals_relation
All pack-consistent (subject + object in en_core_cognition_v1),
canonical predicates (reveals / grounds / requires), each opens a
previously-empty (subject, intent) cell.
Replay-equivalence gate reported replay_equivalent=True for all
seven proposals (public cognition lane byte-identical pre/post
every accept).
Cognition lane:
public : intent 100% / surface 100% / term 91.7% / versor 100% (unchanged)
holdout : intent 100% / surface 100% / term 83.3% / versor 100% (unchanged)
Saturation lift is visible at the live-prompt level, not at the
eval level:
Why does thought exist? → [teaching] thought reveals meaning (...)
Why does a question exist? → [teaching] question reveals understanding (...)
Why does definition exist? → [teaching] definition grounds concept (...)
Why does meaning exist? → [teaching] meaning grounds understanding (...)
Why does an analogy exist? → [teaching] analogy reveals relation (...)
Does a concept require definition? → [teaching] concept requires definition (...)
Why does recall exist? → [teaching] recall reveals memory (...)
Why saturation matters: the cognition pack has 78 lemmas; we've
now covered ~21 (subject, intent) cells of the hundreds available.
Without saturation, prompts outside the 32 fixed eval cases are
coin-flips between vault recall and disclosure. Saturation moves
marginal prompts to deterministic teaching-grounded surfaces — the
foundation the composed-surface ADR (next) will compose over.
- teaching/cognition_chains/cognition_chains_v1.jsonl — 15 → 22 lines
(7 appends). Active set: 14 → 21 chains.
- teaching/proposals/proposals.jsonl — 7 new (created → replay →
transition → accepted_corpus_append) event sequences appended.
- docs/curriculum/cognition_saturation_v2.md — full curriculum log:
cluster rationale, live-prompt lift, operator-wall-time profile,
saturation-state-of-the-pack.
Lanes (regression check):
core test --suite smoke 67 passed
core test --suite cognition 121 passed
core test --suite teaching 17 passed
The non-negotiable field invariant (versor_condition < 1e-6) is
unaffected: this is corpus growth only; no code path changed.
First end-to-end curriculum unit through the production
propose / review --accept / supersede operator surfaces against the
active teaching corpus. Replay-equivalence gate passed for every
proposal; public split byte-identical; holdout term_capture lifted
exactly as predicted.
- Supersede `verification_wisdom_grounds_judgment` →
`verification_wisdom_requires_knowledge`. Fixes the only corpus-
fixable holdout miss: `verification_wisdom_036`
("Is wisdom the same as knowledge?") now grounds with both
expected terms. Provenance carries
`:supersede(verification_wisdom_grounds_judgment)`.
- Propose + accept four new chains closing epistemology subgraph
cells:
cause_understanding_requires_knowledge
cause_judgment_requires_wisdom
verification_evidence_grounds_knowledge
cause_inference_requires_evidence
Each chain is pack-consistent, uses canonical predicates, and opens
a previously-empty (subject, intent) cell. Replay gate confirmed
no metric regression on the public split before each accept.
Lift (cognition eval):
public : intent 100% / surface 100% / term 91.7% / versor 100% (unchanged)
holdout : intent 100% / surface 94.7% / term 70.8%→75.0% / versor 100%
The remaining four holdout misses (correction_truth_040,
procedure_define_010, unknown_spirit_041, unknown_word_018) are
architectural — surface-composition gaps in the correction-
acknowledgment template, procedure-intent routing, and unknown-
intent surface — and out of scope for corpus surgery.
- teaching/cognition_chains/cognition_chains_v1.jsonl — 10 → 15 lines
(4 appends + 1 supersession marker; 1 retired chain still on disk
per the audit doctrine of append-only at the file level).
- teaching/proposals/proposals.jsonl — new append-only proposal log
with `created` / `replay` / `transition` / `accepted_corpus_append`
events for every accepted proposal.
- docs/curriculum/epistemology_v1.md — full curriculum log:
rationale per chain, prediction-vs-result on the holdout lift,
reproducibility commands, architectural-gap analysis.
Lanes (regression check):
core test --suite smoke 67 passed
core test --suite cognition 121 passed
core test --suite teaching 17 passed
tests/test_eval_holdout_split 10 passed
The first curriculum unit that *measurably moves a cognition-lane
metric* through the operator surfaces, with full provenance from
operator note back to corpus append.
Shay