Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the ADR-0164 reader are correctly implemented but
contribute zero eval admissions today. The bottleneck is lexicon coverage
(unknown verbs/nouns) and explicit Phase 2.1 scope gates (fractions), not
the all-or-nothing dispatch policy.
Produces COMPREHENSION-READER-AUDIT.md answering the five Brief C questions:
call trace, cognition-lane usage (none), bottleneck analysis, ADR promise
audit, and three falsifiable options (operationalize/relabel/retire).
Recommendation: relabel (status update) now; lexicon expansion next as the
highest-leverage first step toward actual eval lift.
Also updates ADR-0164 status from "Proposed" to "Partially implemented" with
a Current Status table and next-lift-path summary.
After RAT-1's architecture audit exposed five systematically
underbuilt components, A (the 4 missing injectors) is being taken by
this agent. The other four are parallel-safe and each gets its own
dispatch brief:
B (Opus) — contemplation produces ratifiable claims (medium)
C (Sonnet) — comprehension reader audit + decision (small→medium)
D (Sonnet) — core teaching coverage CLI (small)
E (Codex) — lexical ratification auto-compile (tiny)
Each brief carries: operator profile, branch name, base, dispatch
line, reads required FIRST, outcome inventory, hard requirements,
tests, truth test. Anti-regression invariants enumerated. All
parallel-safe — no shared file conflicts.
The dispatch DAG names ALL FIVE pieces with A in-flight as a peer.
Final PR of the matcher-extension wave. Ships:
1. tests/test_me5_all_categories_integration.py — 4 new tests:
- test_all_three_canaries_admit_through_full_pipeline: stages a
pack with all three SAFE_COMPOSITION_CATEGORIES entries +
ratifies, runs Maria/Sam/Tom canaries through matcher →
inject_from_match, asserts admission for all three
- test_partial_pack_only_admits_present_categories: refusal-
preferring when only one category is ratified
- test_all_safe_categories_have_extension_admission: pins that
SAFE_COMPOSITION_CATEGORIES is exactly the three covered
categories (breaks if future ADR widens without matcher)
- test_falsifies_uniformly_suppresses_across_categories:
polarity discipline holds across all three matchers
2. docs/handoff/ME1-ME5-MILESTONE.md — wave milestone doc:
- architecture diagram (audit → ratify → compile → load →
match → consult → admit)
- SAFE_COMPOSITION_CATEGORIES coverage matrix
- invariants preserved across the entire stack
- scope boundary (what does NOT fire yet — RAT-1 follow-up)
- recommended next dispatch
3. Test registration in core/cli.py packs suite.
Across the full ME-1..ME-5 stack:
- 5 stacked PRs (#400/#401/#402/#403/#404)
- 1 foundation PR (#398 — consumption wiring)
- 114 new tests, all green
- packs suite 127 passed
- core eval gsm8k_math --split public → 150/150, wrong=0
- All three SAFE_COMPOSITION_CATEGORIES have matcher extensions
Anti-regression invariants preserved across the entire stack:
- wrong == 0 on public split
- Case 0050 hazard pin (parametrized over all three categories)
- ADR-0166 — no new eval lanes
- ADR-0167 partition — no cognition imports
- ADR-0169 mutation boundary — registry is a gate, not arithmetic
- All matcher detection paths byte-identical
- engine_state/* never committed
- SAFE_COMPOSITION_CATEGORIES enforced at write AND load
- polarity falsifies honored uniformly
Live train_sample admission requires operator-seeded ratifications
(RAT-1 follow-up). Wiring is end-to-end correct, verified by ME-5
integration tests.
Memory: milestone-me1-me5-matcher-extensions-complete saved.
Stacks on PR #403 (base: feat/matcher-extension-subtractive).
Two pre-public-release refreshes:
1. docs/position_paper.md §4 — refresh refusal taxonomy
The previous table listed an older taxonomy (fraction_operand /
compound_comparative / etc.) that does not match the current
candidate-graph eval output. Replaced with the actual taxonomy
emitted by the train_sample runner — refusals are categorized by
shape (recognized_but_uninjectable + per-ShapeCategory) which ties
directly to the architecture's recognizer/injector concepts.
Also refreshed §5 "Honest Gaps" to describe the active frontier in
terms of injector coverage (the registry-driven composition path)
rather than parser-level grammar extensions. The 47/50 refusal
count, 3/50 correct count, and wrong=0 invariant are unchanged.
2. COMMERCIAL_LICENSE.md — enumerate subsystems explicitly
The previous "vault memory / versor engine / epistemic teaching
loop / ingest / admissibility gate / holonomy encoder" listing
predated the math-domain composition wave. Expanded the list to
cover the full current architecture:
- versor engine + Cl(4,1) algebra
- vault + exact CGA recall
- ingest gate
- admissibility gate + Forward Semantic Control
- holonomy encoder
- epistemic teaching loop (ADR-0055..0057)
- contemplation loop + decomposer (ADR-0080, ADR-0172)
- math-domain ratification handlers (ADR-0167..0169)
- composition-pattern registry + registry-driven injector
- audit-as-teaching-evidence corridor
- identity + safety pack subsystems
- language-pack compiler + verified manifest checksums
- Logos articulation + three-language vocabulary manifold
- Rust algebra backend
- any derived or successor implementation
Explicit "enumerated subsystems are illustrative, not limiting"
clause covers any future module + ADR-ratified contract under the
same terms. New subsystems are covered automatically.
LICENSE (the non-commercial form) is unchanged — it already covers
"Software" broadly. CLAIMS.md is auto-generated and was verified
current (regeneration produces no diff).
Follow-up to PR #398 — lights up the dormant consumption path by
extending _match_rate_with_currency to publish composition_shape +
pre-composed CandidateInitial in parsed_anchors.
Scope: one matcher extension (_match_rate_with_currency) for the
currency-per-unit composition shape ("$X each"). Other composition
shapes (multi-quantity, additive, subtractive) deferred to ME-3/4/5
follow-ups.
Subject binding decision pinned: Option A (refuse when same-sentence
subject is absent). Forbids Option B (placeholder subject —
fabricates attribution). Defers Option C (cross-sentence subject)
to its own ME-2 brief.
Honest consequence: case 0019 stays refused in THIS PR (requires
Option C). Truth-test #1 replaced with a synthetic "Maria bought 3
vet appointments at $400 each" canary that has same-sentence
subject. The flywheel turns one revolution: ratify → compile →
load → consume → admit, end-to-end on the synthetic canary.
Operator profile: Opus (load-bearing wrong=0; pre-composed
CandidateInitial; case 0050 mandatory pin).
Test surface enumerated (4 test files, 12+ tests):
- test_matcher_extension_currency_per_unit (8 narrowness tests)
- test_matcher_extension_case_0050_hazard_pin (mandatory)
- test_matcher_extension_end_to_end_admission (truth test)
- test_matcher_extension_train_sample_baseline_preserved
- test_matcher_extension_public_split_preserved
6-row truth test pinned. Anti-regression invariants enumerated.
Forbidden surface includes Option B + new SAFE category entries +
solver mutation.
Recommended next dispatch sequence: ME-1 → ME-2 (case 0019) →
ME-3/4/5 (remaining composition shapes).
Production-line dispatch form of the consumption-wiring brief in
PR #396. One bundled PR recommended (CW-1 + CW-2 share pack-compile
+ manifest extension + case 0050 pin). Split only if CI cycle time
forces.
CW-1 — Frame consumption:
language_packs/compile_frames.py + generate/comprehension/frame_registry.py
+ reader wire + manifest frame_checksum extension.
CW-2 — Composition consumption:
language_packs/compile_compositions.py +
generate/comprehension/composition_registry.py + injector wire in
generate/recognizer_anchor_inject.py + manifest
composition_checksum extension. SAFE_COMPOSITION_CATEGORIES
enforced at load (defense in depth); polarity "falsifies"
suppresses injection (not silently "affirms").
Truth test pinned as binding (6-row table). PR is not done unless
case 0019 admits, case 0050 stays refused, train_sample moves from
3/47 → ≥4/46, wrong==0 holds, public split unchanged (150/150),
empty-registry runtime byte-identical to today.
Operator profile: Opus (load-bearing wrong=0 surface; case 0050
mandatory pin; same rigor as CC-2).
Names the structural gap discovered in the first end-to-end
CompositionClaim ratification (2026-05-27 post-#393):
ratification handler writes JSONL artifacts cleanly, but no runtime
code reads compositions/*.jsonl or frames/*.jsonl. Two of three
sub-types ship the ratification half of the loop without the
consumption half.
State:
lexicon/ writer ✓ reader ✓ (LexicalClaim — closed)
frames/ writer ✓ reader ✗ (FrameClaim — half-open)
compositions/ writer ✓ reader ✗ (CompositionClaim — half-open)
Proposes one bundled PR (CW-1 + CW-2) mirroring the proven
generate/comprehension/lexicon.py::load_lexicon pattern:
CW-1 — Frame consumption: pack-compile frames/*.jsonl into a
runtime-loadable artifact; new load_frame_registry()
loader; reader wire.
CW-2 — Composition consumption: pack-compile compositions/*.jsonl;
new load_composition_registry(); injector wire in
generate/recognizer_anchor_inject.py.
Hard requirements: SAFE_COMPOSITION_CATEGORIES allowlist enforced
at both write and load (defense in depth); polarity "falsifies"
honored; manifest checksum extended per CLAUDE.md "Semantic Pack
Discipline"; empty-registry runtime byte-identical to today.
Truth-test pinned: success is the EVAL DELTA, not the artifact
append. PR is "done" when case 0019 (the canary I ratified) admits
under train_sample, train_sample moves from 3 correct / 47 refused
to ≥4 correct / 46 refused, case 0050 stays refused, wrong==0 holds.
This brief is orthogonal to the workbench UI wave (W1..W4); both
can ship in parallel. Recommended operator: Opus (load-bearing
wrong=0 surface; same rigor as CC-2).
W0 of the workbench-UI wave per WORKBENCH-UI-WAVE-SCOPING.md.
Pure docs PR; no UI code.
Decision: the workbench is a local keyboard accelerator for the
existing local-CLI ratification surface (ADR-0161 Surface C), not a
fourth ratification surface and not a new trust boundary. Every
workbench-driven ratification action invokes the same Python
entrypoint as the corresponding CLI invocation, with identical
preconditions, exceptions, and append-only JSONL effects.
Amends ADR-0160 v1 read-only stance narrowly: admits driving the
three Tier 1.5 handlers (apply_lexical_claim, apply_frame_claim,
apply_composition_claim) and the existing core teaching review path
through the workbench API. Honors ADR-0161's surface set unchanged
(workbench is part of Surface C, not a new surface). Honors ADR-0162
no-go list and pins the keyboard contract referenced in §7.
Five open questions from the scoping brief resolved:
Q1 in-process via existing Python entrypoints
Q2 single-operator (multi-operator deferred)
Q3 same chat/telemetry.py JSONL sink, new event kinds
(operator_ratify / operator_reject / operator_defer /
operator_navigate); no parallel log
Q4 fonts and icons bundled locally; no CDN
Q5 dist/ gitignored; CI verifies build, does not commit artifact
Ratification record extended with ratifier_kind: "workbench" — audit
forensic discriminant only, not a permission gate. proposal_id + to
remain the only load-bearing replay fields (ADR-0161 §5 unchanged).
Compatibility audit covers ADR-0146, 0150, 0152, 0160, 0161, 0162,
0167, 0168/0168.1, 0169/0169.1, 0172. Forbidden surface enumerated:
no remote operator, no CORS relaxation, no new mutation paths, no
auto-ratify, no batch ratification, no engine_state writes outside
the existing checkpoint path, no parallel workbench-events log, no
mobile/responsive form factors (ratification stays on Surfaces A+B
for mobile per ADR-0161).
Acceptance gates pinned per W1..W4 of the scoping brief.
Names the wave shape before any implementation. Audits what doctrine
has already settled (ADR-0160 stack pins + read-only trust boundary;
ADR-0162 design system + 15-component must-ship list + no-go list),
catalogs the current state (backend complete, frontend zero), surfaces
the five operator pain points sourced from the 2026-05-27 demo and the
CompositionClaim brief pack, and proposes a five-wave sequence:
W0 (docs) — Trust-boundary ratchet ADR (ADR-0173 working title)
admitting operator ratification through the workbench,
scoped to existing Tier 1.5 handlers (Lexical / Frame /
Composition) and pinning the keyboard contract.
W1 (base) — workbench-ui/ scaffold per ADR-0162 Branch 1.
W2 (read) — ProposalQueue + ProposalCard + ProposalDetailPanel.
W3 (act) — RatificationCommandPanel + handler dispatch (the
throughput multiplier).
W4 (verify)— TraceDrawer + ReplayTheater + EvalCenter.
Guardrails enumerated: CLAUDE.md docs discipline, ADR-0162 no-go list,
determinism, trust boundary, wrong==0, case 0050 hazard pin,
keyboard-first, accessibility, local-first, no engine_state writes
outside the checkpoint path.
Open questions (in-process vs out-of-process ratification, single- vs
multi-operator, telemetry path, font/icon bundling, build artifact
location) listed for W0 resolution. No code in this brief.
* docs(tier1.5+tier2): FrameClaim handler + Tier 2 W5 schema brief pack
Two parallel briefs ready for dispatch:
- F1: FrameClaim ratification handler (Opus) — implements ADR-0168 +
ADR-0168.1; turns 2 of 8 Tier 1 proposals into real GSM8K
admissions on ratify
- T2-W5: MathReaderInferenceProposal schema (Sonnet) — Tier 2 substrate
with two-arm test-and-learn type contract
Zero file overlap between briefs; safe to dispatch concurrently. W6+
deferred until FrameClaim is live (Arm 2 known-good preservation needs
a working handler to verify against).
* docs(briefs): correct pack + workbench paths in Tier 1.5/Tier 2 brief
Operator dispatching F1 (PR #389) discovered:
- Pack path is language_packs/data/en_core_math_v1/, not packs/en_core_math_v1/
- Workbench dispatch table lives in workbench/readers.py, not workbench/api.py
Both operators landed on the correct locations regardless. Folding the
corrections into #387 directly so future operators reading the brief
get the real paths.
The brief pack referenced `teaching/audit_evidence.py` in 3 spots
(A2 schema field, A2 read-required list, B2 algorithm step 3a). The
actual module on main is `teaching/math_evidence.py` (carries
`MathReaderRefusalEvidence` per ADR-0167).
Sonnet (A2 / PR #380) discovered the discrepancy and correctly used
the real module. This patch corrects the brief so Wave B operators
(B1 / B2) do not hit the same gap on dispatch.
No runtime change. Pure docs.
Coordination artifact for ADR-0172 Tier 1 dispatch. Six PRs in the
ADR (W0, W0.1, W1, W2, W3, W4) collapsed into a 4-wave DAG with two
concurrent briefs per wave A and B.
Operators are dispatched in their own UIs by pointing at the
section heading — "read §Brief A1" etc. Bundling options A/B/C
inside the doc let the operator choose CI economy vs wall-clock.
No runtime change. Pure docs.
* docs(ADR-0172): math-domain corpus-decomposition mechanism (Learning Arc analog)
Scoping ADR for the math-domain analog of cognition's
`teaching/contemplation.py` corpus-decomposition loop (Learning Arc
milestone 2026-05-25).
## What this ADR scopes
A mechanism that reads the math audit corpus and emits
`MathReaderRefusalShapeProposal` records — structural commonalities
across N refusal cases, paired with the candidate mechanism change
that would resolve them (matcher extension, injector sub-shape,
vocabulary addition, frame reclassification).
Today the operator does this decomposition by hand (reads
audit_brief_11.md, identifies the commonality across 21 DCS
refusals, scopes the matcher/injector extension, files a focused PR).
ADR-0172 shifts the decomposition to the engine, with HITL
ratification preserved.
## Sequencing — explicit
ADR-0172 ships AFTER ADR-0170 (injector contract widening),
ADR-0168 (FrameClaim handler), and ADR-0169 (CompositionClaim
handler — reserved). Without those substrates, the decomposer can
identify patterns but cannot route them to a ratification handler
that knows how to materialize them. Cognition's learning arc
followed this same sequencing: substrate first, then decomposer.
## Why this matters
ADR-0167 LexicalClaim shipped the math-domain wire from refusal →
evidence → operator-ratification. ADR-0172 closes the gap to the
engine-decomposes loop — the moment cognition's learning arc
qualitatively shifted from "engine refuses + operator authors" to
"engine teaches itself through reviewed correction."
The Learning Arc memory entry (2026-05-25) names that moment as
when measurable progress accelerated. ADR-0172 makes the math-domain
trajectory toward the same loop explicit in the queue.
## Hard invariants preserved
- wrong=0 by construction (proposals are evidence-only)
- ADR-0166: no new eval lanes
- No teaching-store / pack mutation
- No non-deterministic mechanism (rule-based grouping, not learned
classification)
- Cross-domain partition (ADR-0167 W2-C) preserves cognition
contemplation behavior
No code, no test, no eval, no pack change in this PR.
## Cross-references
- ADR-0056/0057 — cognition contemplation/proposal substrate (template)
- ADR-0167 + FOLLOWUPS §1 — parent evidence wire
- ADR-0168 + ADR-0168.1 — FrameClaim (ratification target)
- ADR-0169 (reserved) — CompositionClaim (ratification target)
- ADR-0170 — injector contract widening (substrate prerequisite)
- Memory: Learning Arc Milestone 2026-05-25 — the moment to recreate
- Thesis: decoding, not generating — the principle preserved
* amend(ADR-0172): add Tier 2 — intensional contemplation with test-and-learn loop
Per operator feedback during ADR-0172 review: the corpus-decomposition
mechanism should not only emit explicit rules (extensional) but also
develop inference (intensional) — recognizing structural equivalence
classes across surface variations without enumerating them.
## Tier 2 — intensional contemplation
Engine recognizes that 'Sam has 5 apples' and 'Sam collected 5 apples'
carry the same canonical proposition structure, without an explicit
verb-list extension. Emits MathReaderInferenceProposal records that
name structural equivalence classes rather than enumerable rules.
This is the thesis word the original draft missed: rationalization.
Tier 1 ratifies rules; Tier 2 ratifies inference.
## Test-and-learn loop
Tier 2 proposals carry held-out test evidence:
1. Decomposer surfaces hypothesis
2. Held-out subset of corpus reserved
3. Bridge applied to held-out cases; admissibility gates run
4. Outcome scored (positive / negative / neutral)
5. Negative-evidence proposals auto-rejected before HITL
6. Operator reviews proposal + test result, not bare claim
This makes Tier 2 thesis-coherent: engine decodes a structural
pattern, tests it against unseen corpus cases, surfaces the test
result. Wrong=0 cannot leak through — held-out test failures reject
internally.
## Updated implementation outline
Tier 1 wave: W1-W4 (schema, decomposer, CLI, workbench integration)
Tier 2 wave: W5-W9 (schema, equivalence-class recognizer, test-and-learn
loop, HITL integration, bridge application path)
## Hard invariants preserved at both tiers
- wrong=0 by construction (Tier 1: evidence-only proposals; Tier 2:
held-out test rejects wrong-admitting bridges internally)
- ADR-0166: no new eval lanes
- No non-deterministic mechanism (rule-based grouping + deterministic
test-and-learn, not learned classification)
- Cross-domain partition preserves cognition contemplation behavior
* amend(ADR-0172): split Tier 2 test-and-learn into two-arm confirmation
Per operator feedback during ADR-0172 review: 'confirm against known
facts/prior solutions' is the missing arm. The Tier 2 test-and-learn
loop now has BOTH:
- Arm 1 (negative / wrong=0 on held-out refusals) — already drafted
- Arm 2 (positive / known-good preservation) — NEW
Arm 2 inherits ADR-0057's replay-equivalence contract: any
inferential bridge that would change a currently-correct outcome is
REJECTED INTERNALLY before reaching HITL, even if the new outcome is
defensible. Existing truth survives; new truth is gated.
Both arms must PASS or be neutral. Either arm rejecting → proposal
does not reach the operator. This makes the engine's reasoning
provably conservative: it confirms against truth it already knows AND
truth it hasn't yet decided.
The 5-step proposal lifecycle is updated to reflect both arms +
test-set partition + per-case verdict tables in the emitted proposal.
No code change. No runtime effect.
* amend(ADR-0172): add foundational reasoning-articulation substrate
Per operator feedback: for the engine to infer/test/learn from
feedback, it must first be able to ARTICULATE its own reasoning in a
structured, persistent, replayable form.
Articulation is the project thesis's 5th anchor ("listen → comprehend
→ recall → think → articulate → learn from reviewed correction →
replay"). Today CORE articulates SURFACE (templated realizer output)
but does not articulate REASONING — the inference chain that took the
engine from refusal corpus to hypothesis to proposal.
Without reasoning-articulation, none of the three loops can work:
- Loop 1 (self-test) has nothing to record about what it tested or why
- Loop 2 (HITL review) sees a black-box conclusion, not inference chain
- Loop 3 (feedback) has no specific step the operator can target with
a rejection rationale
## Substrate: ReasoningTrace schema
Every proposal carries a typed, content-addressable
ReasoningTrace recording each inference step:
ReasoningStep:
step_kind: observation | grouping | abstraction | hypothesis |
test_design | test_application | test_result | conclusion
input_pointers: prior steps + evidence rows
claim: human-readable assertion at this step
justification: why the engine made the claim
output_payload: type-discriminated by step_kind
The trace is byte-identical across replays of the same corpus +
verdict history. Inherits CORE's existing determinism discipline.
## Sequencing
Articulation ships FIRST (new W0 wave) — it is the prerequisite for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 and Loop 3. Each downstream wave emits or consumes
ReasoningTraces.
## Hard invariants preserved
- Deterministic-replay (trace byte-identical under same inputs)
- ADR-0057 replay-equivalence (trace IDs stable across reruns)
- No non-determinism added (rule-based step emission, not learning)
- ADR-0166: no new eval lanes
No code, no test, no eval, no pack change in this PR.
Three concrete cleanup items from the day's work, per the
cleanup-as-you-find memory principle.
## 1. Remove inject_rate_with_currency stub
PR #369 (A2 rate_with_currency) shipped a function that always returns
() with an extensive docstring documenting the Rate-not-in-SentenceChoice
schema gap. The function is dead at runtime — `_INJECTORS.get(category)`
returning None has the same downstream behavior as the function
returning (). The 16 tests pinned the empty-tuple return; the case-0050
hazard pin is duplicated in test_recognizer_skip_wrong_zero.py and
test_brief_11b_step2_lexicon.py.
The schema gap is now properly documented in ADR-0170 (PR #372). A
dispatch-table comment at the removal site retains the at-code pointer
to that ADR for anyone wiring a new injector.
Removed:
- `inject_rate_with_currency` function in generate/recognizer_anchor_inject.py
- Its `_INJECTORS` dispatch table entry
- Its `__all__` export
- tests/test_injector_rate_with_currency.py (371 lines, 16 tests)
## 2. Remove docs/handoff/GPT55-MOBILE-DISPATCH.md
Single-session travel-time scaffolding. The 5 tasks it named are
complete or superseded by ADR-0170's findings. Pure historical artifact.
## 3. Remove docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md
Superseded by docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md, which captures
everything load-bearing from the original brief in its A1–A4 findings
table. The "kept for history" justification didn't survive scrutiny:
the document was misframed (over-promised lift; misframed schema work
as injector work). Lessons captured in REVISED + ADR-0170.
Updated cross-references:
- WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md: removed the "supersedes ... kept for history"
pointer; tightened cross-reference list
- ADR-0167-FOLLOWUPS.md §7: rewrote pointer to name ADR-0170 + REVISED
as the live plan rather than "the original is retained"
## Test plan
- 219 tests passed across G.2/G.4/G.5/S1/Brief 11/B1/B11A/wiring/partition/DCS-D.2
- evals/gsm8k_math/train_sample/v1/report.json untouched (regen
surfaces a separate stale-baseline test issue — out of cleanup scope)
- No runtime behavior change
## Net impact
- 5 files removed (~1200 lines)
- 1 file modified for explanatory comment (~30 lines)
- 2 doc files updated to remove dangling cross-references
- 0 behavioral change
DCS-S1 (proper-noun possession sub-shape expansion) investigation
revealed that the recognizer-injector path's `CandidateInitial`-only
return type is a substrate-level constraint blocking four Wave-Next
sub-shape categories — not just one.
## Two artifacts
1. **`docs/handoff/DCS-S1-FINDING.md`** — investigation result. Of
the 21 DCS-refused GSM8K cases, zero are pure S1-only blockers.
Acquisition-verb expansion (`collected`, etc.) conflicts with
ADR-0131.G.1's branch-disagreement discipline. The right fix is
the DCS injector emitting `CandidateOperation(add)`, but the
`inject_from_match` return type doesn't allow that.
2. **`docs/decisions/ADR-0170-injector-contract-widening.md`** —
scoping ADR. Names the contract change, the four categories it
unblocks (DCS-S1 acquisition, A1 currency, A3 multiplicative,
A4 temporal), the three load-bearing rules it must preserve
(ADR-0131.G.1, SentenceChoice union, admissibility gates), and
a 5-step implementation outline.
## Pattern recognised
Wave-Next surfaced four schema gaps. All four trace to the same
constraint: per-category injectors can only emit `CandidateInitial`.
The right next-capability work is ADR-0170 ratification, then a
small no-behavior-change PR widening the contract, then per-injector
follow-up PRs against the widened contract.
That is the actual lift-per-risk path for GSM8K Round-1 closure.
## Test plan
Docs-only. No code, no test, no eval, no pack change.
## Cross-references
- ADR-0163.D.2 — original parsed_anchors → solver-state ADR
- ADR-0131.G.1 — branch-disagreement discipline ADR-0170 preserves
- ADR-0167 — parallel teaching-corridor mechanism (independent)
- ADR-0167-FOLLOWUPS §7 — Wave-Next findings backlog
- WAVE-NEXT-REVISED — parent plan; ADR-0170 is the upstream blocker
- PR #369 — A2's schema-refusal artifact (first observation of gap)
The Wave-Next injector dispatch (A1-A4) surfaced findings that
invalidate three of the four briefs' lift assumptions:
- A1 currency_amount — sandbox-blocked; real lift potential intact
- A2 rate_with_currency — schema gap (Rate not in SentenceChoice
union); PR #369 documents the gap with concrete 4-step plan
- A3 multiplicative_aggregation — Operation(multiply) spec wrong;
correct emission is CandidateInitial(outer×inner); zero GSM8K cases
match canonical narrow form anyway
- A4 temporal_aggregation — needs apply_rate primitive not in algebra
Three of four are schema-extension ADRs masquerading as injector work.
Only A1 is a true injector + sandbox-fix scenario.
Deliverables:
1. `docs/handoff/WAVE-NEXT-REVISED.md` (new) — supersedes
WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md. Pivots to DCS sub-shape expansion as the
actually-tractable next wave (21-case bucket, existing v1 injector,
#366 spec on main). Captures the three schema gaps + A1's
preserved lift potential for separate ADR work.
2. `docs/handoff/ADR-0167-FOLLOWUPS.md` §7 (new) — points to the
revised plan and summarises the four findings inline.
WAVE-NEXT-INJECTORS.md retained for history.
No code change. No runtime effect. Docs-only.
Five docs-only tasks GPT-5.5 can pick up via the GitHub connector while
the operator travels. Every task is read-only execution: spec / audit /
ADR drafting, never code or test changes. Risk profile: zero.
Tasks (each opens one PR):
1. ADR-0168 FrameClaim scoping draft (highest priority — next gate
after the LexicalClaim slice)
2. discrete_count_statement injector specification audit (highest-
leverage: 21/47 GSM8K refusals are this category)
3. Ratified-recognizer registry audit (informs Task 2 and future
injector work)
4. FOLLOWUPS §6 holonomy ablation test specification
5. Cognition contemplation partition fix specification (FOLLOWUPS §5a)
Each task carries:
- Files to read first (with paths)
- Deliverable shape (what the output doc must contain)
- PR body requirements
- Explicit out-of-scope list
Hard constraints enforced for the mobile-connector mode:
- One PR per task; explicit file staging; never git add -A
- Markdown-only (CLAUDE.md §Documentation Discipline)
- No code edits — flag in PR body if a task starts needing one
- No engine_state/ commits
- Cite filenames + line numbers; verify before committing
If all five complete, GPT-5.5 opens a meta-PR linking them into
ADR-0167-FOLLOWUPS.
No code change. No runtime effect. Docs-only.
Three small surgical anchors capturing the verified architectural
insight surfaced during the ADR-0167 wave (no new ADR — the gap claim
that prompted this resolved on verification; what remains is a sharper
residual question worth memorialising).
1. CLAUDE.md — new "Schema-Defined Proof Obligations" section between
Documentation Discipline and Validation Through CLI. Generalises
the wrong=0 invariant pattern: schema types that name structural
properties are real only when an executing test can meaningfully
fail under the violations it is written to catch. Three-step rule
for treating a schema as load-bearing.
2. language_packs/compiler.py — ARCHITECTURAL INVARIANT comment on
_apply_mounted_primary_domain_resonance naming it as the single
convergence-decision site for DEPTH_ROOT/DEPTH_RELATION packs.
Anchors the doctrine at the code site so any future modification
trips on the reference to the holonomy proof's coverage gap.
3. docs/handoff/ADR-0167-FOLLOWUPS.md §6 — captures the structural-vs-
blend convergence isolation question. HolonomyAlignmentCase IS
executed today (we verified), but the existing test doesn't
distinguish structurally-derived convergence from blend-induced
convergence. Ablation test or reframed claim — both acceptable
resolutions.
Verified before commit:
- All 13 architectural references in the Gemini analysis resolve
exactly: triliteral 0.30, root 0.40, prefix 0.03/(idx+1), stem 0.24,
_INFLECTION_PRIORITY case-near-last, _apply_mounted_primary_domain_resonance
with 40% English-prototype blend, HolonomyAlignmentCase defined
AND executed
- tests/test_alignment_graph.py: 8 passed (no behavioural change)
- Documentation discipline (#355) honoured: pure Markdown, no HTML
No code behaviour changes. No runtime effect. Drops the larger
ADR-0168-PROPOSAL idea — the gap claim that prompted it dissolved
under verification.
Captures the named follow-ups that surfaced during the ADR-0167 wave so
they don't drift. Five items, each with scope / why-deferred /
breadcrumbs / acceptance criterion:
1. Frame-opener sub-types (FrameClaim / CompositionClaim / ReferenceClaim
/ SlotClaim) — four additional handlers, each its own ADR
2. Partition test architectural fix — current git-status-at-test-runtime
assertion is structurally brittle (3 options outlined)
3. Two pre-existing main failures (test_unparseable_statement,
test_audit_real_corpus_runs_clean) — fix or quarantine, don't ignore
4. Workbench v1 math-candidate rendering — ADR-0167 §Q4
5. Cross-domain partition risks Gemini flagged (contemplation pack
indexing, replay gate default)
Includes leverage-based sequencing recommendation (no timelines per
project convention).
Docs-only. No code, no test, no eval, no pack change.
Two docs-only updates capturing the day's work:
1. Appended a "Status update — 2026-05-27 EOD" footer to the Brief 11
handoff doc with the completion table (11A/11B-step-1/11B-step-2
docs+lexicon/11D merged; 11C absorbed into W3-A; 11D candidate E ADR
merged) and the current post-#348 baseline taxonomy.
2. New session doc SESSION-2026-05-27-adr-0167-parallel-dispatch.md
alongside the existing SESSION-2026-05-26-comprehension-reader.md.
Captures the architectural pivot (audit-as-teaching-evidence vs the
rejected refusal-class dispatch table), the parallel-dispatch
experiment (5 operators / 3 waves / 6 PRs), what worked, what
surfaced as load-bearing (case 0050 hazard), and what's deferred.
No code changes. No runtime effect.
* feat(ADR-0167/W1-A): MathReaderRefusalEvidence schema + canonical-bytes
Foundation type for routing comprehension-reader refusals into the
teaching corridor. Frozen dataclass with sha256 evidence_hash computed
from deterministic canonical bytes (mirrors state.to_canonical_bytes
pattern). Includes SUB_TYPE_FOR_OPERATOR mapping table covering all 13
missing_operator values in the current audit artifact.
Wave 1 only — no runtime mutation, no teaching-store integration, no
admission path. Downstream W2-A/B/C/D type-import from this module.
* feat(ADR-0167/W2-C): domain discriminator + cross-domain audit
- Links to the audit doc: docs/handoff/ADR-0167-W2C-cross-domain-audit.md
- Inventory details: 5 construction sites, 8 consumption sites
- Verification: 0 cognition test files were modified; all tests are green
- Downstream partition work flagged: contemplation indexing (in teaching/contemplation.py) and replay gate (in teaching/proposals.py)
* docs(ADR-0167): audit-as-teaching-evidence (math reader → contemplation wire)
Scoping ADR for Brief 11D Candidate E. Routes math-reader refusal audit
rows into the existing contemplation/HITL teaching corridor as a new
candidate source (`MathReaderRefusalEvidence`).
Key decisions:
- Evidence-only — never directly admits a math fact; only ratification
through HITL queue can change runtime behaviour
- Five sub-types proposed (Lexical / Frame / Composition / Reference /
Slot claims) mapping to the audit taxonomy
- Scope first to LexicalClaim — lowest-risk, highest-count
- Six open questions called out for the implementation ADR
ADR-0166 three-question test passes; implementation passes only when
the six open questions are answered with LexicalClaim-first scope.
No code in this PR.
* docs(ADR-0167): parallel work plan — 6-PR/3-wave dispatch across 5 model operators
Closes the Brief 11 sequence with a decision artifact (not a roadmap)
selecting the next capability after GSM8K Phase 2 reader closure.
Four candidates compared against ADR-0166's three-question test:
- A. Continued GSM8K operator closure
- B. Cross-domain reader generalization
- C. Tool-use trace integration
- D. Workbench demo hardening
Recommendation: continued GSM8K operator closure, starting with the
`lexicon_entry` row of the Brief 11B audit. The only candidate that
passes Q1/Q2/Q3 cleanly today and has an explicit Round-3 finish line.
Docs-only. No code, no test, no eval, no pack change.
Extend the comprehension reader from question-only scope to whole-
problem scope. Phase 1 (Brief 8 / #326) implemented question_frame;
this brief implements initial_state_frame, operation_frame, and
descriptive_frame, plus finalize() projection into a strict
ADR-0115 MathProblemGraph.
Architecturally correct under ADR-0164.3; not yet productive on
GSM8K train_sample. Below-floor measurement documented; specific
bottlenecks tabled for Phase 2.1 follow-up.
What landed
- Frame-opener dispatch in lifecycle.py for the three new statement
frames, plus rule handlers (_rule_op_*, _rule_preframe_*,
_rule_descriptive_*).
- finalize(state) -> MathProblemGraph | ReaderRefusal: pure
projection with closure checks (entity registry non-empty,
unknown target bound, every op/initial references a known entity,
Decimal precision projects losslessly).
- _classify extended to 3-tuple (category, surface, decimal_value)
with possessive strip retry. Brief 8.2's sentence-initial
lookup-first + gender-skip preserved AND extended to mid-sentence
(gender is enrichment everywhere, never admission).
- Whole-problem coexistence dispatch in math_candidate_graph.py
(config.comprehension_reader_questions=True): reader attempts the
whole problem; on any ReaderRefusal falls through to existing
regex parser. All-or-nothing per the brief.
- Lexicon expansion (carried into renamed proper_noun_gender_*
files): +2 accumulation_verb (adopt, invest), +2 currency_unit_noun
(dollar, cent), +6 capacity_verb (fill, lift, play, work, finish,
drive), +5 female names (allison, brooke, jan, marion, sidney),
+14 male names (bart, fernando, georgie, jake, jed, jeremie, jose,
orlando, rex, rudolph, steve, troy, xavier, yun), +numerous
count_unit_noun, drain_token, time_unit_noun.
- ADR-0164.4-phase2-statement-frame-reader.md — the architectural
rationale and acceptance contract.
Measurement (reader_phase2_delta.json):
flag-OFF: correct=3 refused=47 wrong=0
flag-ON: correct=3 refused=47 wrong=0
delta: 0/0/0
Below the brief's floor of correct >= 4. Architecture is sound — the
reader admits cases as graphs when the structure resolves, refuses
cleanly otherwise, preserves wrong=0 across both flag states.
Bottleneck table (from per-case attribution):
count refusal_class dominant cause
----- ---------------------- ------------------------------------
18 incomplete_operation multi-quantity ops; no-quantity op
11 unknown_word "hundred", "presently", "one-hour",
non-math verbs (compound numerics,
lexicon gaps)
6 unexpected_category fraction / percentage literals;
multi-subject sentences
6 unresolved_pronoun "them", "their", "his" with no
compatible entity
5 unattached_quantity quantity never bound to a unit
1 no_question_target question parsed but slot never set
Closing the gate to mixed-bounded [4, 24] is Phase 2.1 scope: extend
composition rules for multi-quantity ops, add fraction/percentage
primitives (per ADR-0164.1 amendment), expand lexicon for the
remaining unknown_word cases, extend pronoun resolution.
Invariants preserved
- wrong = 0 in both flag states ✓
- flag-OFF byte-identical to today ✓
- determinism (50/50 identical runs) ✓
- Capability axes G1-G5, S1 unchanged ✓
- Reader tests: 19 (Phase 2) + 18 (Phase 1, post-update) + 53 (pack)
+ 76 (lexicon + primitives) = 166 specific to this change; all pass
- core test --suite smoke -q: 67 passed
Rebase note
This PR was authored against an older base; rebased onto current
main to incorporate #333 (Brief 8.2 universal proper_noun_token
primitive) and #334 (ADR-0166 measurement discipline). The rebase
required:
- Lexicon files renamed proper_noun_entity_* -> proper_noun_gender_*
(with the Phase 2 additions merged into the gender_* files)
- Compiled lexicon.jsonl unchanged from #333's 207-entry state
(Phase 2's per-category additions are runtime-visible via the
source loader, not via the compiled file)
- _classify reconciled with Brief 8.2's sentence-initial dispatch +
Phase 2's 3-tuple decimal-value return
- All dispatch tables and category checks updated to reference
proper_noun_token (singular) instead of proper_noun_entity_{f,m}
- Three Phase 1 test expectations updated to reflect Phase 2
behavior (proper noun at position 0 now opens statement pre-frame
instead of refusing; pronoun resolution applies per ADR-0164.2)
Per ADR-0166's three-question test, this PR is honest measurement:
capability exists, at least one case admits, lane distinguishes
presence from absence — which the bottleneck table demonstrates.
Refs ADR-0164.3 §Phasing Phase 2, ADR-0164.1 amendment (Brief 8.2),
ADR-0166 §"Mixed (notable but not blocking)" — except here, below
floor.
Add the fourth governing principle to the family of structural-
invariant ADRs (alongside ADR-0114a anti-overfitting, ADR-0165 regex
scope rule, CLAUDE.md versor invariant). The rule, stated negatively:
do not author eval lanes ahead of the operators those lanes test, and
do not expand the eval surface ahead of the capability that produces
signal on it.
Three-question test for new eval lanes:
1. Does the capability this lane probes exist on main today?
2. Has at least one case admitted end-to-end through that capability?
3. Will running this lane distinguish capability-presence from
capability-absence?
A "no" on any defers the lane until the capability lands. Tier 3 TBD
rows are data debt; running existing lanes to populate them is
permitted (snapshot of current capability) but is NOT a substitute for
capability work.
Why now: a strategic-analysis exchange this session proposed authoring
spatial_geometry_ood, historical_sequence_ood, and other new lanes
while GSM8K-math sits at 3/47/0 and the comprehension reader (ADR-0164)
is mid-build. The proposal's "most impactful next commit is to run all
Tier 3 lanes" framing would have generated noise (lanes refusing
uniformly because their underlying operators don't exist) rather than
the diagnostic signal that justifies prioritization. ADR-0166 mechanizes
the constraint that prevents that pattern.
Session log SESSION-2026-05-27-tier3-sequencing.md captures the
narrative: what the analysis got right (geometry-first as strategic
bet, sequencing instincts), what it missed (GSM8K-math treated as
solved; comprehension reader pivot not in context), and the honest
re-sequence (Brief 10 first; Tier 3 snapshot in parallel; cross-domain
transfer after verifying whether the reader IS the requested
structural-pattern recognizer under a different name).
The session also surfaced a mid-flight diagnostic from PR #332: the
actual GSM8K bottleneck is the ADR-0163 recognizer injector emitting
incomplete graphs, which the reader correctly refuses to admit
(wrong=0 by construction via the new guard). Brief 10 (Phase 2 reader)
dominates here because it replaces the inadequate injector surface
entirely.
No code changes. ADRs only.
Refs ADR-0114a, ADR-0165, CLAUDE.md §"Non-Negotiable Field Invariant".
Proposed sub-ADR under ADR-0164 resolving Open question #3.
- Reviews existing _resolve_question_entity heuristic in
generate/math_candidate_parser.py: refuse-on-ambiguity is correct,
but flat-document whitelist scan misses recency, kinship entities,
group antecedents from conjunction, and names absent from the
closed name lists.
- Specifies EntityRegistry as a field on ProblemReadingState
(ADR-0164.3 companion): append-only entries with canonical name,
inferred gender + source, mention positions, and relational anchor
for kinship entities.
- Two refusal-first ambiguity rules: ambiguous_pronoun_referent (R1,
recency tiebreaker within RECENCY_GAP_MIN refuses) and
unresolved_pronoun (R2).
- Worked walk-through on five GSM8K train_sample cases (0001 Tina,
0010 Yun/Marion, 0027 Malcolm, 0017 Jason/Eric, 0033 Rachel + kin).
- Three policy-vs-heuristic disagreements (D1 Jason/Eric him; D2
Georgie he via single-salient back-fill; D3 Aaron/Carson they via
GROUP entry) all turn refusals into correct resolutions, plus one
counter-direction D4 where new policy is principled-conservative.
- Preserves wrong = 0 by construction at every branch.
Closes ADR-0164 §Open question #1. Enumerates the 8-primitive seed
registry for en_core_math_v1 (decimal-currency, currency, percentage,
fraction, time-amount, numeric, ordinal, mass-noun-token), fixes the
record schema (name/pattern/emits/extracted_fields/provenance/priority),
documents pairwise overlap precedence with rationale, and records 4
rejected temptations (rate phrases, compound entities, question stems,
compound numerics) so the ADR-0165 grammar/lexeme boundary doesn't get
relitigated by future authors.
Two-level state model for the incremental comprehension reader:
ProblemReadingState (outer, problem-scoped) carries the entity registry,
accumulated initial possessions, accumulated operations, the unknown
target slot, and the pronoun resolution history. SentenceReadingState
(inner, sentence-scoped) carries the current frame, expectation,
pending quantities, pending entity reference, pending verb, lookback
window, and the partial frame payload under construction.
Lifecycle API (signatures only): begin_sentence, apply_word,
end_sentence. All three pure / deterministic / no I/O. apply_word
reads from problem_state for pronoun resolution per ADR-0164.2 but
does not mutate it; only end_sentence produces a new
ProblemReadingState that folds in the just-closed sentence's
contribution.
Closed READER_REFUSAL_REASONS vocabulary across three lifetime
groupings (token-level, sentence-level, problem-level), mirroring
ADR-0134's admissibility-reason discipline.
Canonical-bytes serialization for both state levels matches existing
trace_hash and MathProblemGraph.canonical_bytes discipline.
Sorted-keys JSON, compact separators, Decimal-as-string for
precision, optional-None fields omitted.
Worked example: gsm8k-train-sample-v1-0001. Sentence 1 ("Tina makes
$18.00 an hour.") admits as a rate apply_rate operation; sentences 2
and 3 refuse at the leading "If" with unexpected_category
(conditional_frame is Phase-1 out-of-scope). The example demonstrates
the state model — that even when the reader refuses, the state at
the moment of refusal is what makes the refusal honest, typed, and
file-able as a teaching candidate.
Termination predicate is_terminable + finalize specified pure: a
ProblemReadingState becomes a strict ADR-0115 MathProblemGraph only
when entity registry is non-empty, unknown_target_slot is bound,
every accumulated op/initial references a known entity, and every
partial payload projects losslessly into the strict types.
Naming reconciliation: ADR-0164's sketched ComprehensionState is the
inner level under this ADR (SentenceReadingState). Brief 5 will
produce both types.
No code. ADR doc only.
Refs ADR-0164 §Open question #4.
Replace the regex sentence-template front-end of the math admissibility
layer with an incremental compositional reader. Lock the architectural
boundary that regex is permitted only at the lexeme level, never as
sentence-structure templates.
ADR-0164 (Proposed) — Incremental Comprehension Reader. Word-by-word
state accumulation over a closed set of semantic categories, with the
operational lexicon living as a pack-shaped data artifact under
language_packs/data/en_core_math_v1/. Reader output type matches the
existing regex parser's output, so the binding-graph admissibility
(ADR-0132/0133/0134/0135), the solver (ADR-0116), and the verifier
(ADR-0117) stay unchanged. wrong=0 is preserved by construction —
the reader produces inputs to the existing admissibility gate, not a
bypass around it. Phased coexistence with the regex layer during
transition; regex sentence templates removed in Phase 3.
ADR-0165 (Proposed) — Regex Scope Rule. Structural invariant: regex
matches one piece of orthographic material with a closed rule
(currency literal, fraction literal, percentage, time-amount, closed
unit-noun sets), never a sentence shape. Lexeme-primitive registry is
closed and grown through the same contemplation -> proposal -> HITL
review corridor that grows vocabulary (ADR-0150 / 0152 / 0155 / 0161).
The engine acquires new recognition tools through reviewed teaching,
not through operator edits to parser code.
ADR-0163's diagnosis (front-end is the bottleneck) is reaffirmed.
Its Phase B-E prescription (regex DerivedRecognizers via
recognizer_match.py) is partially superseded by ADR-0164. ADR-0136
and its S-family (S.1 / S.2 / S.3 / S.4) have the same disposition:
regex sentence-template prescription superseded; empirical refusal
taxonomies and closed-set vocabulary preserved as lexicon seed.
The HITL corridor architecture is preserved; what flows through it
changes from regex recognizers to lexicon entries, categories, and
lexeme primitives.
Session log SESSION-2026-05-26-comprehension-reader.md captures the
narrative of how this decision emerged from the post-D.2 train-sample
baseline review (correct=3 refused=47 wrong=0, 34/47 refusals at the
question gate).
No runtime code changes. ADRs only.
First PR plumbing recognizer parsed_anchors into the candidate-graph as
typed CandidateInitial primitives. Scope limited to discrete_count_statement;
other five round-2 categories route to the round-2 skip-only fallback until
follow-up D.2.x PRs.
Five-layer wrong=0 safety net:
1. Matcher narrowness — _try_extract_discrete_count_anchor refuses on any
ambiguity (multi-subject, pronoun subject, non-possession verb,
multi-count, clause-split, unobserved counted_noun, unobserved
count_kind).
2. Extraction correctness — refusal-preferring; populated parsed_anchors
only when ALL narrowness rules hold.
3. Injection correctness — _initial_admissible gates every constructed
CandidateInitial; failure to ground returns () (under-admit).
4. Replay gate — propose-time admissibility_replay_gate auto-rejects any
matcher change that would lift GSM8K wrong count.
5. Multi-branch decision rule — injected candidate disagreeing with
another branch triggers refuse path.
Re-baseline (GSM8K train_sample v1):
- Old (#309 alone): correct=3 refused=47 wrong=0
- New (#309 + D.2 v1): correct=3 refused=47 wrong=0
- Empirical lift in v1 = 0 cases; framework operational. No GSM8K
train_sample case has a discrete_count statement that simultaneously
meets all narrowness rules AND is missed by the existing parser.
Bottleneck moves to other recognizer categories (D.2.2+).
Validation:
- tests/test_adr_0163_d2_discrete_count_injection.py: 34 passed
- tests/test_recognizer_match.py + test_candidate_graph_recognizer_wiring
+ test_admissibility_replay_gate: 27 passed
- adr_0131_* (G1..G5 + S1 wrong=0 invariant): 222 passed / 2 pre-existing
report-comparison failures / 3 skipped — byte-identical to pre-D.2
- Solver code: unchanged
Operator caveat: round-1's ratified discrete_count_statement spec is
unchanged. Matcher behavior on the spec's canonical_pattern has been
extended from detection-only to populated parsed_anchors. Re-ratification
is not required; if policy requires it on matcher-behavior changes, the
registry digest provides byte-stable provenance.
