docs(ADR-0166): measurement-capability sequencing discipline

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".

docs/decisions/ADR-0166-measurement-capability-sequencing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+# ADR-0166 — Measurement-Capability Sequencing Discipline
+
+**Status:** Proposed
+**Date:** 2026-05-27
+**Author:** Shay
+**Anchor:** [[thesis-decoding-not-generating]]
+**Companions:** [ADR-0114a — Anti-overfitting proof obligations](./ADR-0114a-anti-overfitting-proof-obligations.md), [ADR-0165 — Regex Scope Rule](./ADR-0165-regex-scope-rule.md), [ADR-0164 — Incremental Comprehension Reader](./ADR-0164-incremental-comprehension-reader.md)
+
+---
+
+## Context — why the order matters
+
+CORE accrues two distinct kinds of artifact over time:
+
+1. **Capability artifacts** — the operators, recognizers, registries, and
+   composition rules that make the engine *able to* admit a class of
+   problems (e.g. the comprehension reader, the binding-graph
+   admissibility check, the deterministic solver).
+
+2. **Measurement artifacts** — the eval lanes, runners, scoring rules,
+   and baselines that quantify *whether* the engine handles a class of
+   problems (e.g. `evals/gsm8k_math/`, `evals/cross_domain_transfer/`,
+   the capability-axis lanes G1–G5).
+
+Both are load-bearing. Both must exist for an honest claim of capability
+to be made. But they only produce signal when they are sequenced
+correctly: a measurement artifact that runs against a non-existent
+capability produces refusals — and refusals at 100% generate noise, not
+data.
+
+The session that produced this ADR identified a concrete instance:
+a strategic plan proposed authoring `spatial_geometry_ood`,
+`historical_sequence_ood`, and other new eval lanes ahead of the
+operators that those lanes would test. The recommended "single most
+impactful next commit" was to populate the Tier 3 TBD rows by running
+existing lanes — a step that is legitimate but is in fact a snapshot,
+not advancement. Meanwhile the engine's actual capability bottleneck
+(`gsm8k_math` train_sample at 3/47/0) was treated as adjacent rather
+than as the gating concern.
+
+That kind of sequencing inversion is what this ADR prevents. It is in
+the same family of structural invariants as the field-state versor
+condition (CLAUDE.md §"Non-Negotiable Field Invariant"), ADR-0165's
+regex scope rule, and ADR-0114a's anti-overfitting obligations: a
+typed boundary the project enforces by convention, not a guideline.
+
+---
+
+## Rule
+
+> **Capability lands before the measurement that depends on it.**
+> An eval lane may only be authored when the operators it probes exist
+> on main and at least one case admits end-to-end through those
+> operators. An OOD lane for a domain may only be authored when the
+> in-domain capability it probes has a non-trivial baseline.
+>
+> An existing TBD measurement row may be populated at any time by
+> running the lane; this is a snapshot of current capability and is
+> permitted independently. But "populating TBD rows" is **not** a
+> substitute for the capability work that would make those numbers
+> rise.
+>
+> Expanding the eval surface ahead of the capability that produces
+> signal on it is rejected at PR review.
+
+---
+
+## Three-question test (apply to every new eval lane PR)
+
+When reviewing or proposing a new eval lane, answer three questions:
+
+1. **Does the capability this lane probes exist on main today?**
+   Name the modules. If you cannot point to specific code that
+   implements the operator, recognizer, or composition rule the lane
+   would exercise, the lane is being authored ahead of its capability.
+
+2. **Has at least one case admitted end-to-end through that
+   capability?** "Admitted" means produced a non-refused output that
+   passed admissibility. A lane whose every case will predictably
+   refuse generates no signal — it just stamps the same refusal mode
+   N times.
+
+3. **Will running this lane distinguish capability-presence from
+   capability-absence?** A lane that returns 0/N at capability=absent
+   and 0/N at capability=partial is not measuring; it is decorating
+   the data debt.
+
+A lane that fails any of these three is being authored ahead of its
+capability and must wait. The waiting period is not arbitrary: it
+ends when the answers shift to (1) yes, (2) yes, (3) yes — at which
+point the lane lands and immediately produces signal.
+
+---
+
+## Legitimate work (capability-before-lane)
+
+These are the canonical examples of correct sequencing.
+
+| Sequence | Example |
+|---|---|
+| Operator lands → lane authored that probes it → measure | ADR-0118 stepped realizer landed → `evals/articulation_of_status` authored → real metrics emerged |
+| Reader landed → coexistence wiring → measurement lane updated to use it | ADR-0164 Phase 1 reader landed → coexistence wiring (#331) → `reader_phase1_delta.json` produced |
+| Solver landed → capability axis lane → byte-stable baseline | ADR-0116 deterministic solver → capability-axis lanes G1–G5, S1 each at 100% on controlled cases |
+| Pack landed → pack-test landed → enum-coverage gate | `en_core_math_v1` (#322) → `tests/test_en_core_math_v1_pack.py` → manifest-checksum + lemma-count regression net |
+
+In each case, the measurement artifact was authored *after* there was
+something for it to measure, and produced signal the moment it ran.
+
+## Forbidden work (lane-before-capability)
+
+These are the patterns this ADR rejects.
+
+```
+# FORBIDDEN — authoring an OOD lane without the operator:
+
+mkdir evals/spatial_geometry_ood
+# But CGA-field → spatial-inference operators do not exist.
+# Every case will refuse. The lane will register 0/N pass for
+# however long the operators take to land, generating no signal
+# in the interim.
+```
+
+```
+# FORBIDDEN — authoring an external benchmark integration without
+# the prerequisite capability:
+
+mkdir evals/arc_easy
+# But the comprehension reader is currently math-specific in its
+# composition rules. ARC reasoning prose requires narrative-frame
+# composition rules that do not exist. The lane will refuse on
+# every case until that capability lands.
+```
+
+```
+# FORBIDDEN — adding TBD rows to the Tier 3 table as if they were
+# work:
+
+# tier3:
+#   multi_step_reasoning:   TBD
+#   symbolic_logic:         TBD
+#   cross_domain_transfer:  TBD
+#   spatial_geometry_ood:   TBD   <-- new row, capability missing
+```
+
+```
+# FORBIDDEN — substituting measurement work for capability work:
+
+# "The most impactful next commit is to run all Tier 3 lanes and fill
+#  the TBD rows."
+#
+# Wrong, when GSM8K-math is at 3/47/0 and the reader scope that
+# would lift it has not landed. The numbers Tier 3 would produce
+# are dominated by the unbuilt-reader noise floor. Populate the
+# rows AFTER the reader work clears the floor, not before.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Population — how the eval surface grows
+
+The closed sequencing rule is not static; it advances as capability
+advances. New lanes enter the surface through a specific pathway:
+
+1. **A capability commits to main.** Operator / recognizer /
+   composition rule lands with tests and a non-trivial admission case.
+
+2. **The contemplation corridor (ADR-0150 / 0152 / 0155 / 0161)
+   identifies measurement gaps the new capability now makes
+   testable.** This is the same corridor that grows the lexicon and
+   the primitive registry under ADR-0164 / 0165 — but it now also
+   surfaces "this capability admits but has no lane that measures it"
+   as a proposal type.
+
+3. **A new lane is authored.** Its first run produces real numbers
+   (not zeros), satisfying the three-question test from the moment
+   of landing.
+
+4. **The lane is added to the Tier 3 table or domain ledger as a
+   real row** with a real baseline — never as TBD.
+
+A TBD row exists *only* for lanes that were already authored under a
+prior capability and have not been re-run since. TBD is a re-run
+debt, not a placeholder for unbuilt lanes.
+
+---
+
+## Consequences
+
+### Positive
+
+1. **Signal-to-noise ratio of the eval surface stays high.** Every
+   lane that exists produces interpretable numbers. The number of
+   lanes that consistently report 0/N is bounded.
+2. **Strategic prioritization becomes legible.** When someone proposes
+   "what should we do next?" the answer is constrained by current
+   capability rather than by aspirational lane authoring. The order
+   "Brief 10 (Phase 2 reader) before any new OOD lane" is mechanical
+   under this rule.
+3. **Data debt has a fixed retirement path.** Run the lane → number
+   appears → no debt. There's no slow accrual of zeros that hides
+   whether progress is real.
+4. **The eval surface stays a *measurement* of CORE rather than a
+   *wishlist* for CORE.**
+
+### Negative / tradeoffs
+
+1. **Some lane authoring is deferred that an enthusiastic operator
+   might want to do "for completeness."** This is intentional; the
+   completeness gain is illusory if the lanes refuse uniformly.
+2. **The rule requires PR reviewers to verify the three-question test
+   — slight review overhead per new-lane PR.** The test is fast (one
+   grep + one trial run).
+3. **A new operator and a new lane cannot land in the same PR**
+   unless the operator's admission case is demonstrated *first*,
+   before the lane is added. (Allowed: operator + admission test in
+   PR N, lane in PR N+1. Forbidden: operator + lane in same PR with
+   no demonstrated admission.)
+
+---
+
+## Boundaries — what this ADR does **not** say
+
+1. **It does not forbid measurement.** Running existing lanes to
+   snapshot current numbers is always permitted and often
+   diagnostically valuable. The ADR governs *authoring*, not
+   *running*.
+
+2. **It does not require all lanes to pass at 100%.** A lane that
+   reports e.g. `correct=3 refused=47 wrong=0` is producing signal —
+   the refusals are themselves interpretable when wrong=0 is intact.
+   The ADR's "0/N pattern" forbidding refers to lanes that refuse
+   uniformly because their capability is wholly absent.
+
+3. **It does not constrain experimental probes.** A throwaway
+   measurement script under `scratch/` or `evals/_lab/` exploring
+   whether a capability would admit a class of input is fine. The
+   constraint applies to lanes that enter the canonical Tier 3 /
+   domain-ledger / capability-axis surfaces.
+
+4. **It does not specify ordering among capabilities.** Whether to
+   build Phase 2 statement reader before geometric-inference
+   operators is a separate strategic decision (see
+   `SESSION-2026-05-27-tier3-sequencing.md`). The ADR only says: in
+   whichever order capability is built, the lane that measures it
+   follows, not leads.
+
+5. **It does not constrain the contemplation corridor.** The
+   corridor's proposals (lexicon entries, primitives, recognizer
+   candidates) are not eval lanes; they ride a separate pathway
+   under ADR-0057 / 0150 / 0152 / 0161.
+
+---
+
+## Cross-references
+
+- **Sibling structural invariants** (same family, different domain):
+  - [ADR-0114a](./ADR-0114a-anti-overfitting-proof-obligations.md) —
+    Anti-overfitting proof obligations
+  - [ADR-0165](./ADR-0165-regex-scope-rule.md) — Regex scope rule
+  - CLAUDE.md §"Non-Negotiable Field Invariant" —
+    `versor_condition(F) < 1e-6`
+  - CLAUDE.md §"Normalization Rules" — allowed sites only
+- **The capability path that motivates this ADR**:
+  - [ADR-0164](./ADR-0164-incremental-comprehension-reader.md) — the
+    architectural pivot that, mid-build, makes the "run all Tier 3
+    lanes" framing premature
+  - [ADR-0114](./ADR-0114-expert-capability-roadmap-gsm8k-first.md) —
+    the roadmap that established GSM8K as the first capability gate
+- **Narrative record**:
+  - `SESSION-2026-05-27-tier3-sequencing.md` — how this rule was
+    reached, the prior analysis it amends, the honest re-sequence
+- **Population mechanism**:
+  - [ADR-0150](./ADR-0150-autonomous-inter-session-contemplation.md),
+    [ADR-0152](./ADR-0152-learning-arc-demo.md),
+    [ADR-0155](./ADR-0155-ci-contemplation-runner.md),
+    [ADR-0161](./ADR-0161-hitl-async-queue.md) — the corridor that
+    surfaces measurement gaps as proposals
+- **Anchor**: `[[thesis-decoding-not-generating]]` — measurement that
+  precedes capability is not decoding the engine's state; it is
+  generating a wishlist of states the engine has not yet entered.
+  The ADR keeps the eval surface aligned with what the engine
+  actually does.

docs/decisions/SESSION-2026-05-27-tier3-sequencing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+# SESSION 2026-05-27 — Tier 3 sequencing, eval-surface discipline, the ADR-0166 principle
+
+**Participants:** Shay, Claude (orchestrator), an earlier strategic-analysis agent (external)
+**Outputs:** [ADR-0166 — Measurement-Capability Sequencing Discipline](./ADR-0166-measurement-capability-sequencing.md)
+**Anchor:** [[thesis-decoding-not-generating]]
+
+---
+
+## What triggered the session
+
+The operator shared a substantive strategic analysis from another
+agent. That analysis surveyed CORE's current eval surface, identified
+that the Tier 3 learning-curve lanes (`multi_step_reasoning`,
+`symbolic_logic`, `cross_domain_transfer`,
+`zero_code_domain_acquisition`, `compositionality`,
+`inference_closure`) are all TBD, and proposed a four-phase plan to
+advance general capability:
+
+1. **Phase 1 (immediate):** Run all existing Tier 3 lanes; populate
+   the TBD rows.
+2. **Phase 2 (architectural):** Build the missing structural-pattern
+   recognizer + cross-subdomain transfer operator named in
+   `evals/cross_domain_transfer/gaps.md`.
+3. **Phase 3 (parallel to Phase 2):** Expand the OOD eval surface
+   (chemistry, propositional logic data, historical sequence,
+   geometry, multi-step causal, analogical).
+4. **Phase 4:** External benchmarks (ARC, BBH subset, GPQA-Diamond).
+
+The analysis declared its single most impactful next commit:
+**"run all Tier 3 lanes and fill the TBD rows."**
+
+The operator's question: where does this go — ADR, scope doc, or
+something else?
+
+## What the analysis got right
+
+Three load-bearing instincts:
+
+1. **Don't skip to MMLU-Pro or GSM8K-MATH.** Sequence respects
+   CORE's actual architecture; harder math comes later, after
+   structural reasoning is in place.
+
+2. **Geometry-first as strategic bet.** CGA gives CORE a structural
+   advantage in spatial reasoning that no transformer has.
+   Author the operator that produces the advantage, and chase the
+   moat instead of the leaderboard. This was the sharpest call.
+
+3. **TBD rows are data debt.** A measurement table full of TBD
+   plateaus the entire diagnostic surface. They need numbers.
+
+## What the analysis missed
+
+Two blind spots, one of them load-bearing.
+
+### Blind spot #1 — GSM8K-math treated as solved
+
+The analysis lists `gsm8k_math` matter-of-factly alongside the OOD
+lanes, as if the lane has a real, healthy capability behind it. It
+does not. At session start (post #331):
+
+```
+gsm8k_math/train_sample/v1:  correct=3  refused=47  wrong=0
+exit_criterion:              correct_min=10  →  not passed
+```
+
+The comprehension-reader Phase 1 wiring landed (ADR-0164 / #326 /
+#331). The measurement confirmed: question-only reader scope cannot
+move correct off the baseline because every question-refused case
+also has statement-side barriers. Phase 2 (Brief 10, statement-frame
+reader) is the load-bearing next dispatch.
+
+Against that backdrop, "the single most impactful next commit is to
+run all Tier 3 lanes" reads differently. It is measurement of a
+capability surface that has not yet cleared its first gate. The
+Tier 3 lanes will refuse uniformly until the math substrate handles
+its training set; their TBD rows would be filled with zeros that
+don't distinguish "the lane is hard" from "the engine isn't
+finished."
+
+### Blind spot #2 — the comprehension-reader pivot isn't in the analysis
+
+ADR-0164 / 0165 landed mid-session. The analysis's call for a
+"structural-pattern recognizer" is in significant part what the
+comprehension reader's update-rule tables *become* when their
+composition generalizes beyond math. The Phase 2 statement reader is
+the structural-pattern recognizer — under a different name — that
+the cross-domain gaps.md asks for. Authoring a separate
+"structural-pattern recognizer" component without checking whether
+the reader already is it (or will be, with Phase 2 + Phase 3) risks
+duplicating work.
+
+This isn't the analysis's fault — it didn't have the in-session
+context. But it means the proposed Phase 2 ("build the missing
+component") and the actual in-flight Phase 2 (Brief 10) collide.
+The correct read is that Brief 10 IS the cross-domain step the
+analysis names, embedded in the comprehension-reader architecture.
+
+## Mid-session finding that sharpened the diagnostic further
+
+While drafting this log, PR #332 (a wrong=0 guard + adapter
+hardening pass over the Phase 1 reader) landed its measurement and
+produced a deeper diagnostic than the Phase 1 result alone:
+
+> All 47 refused cases either have **incomplete graphs**
+> (recognized-but-not-injected statements — ADR-0163 recognizers
+> flag the shape but the injector produces structurally incomplete
+> output) or **question structures beyond Phase 1 scope** (aggregate
+> "they", numeric target values, hypernym units).
+
+The bottleneck is not statement *parsing* per se — it's the
+ADR-0163 recognizer **injectors** emitting incomplete data, which
+the reader correctly refuses to admit (wrong=0 by construction via
+the new guard). Two paths now open:
+
+- **Brief 10 (Phase 2 reader)** — bypass the inadequate injectors
+  by replacing statement parsing with the reader's compositional
+  rules. This is the long-term destination per ADR-0164.3 §Phase 3.
+- **ADR-0163 Phase E injector fixes** — fix the existing recognizer
+  pipeline to emit complete graphs. Shorter-term win, but doesn't
+  reduce the regex sentence-template surface (ADR-0165 and ADR-0164
+  call for eventual deletion).
+
+Brief 10 dominates here. Phase 2 reader fixes the structural
+problem; injector patches fix the symptom.
+
+## The honest re-sequence
+
+```
+NOW              Brief 10 (Phase 2 statement-frame reader)
+                   ↓ measure on gsm8k_math train_sample
+                 If correct ≥ 25: architecture proven at scale.
+                 If 4–24: name the specific gap → Phase 2.1 sub-brief.
+                 If 3:    deeper architectural problem; reassess.
+
+PARALLEL         Run existing Tier 3 lanes ONCE as a snapshot.
+(cheap)          Populate the TBD rows with whatever they read at
+                 today's capability. Re-run after Phase 2 lands.
+                 The snapshot is diagnostic, not strategic.
+
+NEXT             Cross-domain transfer operator (per gaps.md).
+                 BUT first verify whether the comprehension reader's
+                 Phase 2 / Phase 3 update rules already are this,
+                 under a different name. Don't duplicate work that
+                 is in flight.
+
+THEN             Geometry path:
+                   1. Build CGA → spatial-inference operators.
+                   2. Author spatial_geometry_ood.
+                   3. Run, measure.
+                 In that order. Lane after operator, per ADR-0166.
+
+LAST             External benchmarks (ARC, BBH, GPQA-Diamond).
+                 After the reader is genuinely domain-general — not
+                 just math — these become reachable targets.
+```
+
+## The principle being formalized
+
+The fourth governing principle that came out of this exchange:
+
+> **Build the mechanism, measure the mechanism, then expand scope.**
+> Don't expand the eval surface ahead of the capability that
+> produces signal on it. Lanes that refuse uniformly generate
+> noise, not data — and noise drowns the signal you actually want
+> to diagnose by.
+
+This is now ADR-0166 (Measurement-Capability Sequencing Discipline),
+sitting alongside ADR-0114a (anti-overfitting) and ADR-0165 (regex
+scope rule) as a structural invariant the project enforces by
+convention rather than by case-by-case judgment.
+
+The ADR's three-question test mechanizes the principle: every new
+eval lane PR answers "does the capability exist?", "has at least one
+case admitted?", "will the lane distinguish presence from absence?"
+A "no" on any of the three defers the lane until the capability
+lands.
+
+## What this session did not decide
+
+- **Which lane authoring follows Phase 2 measurement.** That depends
+  on the measurement outcome. If Phase 2 lifts correct ≥ 25, the OOD
+  expansion can begin. If not, Phase 2.1 narrows the gap first.
+- **Whether the ADR-0163 Phase E injector path is worth doing at
+  all.** Brief 10 makes it largely obsolete; the question is whether
+  there's enough short-term value to do it in parallel. Defer until
+  Brief 10's measurement.
+- **The structural-pattern recognizer's exact relationship to the
+  comprehension reader.** Audit recommended after Brief 10. If the
+  reader IS the recognizer in a different idiom, the
+  `cross_domain_transfer/gaps.md` text gets amended; if not, a
+  separate component is authored *after* the reader stabilizes.
+- **Geometry timeline.** Strategic bet, no timeline. Worth doing
+  when the operators are an obvious next move under existing
+  architecture; not worth forcing.
+
+## Closing observation
+
+The most useful thing the external analysis did was *not* its
+recommended action (run all Tier 3 lanes). It was the question its
+existence forced: where is signal, where is noise, where is data
+debt, where is wishlist? Sorting those four categories is the
+work. Once they're sorted, the next commit is mechanical: build
+the next mechanism the data actually needs, in the order the
+architecture supports.
+
+The other useful thing — almost incidental — was that the analysis
+was unaware of the comprehension-reader pivot. That gap forced us
+to articulate why the pivot supersedes a strict reading of the
+analysis's Phase 2. ADR-0166 codifies that articulation so it
+survives this conversation: capability before measurement,
+measurement before expansion, no lane authored ahead of its
+operator.
+
+The analysis itself was substantive and worth engaging. The
+amendments it required are documented here in the spirit of "we
+read it, we adopted what was right, we corrected what assumed
+unbuilt capabilities were built." That spirit is what ADR-0166
+preserves going forward.