core/docs/adr/teaching-derived-recognition-scope.md

Scope: Teaching-Derived Structural Recognition

Status: Draft v2 / scope-only (not a decision yet — prerequisite for one) Date: 2026-05-24 (v1: initial draft; v2: feature-bundle reframe + adversarial robustness + multi-resolution decoding) Author: CORE agents Anchor: thesis-decoding-not-generating (memory) Companion: epistemic-state-taxonomy-scope Related: ADR-0139 (algebraic substrate), ADR-0140 (additive group closure)

---

Why this document exists

The thesis commits CORE to a single load-bearing principle: the engine's competence is the capacity to find, comprehend, and rationalize — not a library of founds. Hand-coded patterns, hand-authored pack data, and pre-computed answers are inert; they store finds, not finding.

The GSM8K corridor violated this principle by adding regex patterns the engine neither derived nor introspects. The lift program (ADR-0139 → 0145) corrects the solving side. This scope addresses the recognition side — how the engine derives its own capacity to parse input into typed propositions, without that capacity being scaffolded from hand-coded patterns.

This scope document is the prerequisite for that work. It defines the question. The answer belongs to the spike and the ADR that follows.

v2 revision history. Scope-time review on 2026-05-24 surfaced three gaps that required rewriting v1:

1. Feature-bundle reframe. v1 used InitialPossession as the recognition target — pre-deciding the proposition category. v2 replaces that with feature-bundle outputs whose type emerges from the lifted features.
2. Adversarial robustness via evidence-bound lifts. v1 had no defense against inputs that surface-match a pattern but evidence different content. v2 requires every feature lift to carry a span pointer, with contradiction-detection and counter-evidence handling as load-bearing structural commitments.
3. Multi-resolution decoding. v1 operated at one level. v2 commits to chunked-first / word-by-word-fallback as the recognition strategy, producing typed feature lifts at multiple resolutions.

Per feedback-scope-time-is-cheap, surfacing these at scope time saved the implementation from being shaped wrong. The same discipline applies to whoever reviews this v2.

---

The load-bearing unknown

Can structural generalization from N reviewed teaching examples produce a deterministic recognizer that:

1. lifts a typed feature bundle from an unseen input whose structure is consistent with the examples,
2. refuses unseen inputs whose structure is inconsistent OR whose feature evidence is incomplete, contradictory, or counter-qualified,
3. replays byte-identically across runs, and
4. introspects — every lifted feature carries an evidence-span pointer; every refusal carries a typed reason; every state transition is auditable?

The four conditions are tight on purpose. Without (1), the recognizer isn't decoding. Without (2), it can be fooled by surface resemblance. Without (3), it's generating. Without (4), it's an LLM in deterministic clothing.

---

What "recognition" means concretely

Recognition is the operation that takes raw input text and produces a typed feature bundle — or refuses with a typed reason. The proposition's category (Possession / Desire / Future-Possession / Negated-Possession / etc.) is a consequence of the lifted features, not a pre-existing slot the engine fills.

For input "John has 5 apples":

FeatureBundle:
  agent:           span(0:4)  →  "John"
  relation:        span(5:8)  →  "has"
  quantity:        span(9:10) →  5
  object:          span(11:17) → "apples"
  polarity:        evidence(absence of negator across input) → affirmative
  modality:        evidence(bare verb form at span 5:8)      → actual
  tense:           evidence(present-tense morphology of "has") → present
  intentionality:  evidence(lexical content of "has")        → possession

Each feature has an evidence span (or evidence-derivation reason for features inferred from absence, like polarity). No silent defaults. If a feature can't be evidenced from the input, the bundle is incomplete and the recognizer refuses.

The eventual proposition type (Possession, in this case) is computed from the bundle by a downstream mapping that is itself derived from teaching — not stipulated by the recognizer.

How variations decode

Input	What changes from baseline	Resulting proposition type
"John has 5 apples"	(baseline)	Possession
"John hasn't 5 apples"	polarity: negative	Negated-Possession
"John has not 5 apples"	polarity: negative (multi-word form)	Negated-Possession
"John may have 5 apples"	modality: possible	Conditional-Possession
"John might have 5 apples"	modality: possible (variant marker)	Conditional-Possession
"John will have 5 apples"	tense: future, modality: certain	Future-Possession
"John wants 5 apples"	intentionality: desire	Desire (different type entirely)

Each row differs from the baseline in exactly the features the input evidences. The type label emerges from the feature combination.

---

Multi-resolution decoding

Recognition operates at multiple resolutions, falling through from coarse to fine until the input is either fully resolved or fully refused.

Resolution 1 — Chunk-level anti-unification

The input is divided into chunks (noun-phrase, verb-phrase, quantifier- phrase, object-phrase). The chunk-level recognizer matches each chunk against derived chunk patterns. If every chunk resolves cleanly and all features can be lifted from chunk-level evidence, the bundle is emitted.

Resolution 2 — Word-level fallback for unresolved chunks

If any chunk fails to resolve (e.g., the verb-phrase chunk shape matches but contains an unrecognized modal auxiliary), the recognizer drops to word-level on just that chunk. Word-level anti-unification identifies which words are feature-binding markers (negators, modal auxiliaries, intent verbs) and lifts them to the appropriate feature slot in the bundle.

Resolution 3 — Refusal with structured reason

If word-level also can't resolve, the recognizer refuses with a typed reason naming exactly:

• Which chunk(s) couldn't be resolved
• Which word(s) within those chunks lack vocabulary
• Which feature(s) consequently can't be lifted

The structured refusal is what the teaching loop targets. A refusal that names "word 'should' at position 2 of verb-phrase chunk is not in decoded modality vocabulary" points the teaching corpus at exactly the gap. Refusal becomes the engine's primary signal for what to learn next.

This is the analog of how find → comprehend → rationalize works in the thesis: chunked recognition is the find step; word-level decomposition is the comprehend step; bundle assembly is the rationalize step. All three are deterministic. Failure at any step produces a typed refusal with auditable provenance.

---

Three-layer refusal-first

Recognition refuses at three distinct levels, each with its own typed reason class:

Layer 1 — Shape level

The input doesn't match any decoded chunk pattern.

"Input shape unrecognized: no decoded pattern matches the token sequence at the chunk level. Closest patterns: [X, Y, Z]; nearest distance: D."

Layer 2 — Feature evidence level

The shape matches but a feature has no supporting span. No default is assumed.

"Shape recognized, but feature modality has no evidence span in the input. Decoded modality markers require explicit lexical evidence; no markers detected and no default permitted."

Layer 3 — Feature consistency level

Every feature has evidence, but two pieces of evidence contradict each other on the same feature.

"Feature polarity evidenced at span 5:8 as affirmative and at span 18:24 as negative. Contradiction; refuse with no admission."

"Counter-evidence detected at span 30:45 ('this is a lie') against otherwise-admissible bundle at spans 0:29. No decoded vocabulary for counter-evidence handling; refuse and surface as teaching candidate."

All three layers produce deterministic, typed, introspectable refusals. The engine isn't denying — it's pointing at exactly which substrate it lacks. That's what makes recognition refusable without becoming paralysis.

---

Adversarial robustness as a structural property

The three-layer refusal is what makes adversarial inputs harmless without requiring an anti-adversarial layer.

The thesis-aligned reading: the engine doesn't need to spot adversarial inputs; it needs to not be tricked into admitting them. Those are different commitments. Spotting is an arms race. Not-being- tricked is a structural property of the decoder.

An adversary using "something Possession-like to claim misleading possession" succeeds only if the engine accepts surface resemblance as decoding success. Evidence-bound lifts make surface resemblance insufficient — the engine has to point at where in the input each feature came from. "Blowing smoke" leaves nothing for the lifts to bind to in the dimensions that matter (intentionality, modality, factivity), so the engine refuses on those dimensions even when the surface pattern matches.

This is structurally analogous to how the math substrate refuses to substitute approximate recall for exact recall. The engine doesn't get fooled because substituting "looks-like" for "is" is forbidden at the substrate level, not because anti-fooling logic is bolted on.

---

Candidate mechanisms — honest evaluation

Four mechanisms surfaced earlier. Each is evaluated against the four conditions above and against the thesis. (Unchanged from v1 except where multi-resolution decoding affects the choice.)

Mechanism A — Graph intersection over example output structures

Useful as a sub-component (defining target shapes). Not sufficient on its own because it doesn't tell the engine how to map input text to feature bundles. Keep as building block.

Mechanism B — Versor extraction from input-pair variation

Requires text embedding into the CGA manifold, which doesn't exist yet. Blocked short-term. Reconsider after text-embedding scope.

Mechanism C — Null-cone region carving

Same embedding issue as B, plus "convex hull on a null cone" tends toward approximate predicates. Defer.

Mechanism D — Anti-unification over token sequences (multi-resolution)

Leading candidate. Deterministic, exact, well-defined (Plotkin 1970, Reynolds 1970), maps cleanly to existing CORE primitives. Multi- resolution operation: anti-unify at chunk level first, drop to word level for unresolved chunks. Produces a recognizer that's a typed pattern with evidence-binding slots — readable, serializable, introspectable.

Satisfies all four conditions on its face:

1. Admits matching inputs — the derived pattern matches inputs whose token sequences fit the constants-and-typed-slots structure with complete evidence.
2. Refuses non-matching, incomplete-evidence, or contradictory inputs — three-layer refusal.
3. Replays byte-identically — anti-unification is deterministic on the same input set; the resulting pattern is structural.
4. Introspects — every position in the pattern has clear origin; every refusal points at specific missing or conflicting evidence.

Doesn't violate the thesis: the engine derives the pattern, isn't given it.

---

Why not statistical alternatives

Same as v1, kept here for completeness:

• Statistical grammar induction (PCFGs) — approximate by construction. Confidence scores are explicit refusal-of-determinism. Violates thesis.
• Bayesian inference over parse structures — posteriors aren't exact predicates. Violates thesis.
• Neural sequence-to-structure models — the LLM-shaped option the thesis explicitly names as the trap.

Anti-unification is the mechanism in this space that is deterministic, exact, structural, introspectable, and well-defined on token sequences at multiple resolutions. That is why it survives evaluation.

---

The smallest provable test (proposed)

Two-phase structure. Each phase has binary acceptance; later phases run only if earlier phases succeed.

Phase 1 — Mechanism on uniform examples

Test whether anti-unification can produce a deterministic introspectable recognizer at all, on the easy case where examples are uniform across feature dimensions.

Teaching examples (4, all has-relation, all affirmative, all actual):

"John has 5 apples"            → bundle{agent, relation:has, count:5, unit:apple,  polarity:+, modality:actual, tense:present, intentionality:possession}
"Mary has 3 books"             → bundle{agent, relation:has, count:3, unit:book,   polarity:+, modality:actual, tense:present, intentionality:possession}
"A school has 100 students"    → bundle{agent, relation:has, count:100, unit:student, polarity:+, modality:actual, tense:present, intentionality:possession}
"The library has 12 chairs"    → bundle{agent, relation:has, count:12, unit:chair, polarity:+, modality:actual, tense:present, intentionality:possession}

(Determiner variation included so anti-unifier sees the determiner slot as variable rather than constant.)

Positive held-out (1):

"A baker has 24 loaves"  →  bundle{..., relation:has, count:24, unit:loaf, polarity:+, modality:actual, ...}

Acceptance: recognizer admits, produces full feature bundle with evidence spans for every feature.

Negative held-out (Phase 1 — shape level only):

"John gave 5 apples to Mary"  → REFUSED at Layer 1 (shape unrecognized: different verb structure)

If Phase 1 passes, the mechanism works on the easy case and Phase 2 is warranted. If Phase 1 fails, the mechanism is wrong and Phase 2 is moot.

Phase 2 — Variation lifting and adversarial robustness

Test whether multi-resolution decoding lifts meaningful variation as typed features rather than collapsing or refusing.

Teaching examples (8, varying polarity / modality / tense / intentionality):

"John has 5 apples"            → polarity:+, modality:actual,  intentionality:possession
"Mary hasn't 3 books"          → polarity:-, modality:actual,  intentionality:possession
"The school has not 100 students" → polarity:-, modality:actual, intentionality:possession (multi-word negation)
"A library may have 12 chairs" → polarity:+, modality:possible, intentionality:possession
"John will have 5 apples"      → polarity:+, modality:certain, tense:future, intentionality:possession
"Mary wants 3 books"           → polarity:+, modality:actual,  intentionality:desire
"The school might need 100 students" → polarity:+, modality:possible, intentionality:requirement
"A baker offered 24 loaves"    → polarity:+, modality:actual, intentionality:offer

Positive held-out (3 — variation lifting):

"John doesn't have 5 apples"   → admit with polarity:- (multi-word negation form)
"Mary may need 3 books"        → admit with modality:possible, intentionality:requirement
"A baker will offer 24 loaves" → admit with tense:future, intentionality:offer

Negative held-out (5 — adversarial robustness):

"John has 5 apples but doesn't"        → REFUSED at Layer 3 (polarity contradiction across spans)
"John may or may not have 5 apples"    → REFUSED at Layer 3 (modality contradiction)
"Alleged possession of 5 apples"       → REFUSED at Layer 2 ('alleged' modality marker not in decoded vocabulary)
"John has 5 apples (this is a lie)"    → REFUSED at Layer 3 (counter-evidence parenthetical not decoded)
"John has either 5 or 6 apples"        → REFUSED at Layer 3 (quantity feature evidenced with two values)

Acceptance: recognizer admits all 3 positive variation cases with correct feature bundles, refuses all 5 negative adversarial cases with the specified typed reason class (Layer 2 or Layer 3 as indicated). No silent defaults; no false admissions.

Determinism gate (both phases)

Running the spike twice produces:

• Byte-identical derived recognizers
• Byte-identical admission/refusal decisions
• Byte-identical provenance records on every output

If any of these vary across runs, the spike fails regardless of admission/refusal correctness.

---

Output structure (commits to epistemic-state-scope shape)

Every recognition output is a RecognitionOutcome carrying:

RecognitionOutcome:
  proposition:     <feature_bundle | None>
  state:           <one of: EVIDENCED, CONTRADICTED, AMBIGUOUS, UNDETERMINED>
  provenance:      <structured: mechanism, teaching_set_id, evidence_spans, replay_seed>
  refusal_reason:  <typed reason if state is refusal-class | None>

The recognition spike produces only this subset of epistemic states (EVIDENCED for admitted; CONTRADICTED / AMBIGUOUS / UNDETERMINED for the three refusal layers). VERIFIED and DECODED are downstream of substrate cross-reference work that doesn't exist yet.

This couples the recognition scope to the epistemic-state-scope without entangling them. The output structure is ready for the full taxonomy when the epistemic-state ADR lands; the recognition spike doesn't claim to produce states it doesn't yet have evidence for.

---

Prerequisites

The spike can be designed and prototyped before the lift program finishes — anti-unification operates over token sequences independently of how the resulting proposition is later solved.

The spike's output (a derived recognizer producing RecognitionOutcomes) cannot be integrated into Engine A until ADR-0144 exists (PropositionGraph from MathProblemGraph). Until then, the derived recognizer would target Engine B's MathProblemGraph and would have to be retargeted later.

Sequencing:

1. ADR-0140 (subtract) lands.
2. ADR-0141 (multiply) — concentrates remaining algebra risk.
3. Recognition Phase 1 runs in parallel with 0141.
4. ADR-0142 (Rate), ADR-0143 (compare).
5. Recognition Phase 2 runs in parallel with 0143.
6. ADR-0144 (MathProblemGraph → PropositionGraph).
7. Epistemic-state audit (Framing 1 from companion scope).
8. ADR-0145 (first GSM8K case end-to-end through Engine A) — uses lift substrate, derived recognizer, and ratified epistemic-state taxonomy together.

The spike does not block any of these. Integration is gated on ADR-0144 and on the epistemic-state audit.

---

Storage layer question (deferred)

Where does a derived recognizer live? Three candidates from v1, still open:

• In a pack (e.g., en_math_recognizers_v1): ratified pack entries, checksums, teaching-loop review. Pros: fits ratification machinery. Cons: pack format needs new entry type.
• In the vault: exact-recall vault entries consulted at recognition time. Pros: existing recall path. Cons: vault currently for content, not capability.
• As substrate (versor / graph) state: recognizer becomes structural feature of Engine A itself. Pros: most thesis-aligned. Cons: requires substrate work that doesn't exist yet.

ADR decides. Scope does not commit.

---

Risks the spike must surface (not pre-decide)

• Generalization too narrow. Anti-unifier may produce a pattern that admits only inputs almost identical to teaching. Measure; decide if more examples or richer anti-unification needed.
• Generalization too broad. False-admit rate against larger negative held-out set must be measured.
• Chunk-level vs syntactic-level decision. Token-sequence anti- unification ignores syntax. May need parse trees first. Defer decision to spike.
• Evidence binding precision. Every feature carrying a span is a strong claim. Some features (e.g., polarity from absence of negators) bind to negative evidence (no span). The provenance structure must accommodate this without weakening the "no silent defaults" rule.
• Counter-evidence vocabulary. Phase 2's negative held-outs assume the engine refuses on unrecognized modal markers ("alleged", "claimed") and counter-evidence parentheticals ("this is a lie"). The first time the engine sees these, refusal with structured reason is required teaching input. The spike must produce refusals the teaching loop can consume.
• Slot-type inference. Recognizing <COUNT> as numeric and <UNIT> as noun requires either pack-resident type information (exists in en_core_cognition_v1) or derived type information (recursive scope creep). Spike surfaces which is needed.

---

What the scope does NOT commit

• No mechanism is selected. Anti-unification (multi-resolution) is the leading candidate; spike tests it. Failure or fatal risk → re- evaluation.
• No storage layer is selected. Three candidates listed; ADR decides.
• No integration timeline committed.
• No parsing framework selected. Token-sequence first because simplest substrate; syntactic lift is fallback if token-level fails.
• No commitment to the full epistemic-state taxonomy from this scope. Recognition produces a subset (4 states); the full taxonomy is the companion scope's responsibility.

The scope's commitment is to the question. Answers belong to the spike and the ADR.

---

Open questions for follow-up scopes

Inherited from v1 (still deferred):

1. Text embedding into the CGA manifold.
2. Recursive derivation (recognizers-for-recognizers).

New from v2:

3. Counter-evidence vocabulary as first-class teaching target. "Alleged", "claimed", "(this is a lie)" need explicit teaching. The teaching loop's machinery for consuming Layer-3 refusals as correction candidates needs its own scope.
4. Compositional epistemic states. What does the engine do when recognition produces EVIDENCED but cross-reference produces CONTRADICTED? The transition machinery is the epistemic-state-scope's concern, but the recognition output structure must accommodate it.
5. Lens-conditional recognition. Different anchor lenses may produce different recognizers for the same teaching corpus (ἐπιστήμη lens vs. אמת lens may emphasize different features). How that interacts with this scope's deterministic-replay requirement is open.

---

Summary

The load-bearing unknown for teaching-derived recognition is whether deterministic structural generalization, operating at multiple resolutions over a small ratified example set, produces a recognizer that lifts typed feature bundles with evidence-bound provenance, refuses cleanly at three layers (shape / feature evidence / feature consistency), and replays byte-identically.

The leading candidate mechanism is multi-resolution anti-unification over token sequences — the unique deterministic-exact-introspectable option in the surveyed space.

The smallest provable test is a two-phase spike:

• Phase 1: 4 uniform examples → recognizer that admits matching unseen inputs at the shape level.
• Phase 2: 8 varied examples + 3 positive variation lifts + 5 adversarial-style negative cases → recognizer with multi-resolution decoding and three-layer refusal.

Both phases require byte-identical replay across runs and structured provenance on every output.

The spike can be designed in parallel with the lift program and does not block active work. Integration into Engine A is gated on ADR-0144 and on the epistemic-state audit succeeding.

This document does not propose a decision. It defines the question. Per feedback-scope-time-is-cheap: scope time is cheap. If a fourth buried assumption is hiding here, surface it before the spike commits.

---

Amendment (2026-05-24) — Connection to existing thermodynamic substrate

The "Storage layer question (deferred)" section above lists three candidates (pack / vault / substrate) without acknowledging the existing thermodynamic substrate already implemented under ADR-0006 (field energy operator) and ADR-0014 (vault promotion policy). That omission biases the candidate set: all three options are framed as new infrastructure, when in fact the project already operates a thawed ↔ crystallized lattice with exponential cooling decay, coherence-residual gated promotion, and transient re-thaw on recall.

The storage question is taken up properly in recognizer-storage-scope, which reframes it as: how does a derived recognizer participate in the existing field-energy / vault-promotion lattice, and what extension is needed to support HITL-gated drop-off? The three-candidate framing in this document is preserved for history; the recognizer-storage scope supersedes it.