core/docs/decisions/ADR-0163-gsm8k-path-to-mastery.md

ADR-0163 — Path to GSM8K mastery: candidate-graph admissibility via the contemplation/HITL corridor

Status: Proposed Date: 2026-05-26 Author: Shay Anchor: thesis-decoding-not-generating Parent: ADR-0114a — Capability Obligations, ADR-0119 — GSM8K eval lane Companions: ADR-0149 — Recognizer pipeline, ADR-0151 — Auto-proposal pipeline, ADR-0152 — Learning-arc proof corridor, ADR-0155 — CI contemplation runner, ADR-0161 — HITL async queue, ADR-0132/0133/0134/0135 — Binding graph

---

Context — what the audit found

A scoping pass across the unlanded math branches and the actually-shipped state on main produced a result that reframes the math architecture question entirely.

State of the math substrate on main

The following components are already landed (worktrees on disk are stale forks of work that landed via other PR paths):

Component	Status
generate/binding_graph/ (all 7 modules: model, allocation, adapter, admissibility, units, question_target, __init__)	✅ landed (ADR-0132/0133/0134/0135)
generate/math_versor_arithmetic.py (221 lines)	✅ landed (ADR-0139/0140)
generate/math_symbolic_equivalence.py (97 lines) + math_symbolic_normalizer.py (371 lines)	✅ landed (ADR-0131.1)
generate/math_parser.py (1,106 lines)	✅ landed
generate/math_candidate_parser.py (2,232 lines)	✅ landed
generate/math_candidate_graph.py (511 lines)	✅ landed
generate/math_problem_graph.py (490 lines)	✅ landed
generate/math_solver.py (506 lines), math_verifier.py (501 lines), math_realizer.py (422 lines), math_roundtrip.py (484 lines)	✅ landed
Capability axis lanes G1..G5, S1	✅ landed with v1 corpora

Capability axis lane results on main

Every named capability axis passes its controlled lane at 100% with wrong = 0:

Lane	Cases	Solved correct	Refused as expected	Wrong	Verdict
G1 verb classes	20	20	0	0	✅ exit_criterion passed
G2 comparatives	29	29	0	0	✅ wrong_count_is_zero
G3 numerics v1	26	20	6	0	✅ overall_pass: true
G4 multi-clause	32	32	0	0	✅ wrong_count_is_zero
G5 aggregate	20	20	0	0	✅ wrong_count_is_zero
S1 rate events	20	20	0	0	✅ wrong_count_is_zero

GSM8K train-sample result on main (50 cases, ADR-0126)

correct: 0
refused: 50
wrong:   0
exit_criterion: { correct_min: 10, wrong_max: 0, passed: false }

Every refusal reason is identical in shape:

candidate_graph: no admissible candidate for statement: "<STATEMENT>"

Sample refused statements:

• "Tina makes $18.00 an hour." — rate with currency
• "She splits it up into 25-foot sections." — division-into-sections + unit
• "The student council sells scented erasers in the morning before school starts to help raise money for school dances." — descriptive setup, no extractable quantity
• "There are some kids in camp." — indefinite quantity ("some")
• "In one hour, Addison mountain's temperature will decrease to 3/4 of its temperature." — rate of change + fraction

The reframe

The gap is not in operator algebra, not in the binding graph internals, not in symbolic equivalence, not in the capability axes themselves. The gap is in generate/math_candidate_graph.py — the admissibility surface that turns a natural-language statement into a candidate the downstream pipeline can consume.

The capability axes pass at 100% because they test statement shapes the candidate-graph already admits. GSM8K refuses at 100% because its statements span shapes the candidate-graph has never been taught.

Every downstream component (binding graph, versor arithmetic, symbolic equivalence, multi-clause decomposer, aggregator) is mastered in isolation. The lift to GSM8K is admissibility expansion, not operator development.

This is the most consequential single finding in the math work to date. It reframes the entire roadmap.

---

Decision — what to build, in what order, under what doctrine

Doctrine

Three non-negotiables:

1. wrong = 0 is invariant at every phase. A wrong answer is an architectural regression, not a tuning miss. A refused answer is honest; a wrong answer is not. Every exit criterion in this ADR reads wrong_max: 0.

2. No hand-rolled recognizers. New statement shapes land via the DerivedRecognizer pipeline that ADR-0149/0154 already wired. The recognizer comes from corpus exemplars, not from operator-written regex. This honors thesis-decoding-not-generating: we teach the engine to find better, not stuff it with more found patterns.

3. Every new shape lands through the contemplation → proposal → review corridor. No parallel learning path. Recognizers are proposed by contemplation (ADR-0150/0152), gated by replay-equivalence (ADR-0057), reviewed by the operator via the HITL queue (ADR-0161), and admitted to the active corpus only on ratification.

These three rules, applied consistently, make admissibility expansion a capability of the engine rather than an editing task on the operator.

Phases

Phase A — Refusal taxonomy (measure before building)

Goal: categorize every refused statement in the GSM8K train sample by statement shape, not by content.

Deliverables:

1. evals/gsm8k_math/refusal_taxonomy/v1/taxonomy.jsonl — one record per refused statement, carrying case_id, statement, refusal_reason, and a typed shape_category enum.
2. Initial shape categories (extend as the corpus grows):
   • rate_with_currency — "Tina makes $18.00 an hour."
   • unit_partition — "She splits it up into 25-foot sections."
   • descriptive_setup_no_quantity — pure context with no extractable measurement.
   • indefinite_quantity — "some", "a few", "several".
   • fractional_rate_of_change — "decreases to 3/4 of its temperature".
   • comparative_with_unit — "20% more than", "twice as long as".
   • nested_question_target — "How many more than X did Y have?"
   • temporal_aggregation — "over five days, she earns…"
   • conditional_quantity — "if she had 2 more, she would have…"
3. A new eval lane evals/refusal_taxonomy/ that runs the categorizer over an arbitrary refused-statement set and emits the histogram.
4. Acceptance: every refused statement in the 50-case sample has a typed shape_category; "uncategorized" count is reported but non-blocking.

This phase produces no recognizers and no corpus changes. It is the load-bearing measurement that prevents Phase B from chasing the wrong gap.

Phase B — Exemplar corpus per shape category

Goal: for each top-N shape category from Phase A, hand-author a small exemplar corpus (≤ 20 statements per category) with the expected MathProblemGraph shape annotated.

Deliverables:

1. teaching/admissibility_exemplars/<shape_category>_v1.jsonl per category, each line carrying statement, expected_graph, and provenance.
2. The exemplar corpus is reviewed-evidence floor material under ADR-0057 — pack-consistent, boundary-clean, polarity affirms.
3. Top-N is chosen by Phase A's histogram. Three categories per round; ratchet rather than scope creep.

This phase is the only place hand-authoring happens. Twenty statements per category, three categories per round — sixty hand- authored statements total per round. Each one is a seed the contemplation loop generalizes.

Phase C — Contemplation ingests exemplars and emits recognizer proposals

Goal: the contemplation runner (ADR-0150/0152/0155) ingests each exemplar corpus, decomposes the statements, and emits one or more DerivedRecognizer proposals per shape category.

Deliverables:

1. Contemplation runner extended to ingest the exemplar corpus path as a candidate source (alongside discovery_candidates.jsonl).
2. Each proposal carries:
   • the shape category it generalizes,
   • the recognizer's pattern in canonical form,
   • replay-equivalence evidence against the active corpus + the exemplar set,
   • per-shape coverage metrics.
3. Proposals land in teaching/proposals/proposals.jsonl as usual (ADR-0057), visible in the HITL queue (ADR-0161 §1).
4. wrong = 0 invariant: each proposal's replay-equivalence gate runs against the GSM8K train sample. If accepting the proposal would lift wrong above 0 even on a single case, the proposal is auto-rejected at the gate.

Phase D — Operator ratifies through HITL queue

Goal: the operator reviews each recognizer proposal through the existing surfaces (CLI / workflow_dispatch / GitHub PR review) per ADR-0161 §2.

Deliverables:

• No new operator surface. The proposals appear in the queue with their shape category, exemplar coverage, replay evidence, and the ratification CLI command.
• Operator accepts, rejects, or withdraws.
• Engineering wiring (landed alongside the operator surface, ADR-0163.D PR):
  • generate/recognizer_registry.py — pure projection of accepted exemplar_corpus proposals from the proposal log into a sorted-tuple of :class:RatifiedRecognizer records. In-process cache keyed on the log's (mtime, sha256).
  • generate/recognizer_match.py — per-category rules-only matchers (no LLM, no embedding) honoring the Phase C synthesizer's narrowness rule: out-of-corpus surface forms return None. parsed_anchors carry extracted tokens from the statement.
  • generate/math_candidate_graph.py — narrowest-edit guard at the per-statement choice loop: before the existing "no admissible candidate for statement" refusal, consult the ratified registry. Recognized statements are skipped from per_sentence_choices (contribute zero math state), preserving wrong=0 by construction. Empty registry is a no-op.
  • Downstream consumption of parsed_anchors (turning recognized rate/temporal surfaces into solver state) is Phase E follow-up.

Phase E — Re-baseline GSM8K train sample

Goal: after each ratification round, re-run the train-sample eval and update the counts.

Deliverables:

1. Automated re-baseline triggered by any merge that adds a recognizer.
2. Pass criteria for this ADR:
   • Round 1 exit: correct ≥ 10, wrong = 0 on the 50-case sample (matches the existing exit criterion in the report's exit_criterion block).
   • Round 2 exit: correct ≥ 25, wrong = 0.
   • Round 3 exit: correct ≥ 35, wrong = 0.
3. Each round runs Phases A → B → C → D → E in sequence.

Phase F — Scale to public, holdout, full GSM8K

Once the train sample clears Round 3, scope expands:

Split	Cases	Target
public/v1	200	correct ≥ 0.5 × cases, wrong = 0
holdout/v1	200	first run is measurement-only; do not tune against
Full GSM8K (8,500)	8,500	post-Phase F follow-up ADR; out of scope here

The holdout run is never used to drive recognizer additions. Per ADR-0114a doctrine, holdout is the OOD ratio check; tuning against it would invalidate the eval.

---

Constraints (non-negotiable)

1. wrong = 0 at every phase, every round, every split. Refusals are honest; wrong answers are architectural regressions. Any recognizer that would lift wrong above 0 is auto-rejected by the replay gate, never by operator judgment alone.

2. No hand-rolled recognizers in generate/. Every recognizer added to the runtime comes from the contemplation → proposal → review corridor. Phase B's exemplar corpus is input to that corridor, not output of it. A PR that adds a regex-style recognizer directly to math_candidate_parser.py violates this ADR and must be rejected.

3. Replay-equivalence is a precondition, never permission. Per ADR-0057, replay-equivalence makes a proposal eligible for review, not automatically accepted. This ADR does not weaken that.

4. Active corpus mutation only via accept_proposal. Per ADR-0152 and ADR-0156/0158, the only path that mutates the active teaching corpus is the reviewed accept path. Recognizer additions land via that path or not at all.

5. No tuning against holdout. Phase F's holdout split is measurement-only. Tuning against it makes the eval lie.

6. Determinism preserved. Each round's recognizer addition is a reviewed, append-only mutation. GSM8K runs at any historical SHA replay byte-identically given the corpus at that SHA.

---

Out of scope

This ADR does not commit to:

• a frontier-model comparison harness beyond what ADR-0119 already scoped;
• a benchmark publication strategy;
• patent prep work;
• Rust backend parity for the math path (waiting on Python semantics to lock, per CLAUDE.md work-sequencing);
• the full GSM8K split (8,500 problems) — that lives in a follow-up ADR after Phase F clears public;
• non-GSM8K math benchmarks (MATH, AQuA, ASDiv) — scoped by separate ADRs once the corridor proves itself on GSM8K;
• multimodal math (charts, geometry images);
• a math-specific workbench surface — the existing Workbench (ADR-0160 / 0162) is sufficient; lane-level inspection of refusal histograms becomes a RefusalHistogramPanel in the Eval Center (W-030) once that lands.

---

Implementation plan — first three PRs

PR 1 — Phase A scaffolding (refusal taxonomy)

• evals/refusal_taxonomy/ lane: contract.md, runner.py, v1/cases.jsonl (mirrors the 50 refused statements from train_sample/v1/report.json).
• evals/refusal_taxonomy/v1/shape_categories.py — the enum.
• core teaching refusal-taxonomy --input <path> CLI command for re-running over an arbitrary refused set.
• Tests pin the enum coverage and the shape-categorizer's deterministic output.
• Produces an initial histogram of the 50-case sample.

PR 2 — Phase B round 1 exemplar corpora

For the top three shape categories from PR 1's histogram, hand-author ≤ 20 exemplar statements each with expected MathProblemGraph shape. No runtime change.

PR 3 — Phase C contemplation extension

Extend the contemplation runner to ingest exemplar paths as candidate sources. Surface the per-shape coverage metric in the proposal log. No new ratification path; existing HITL queue (ADR-0161) handles it.

After PR 3 lands, the contemplation runner produces recognizer proposals; the operator ratifies; Phase E re-baseline confirms correct ≥ 10, wrong = 0. Round 1 closes.

---

Acceptance criteria

This ADR is ratifiable when:

1. The audit findings above are independently verifiable by running each capability axis lane on main and observing wrong = 0.
2. The GSM8K train-sample correct: 0, refused: 50, wrong: 0 baseline is reproducible at the current commit SHA.
3. The phase ordering (A → B → C → D → E → F) does not allow Phase B to start before Phase A produces a histogram, nor Phase C before Phase B writes exemplars.
4. The wrong = 0 invariant is enforced as an auto-reject in the replay-equivalence gate, not as a post-hoc operator check.

This ADR is delivered when:

5. GSM8K public/v1 (200 cases) reaches correct ≥ 100, wrong = 0.
6. GSM8K holdout/v1 measurement-only run is recorded once at the end and never used to drive recognizer additions.

---

Consequences

Positive

• The math roadmap is reduced from "build operators, build axes, build decomposer, build aggregator" to one problem: expand the candidate-graph's admissibility surface through the contemplation corridor. Every other math component is mastered.
• Recognizer additions become a capability of the engine, not an editing task on the operator. The thesis ("decodes, not generates") manifests in the math lane directly.
• The exit criterion (wrong = 0 at every round) is enforceable by the replay gate, not by operator vigilance.
• The HITL queue (ADR-0161) absorbs the curriculum-expansion pressure the master plan flagged as a future risk. Math is the first lane that scales through it.

Negative

• Phase A (refusal taxonomy) is upfront measurement work that ships no capability. Two-three days of audit before any GSM8K case starts passing. Worth it; the alternative is operators chasing whichever problem shape caught their eye first.
• The exemplar corpus (Phase B) is hand-authored. Sixty statements per round, hand-checked for shape correctness, is real work. The alternative — auto-mining exemplars from GSM8K itself — would violate the holdout discipline and tune against the benchmark we're trying to honestly measure.
• The wrong = 0 auto-reject gate may auto-reject proposals that are almost right. This is intentional. An almost-right recognizer that produces one wrong answer is worse than a refusal.

Risks

• The taxonomy could fragment. Mitigation: cap initial shape categories at ~9 and require every new category to cite ≥ 3 refused statements. Phase A acceptance test enforces this.
• The HITL queue could backlog. ADR-0161 §4's pending cap (256) applies here. If math proposals saturate the queue, the operator raises the cap via repo variable or pauses contemplation runs.
• Recognizer generalization could overfit to exemplars. Mitigation: every recognizer is replayed against the entire GSM8K train sample and the public capability axes; regression on any axis auto-rejects.

---

Cross-references

• ADR-0114a — Capability Obligations — perturbation, OOD ratio, depth curve obligations the math lane must keep honoring
• ADR-0119 — GSM8K eval lane — eval lane definition
• ADR-0131.G.* — capability axis lanes — G1..G5, S1 mastered
• ADR-0132/0133/0134/0135 — binding graph — landed substrate
• ADR-0139/0140 — versor arithmetic — landed operator algebra
• ADR-0149/0154 — recognizer pipeline — substrate this ADR builds on
• ADR-0150/0152 — autonomous contemplation + learning-arc corridor — proposal source
• ADR-0155 — CI contemplation runner — async producer
• ADR-0057 — proposal review + replay-equivalence — gating discipline
• ADR-0161 — HITL async queue — review surface
• CLAUDE.md — wrong = 0 discipline, no hidden normalization, exact recall, proposal-only learning

Memory cross-references

• thesis-decoding-not-generating — the load-bearing thesis this ADR applies to math. Every recognizer comes from the engine learning a shape, not from the operator stuffing a regex.
• feedback-address-critiques-dont-waive — the audit critique ("the gap is admissibility, not operators") is acted on here, not noted.
• feedback-adr-cross-reference-discipline — every substrate this ADR builds on is cited; no parallel mechanism is introduced.
• feedback-cleanup-as-you-find — the stale feat/adr-0131-* and feat/binding-graph-phase* branches on disk should be deleted as a hygiene PR after this ADR ratifies; the work is already on main.
• feedback-scope-time-is-cheap — Phase A is the "pause and scope" move applied to math. Two-three days of taxonomy before any recognizer work prevents weeks of chasing the wrong gap.