core/docs/decisions/ADR-0168-frameclaim-ratification.md

ADR-0168 — FrameClaim Ratification Doctrine

Status: Proposed (doctrine/scoping ADR; no runtime mutation in this PR) Date: 2026-05-27 Author: Shay Parent: ADR-0167 Related: ADR-0114a, ADR-0164, ADR-0165, ADR-0166, ADR-0056/0057, ADR-0167 FOLLOWUPS §1/§5

---

Context

ADR-0167 intentionally scoped the first math-teaching corridor implementation to LexicalClaim only.

That choice was structural, not opportunistic:

• lexical ratification is local
• lexical ratification is additive
• lexical ratification does not alter graph-opening semantics
• lexical ratification cannot create new multi-step admissibility paths unless graph completeness is already satisfied

FrameClaim is different.

A FrameClaim does not merely say:

"surface form X belongs to category Y"

It says:

"surface form X opens (or does not open) a semantic frame of class K"

That is an admissibility decision.

Frame-openers determine:

• whether decomposition occurs
• whether slot extraction occurs
• whether quantities compose
• whether references bind
• whether downstream graph construction is attempted at all

A mistaken lexical entry can create noise. A mistaken frame opener can create false reasoning structure.

This is the first ADR-0167 sub-type where the system risks moving from:

refusal-first deterministic omission

into:

incorrect graph admission

which directly threatens the wrong == 0 invariant.

---

Prior ADR compatibility audit

This ADR is not final until it remains compatible with prior ADR doctrine. The following audit was performed before opening implementation work.

Prior ADR	Load-bearing rule	ADR-0168 compatibility result
ADR-0056	Contemplation is cognitive only; no corpus mutation; reviewed evidence boundaries matter	Compatible. ADR-0168 remains evidence/proposal-only and does not mutate during contemplation.
ADR-0057	Replay-equivalence is a precondition, not permission; operator accept is required; proposal logs are append-only	Compatible with constraint. FrameClaim implementation must use a math-specific proposal/ratification adapter or subtype that preserves the same replay/review discipline without weakening ADR-0057's corpus-evidence eligibility gate.
ADR-0114a	Zero wrong, typed refusal, adversarial misparse=0, determinism, operation provenance	Compatible. ADR-0168 inherits these obligations and elevates case 0050 and recognized-but-uninjectable hazards as mandatory pins.
ADR-0164	Incremental reader over semantic categories; no hidden best guess; new categories/rules require ADR	Compatible. FrameClaim ratifies reviewed category membership only; no dynamic category synthesis or runtime guessing.
ADR-0165	Regex only at lexeme level; never grammar templates	Compatible. ADR-0168 introduces no regex and no sentence-template path.
ADR-0166	Capability before measurement; no new eval lanes ahead of operators	Compatible. ADR-0168 is doctrine/capability scoping only and explicitly forbids new eval lanes in the implementation PR.
ADR-0167	Audit rows become teaching evidence; LexicalClaim first; harder sub-types require their own ADR	Compatible. ADR-0168 is exactly the next sub-type ADR and keeps audit rows evidence-only.

Resolved tension: ADR-0057 evidence floor

ADR-0057's ordinary TeachingChainProposal eligibility requires at least one source="corpus" evidence pointer. Math-domain FrameClaims originate from audit/refusal artifacts, not from the cognition teaching corpus.

ADR-0168 therefore does not weaken ADR-0057.

A future implementation must choose one of two compatible paths:

1. Define a math-specific proposal/ratification type whose evidence floor is MathReaderRefusalEvidence plus replay-admissibility evidence, while preserving ADR-0057's append-only/replay/operator-review discipline; or
2. Define a reviewed math corpus artifact that can supply the required corpus-style evidence pointer without borrowing cognition corpus evidence.

What is forbidden:

• treating audit evidence as cognition corpus evidence
• bypassing the reviewed-evidence floor
• auto-accepting because replay passed
• mutating runtime frame behavior outside the proposal/review boundary

This section is the compatibility trip-wire for any implementation PR.

---

Decision

FrameClaim ratification is permitted only as a deterministic, replay-equivalent, operator-reviewed proposal surface with explicit hazard pins and category allowlists.

This ADR does not approve runtime implementation.

This ADR defines:

• what a FrameClaim is
• what it is allowed to mutate
• what it is forbidden to mutate
• the replay obligations required before implementation
• the initial safe category surface
• the explicit non-goals

Implementation is deferred until a follow-on PR proves the acceptance gates below.

---

Definition of a FrameClaim

A FrameClaim is a reviewed assertion that a surface form participates in a specific frame-opening category.

Canonical shape:

(surface_form, frame_category, polarity)

Examples:

Surface	Category	Meaning
gave	transfer_frame	opens giver/receiver/object slots
spent	decrement_frame	reduces quantity ownership
earned	increment_frame	increases quantity ownership
left	remainder_frame	produces residual quantity

The claim concerns:

• frame admissibility
• slot topology
• decomposition eligibility

It does NOT assert:

• arithmetic truth
• entity identity
• quantity correctness
• reference resolution
• solver validity

Those remain separate sub-types.

---

Why FrameClaim is dangerous

Frame-openers sit upstream of nearly every later reasoning stage.

A lexical error may fail to ground. A frame error may create an entirely fabricated graph.

The principal hazard is:

recognized-but-wrongly-opened graph construction

This is exactly the class of issue exposed by:

• GSM8K train-sample case 0050
• recognized-but-uninjectable skip-only fallback
• partial-graph greed

The system must therefore prefer:

refusal > incomplete graph > speculative frame opening

at all times.

---

Initial safe category scope

Initial implementation scope MUST be allowlist-only.

No freeform frame invention. No dynamic category synthesis. No embedding-nearest-category fallback.

Initial safe categories:

Category	Scope
increment_frame	additive ownership gain
decrement_frame	subtractive ownership loss
transfer_frame	giver/receiver transfer
remainder_frame	residual quantity after removal

Explicitly excluded initially:

Deferred category	Reason
comparison frames	ambiguity amplification
temporal frames	multi-anchor semantics
pronoun-dependent frames	requires ReferenceClaim
implicit-unit frames	requires SlotClaim
nested composition frames	requires CompositionClaim
metaphorical/idiomatic frames	non-deterministic semantics

---

Mutation boundary

A FrameClaim ratification MAY mutate only:

• reviewed frame-category registries
• reviewed verb→frame mappings
• proposal-layer artifacts

A FrameClaim ratification MUST NOT directly mutate:

• solver logic
• parser traversal order
• decomposition recursion policy
• runtime graph execution
• arithmetic operators
• refusal logic
• graph verifier semantics

The runtime consumes ratified frame data only through existing reviewed pack-loading mechanisms.

No direct hot-path mutation.

---

Replay obligations

Before implementation, the following replay obligations must be proven.

1. Deterministic claim signature

Equivalent refusals MUST produce identical normalized claim signatures.

Canonical identity must include:

• surface form
• normalized frame category
• polarity
• audit-row digest
• refusal category

Equivalent evidence MUST deduplicate.

---

2. Replay equivalence

Ratified FrameClaims MUST replay identically across:

• in-process runs
• cross-process runs
• reordered candidate queues
• repeated ingestion of the same audit evidence

No queue-order dependence.

---

3. wrong==0 preservation

The implementation must prove:

new frame admission cannot silently convert a prior refusal
into an incorrect graph acceptance

This specifically requires hazard pins for:

• case 0050
• recognized-but-uninjectable fallback
• partial graph acceptance
• decomposition-without-slot-completeness

---

4. Refusal stability

Previously refusing cases MAY become:

• correctly admitted
• still refused

They MUST NOT become:

• partially admitted
• ambiguously admitted
• non-deterministically admitted

---

Partition guarantees

FrameClaims inherit the ADR-0167 domain partition.

Math-domain frame claims:

• use math-domain replay gates
• use math-domain contemplation routing
• do not borrow cognition corpus evidence
• do not reuse cognition semantic-domain classifiers

Cross-domain leakage is prohibited.

---

Refusal-first doctrine

The system must continue preferring:

refuse > speculate

throughout FrameClaim processing.

Specifically forbidden:

• nearest-frame guessing
• probabilistic fallback frame selection
• majority-vote frame admission
• confidence-threshold semantic coercion
• dynamic graph completion

A missing frame remains a refusal event.

The teaching corridor exists precisely so the engine does not need to invent structure at runtime.

---

Non-goals

This ADR does NOT approve:

• CompositionClaim
• ReferenceClaim
• SlotClaim
• dynamic frame synthesis
• graph-schema replacement
• automatic frame learning
• runtime self-modification
• autonomous pack mutation
• embedding-derived semantic repair

This ADR also does NOT attempt to solve:

• generalized natural language understanding
• open-ended semantic parsing
• unrestricted text interpretation

The target is bounded deterministic graph admission for audited GSM8K-style reasoning surfaces.

---

Sequencing

Per ADR-0166:

Q1 — Capability

Adds one new operator-ratifiable admissibility surface:

surface form -> reviewed frame category

using the existing audit → contemplation → replay → HITL corridor.

Q2 — Lane

No new eval lane.

Existing:

• GSM8K audit lane
• contemplation replay lane
• wrong==0 gates
• determinism checks

remain the proof surface.

Q3 — Invariant

Must preserve:

• wrong==0
• replay equivalence
• deterministic claim hashing
• refusal-first semantics
• explicit operator ratification
• reviewed mutation only

The implementation PR passes only when all six are mechanically proven.

---

Acceptance gates for implementation PR

A future implementation PR must provide:

• deterministic claim canonicalization tests
• replay-equivalence tests
• queue-order independence tests
• duplicate ratification idempotency tests
• case 0050 hazard pins
• recognized-but-uninjectable regression pins
• refusal-stability regression suite
• cross-domain partition tests
• no-corpus-mutation proof
• no-runtime-hotpatch proof

without introducing:

• new eval lanes
• stochastic routing
• runtime graph guessing

---

Relationship to ADR-0167

ADR-0167 established:

audit rows become teaching evidence

ADR-0168 establishes:

frame-opening semantics may become reviewed teaching evidence,
but only under deterministic replay-constrained doctrine

The distinction matters.

LexicalClaim teaches vocabulary. FrameClaim teaches admissibility structure.

That is a materially more dangerous surface and therefore requires explicit doctrine before implementation.

---

Decision

CORE may extend the ADR-0167 teaching corridor from lexical ratification into bounded frame-opening ratification, provided:

• replay equivalence remains deterministic
• wrong==0 hazard pins hold
• frame categories remain explicitly allowlisted
• runtime speculation remains prohibited
• all mutation remains proposal-reviewed and replay-auditable

Refusal remains preferable to speculative graph construction.

Reopening this ADR requires evidence that:

1. the replay obligations cannot be satisfied mechanically, or
2. a graph-schema approach supersedes sub-type ratification entirely.