a0765066b4
Closes the 6-phase ADR-0024 chain with a focused comparative demo
that distinguishes CORE (inner-loop + margin + typed refusals) from
the in-system boundary-only baseline (ADR-0023 ablation).
Three conditions, all passing under contract tests:
C1. Replay determinism
baseline: 8/8 stable across 5 reruns
CORE: 8/8 stable across 5 reruns
CORE additionally folds refusal_reason into trace hash so
refusal events are replayable evidence.
C2. Traced rejection
baseline emits forbidden: 3/3 (admits=False but walk continues)
CORE corrects-or-refuses: 3/3
CORE rejection in trace: 3/3
Demonstrates that inner-loop is causally responsible for the
selection difference between baseline and CORE.
C3. Coherent refusal
baseline typed refusals: 0/3 (never raises typed refusal)
baseline emits inadmissible: 3/3
CORE typed refusals: 3/3 (all INNER_LOOP_EXHAUSTION)
Demonstrates that typed refusal with rejected_attempts evidence
is new in CORE, not present in boundary-only.
Why in-system baseline (not LLM):
A transformer-LLM comparison would be non-deterministic by
construction, could not be CI-enforced, and would be apples-to-
oranges (different corpus / training / sampling). The honest
comparison is the ablation: same codebase with the Phase 2-5
additions disabled.
Files:
evals/forward_semantic_control/phase6_demo.py
evals/forward_semantic_control/public/v2_phase6_demo/cases.jsonl (8 cases)
evals/forward_semantic_control/results/phase6_demo_report.json
tests/test_phase6_demo.py (17 passing)
docs/evals/phase6_comparative_demo.md
Tests: 1085 passed, 2 skipped (+17 from Phase 5 baseline).
This closes the ADR-0024 6-phase chain:
Phase 1 — pack-grounded fixture + architectural finding (
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| architecture | ||
| decisions | ||
| evals | ||
| sessions | ||
| capability_roadmap.md | ||
| eval_methodology.md | ||
| formation_pipeline_plan.md | ||
| frontier_baselines.md | ||
| PROGRESS.md | ||
| runtime_contracts.md | ||
| RUST.md | ||
| truth_seeking_schema.md | ||
| Whitepaper.md | ||
| Yellowpaper.md | ||