core/docs/decisions/ADR-0193-aggregate-existential-question-frame.md

ADR-0193 — Aggregate total-across: the existential question frame

Status: Proposed (implemented in this PR). Parent / extends: ADR-0131.G.5 — Aggregate Answer Composition. Builds on: ADR-0191 (completeness firewall) and ADR-0192 (open-vocabulary possession statements). Substrate-with-compose: train_sample byte-identical 4/46/0; full-corpus wrong=0 HOLDS; the frame composes end-to-end (proven below) and advances 23 real problems past the question wall.

One line. The solver already aggregates a total-across unknown (Unknown(entity=None, unit=X) sums every matching-unit state entry), and ADR-0131.G.5 wired exactly one verb frame for it — "...do they have <cue>?" — over a closed cue vocabulary. The equally common GSM8K existential frame, "How many <unit> are there <cue>?", produced zero question candidates and refused at the question stage. This adds that frame over the same closed cues (no cue-vocabulary widening).

---

1. The gap (microscope finding, 2026-05-30)

The full-corpus microscope (scripts/gsm8k_microscope.py, ADR-0191) partitions the serving reader's refusals. Among the 46 refusing train_sample cases, exactly 5 are pure question-stage walls (all statements parse, only the question refuses): 0007, 0008, 0009, 0025, 0035 — each needing a different solver capability (rate-division, comparative+algebra, inverse target-state, multiplicative-aggregate). None is a simple total-across aggregate.

On the full 7,473-question corpus, however, ~60 problems close with an explicit aggregate cue in a frame the parser did not recognise:

surface	count	status before
"How many <unit> are there <cue>?"	~31	refused at question stage
"What is the total number of <unit>?"	~29	refused (ADR-0131.G.5 probe)

The solver path for both is identical to the working "do they have <cue>" form — _resolve_unknown sums entity=None across all matching-unit state. The wall was purely the question parser's verb-frame coverage.

2. Decision

Add one question pattern, _Q_THERE_RE in generate/math_candidate_parser.py:

^How many <unit:1-2 words> are there <agg-cue>{1,2}?$

• <agg-cue> is the same closed vocabulary ADR-0131.G.5 established — in total, altogether, combined, together, plus the long-standing in all. This ADR does not widen the cue set; it adds a verb frame.
• The cue is required ({1,2} occurrences). The bare "are there?" form is deliberately NOT admitted — it is too ambiguous to map to total-across, and ADR-0131.G.5 pins it (G5-refuse-004) as a refusal probe, which still refuses unchanged.
• Maps to Unknown(entity=None, unit=<canonical>) — identical to the working frame.

Why this is safe (the firewall is the precondition)

wrong=0 is held downstream, not by the question form:

• question round-trip (_question_admissible) requires the unit token to ground in the question span; a conjoined unit ("dogs and cats") fails the 1–2-word match and refuses;
• completeness guard (ADR-0191) requires every source quantity to be consumed — a derived unit ("animal legs", needing legs-per-animal multiplication) leaves a quantity uncovered and refuses (verified: the one full-corpus case reaching the guard, "Adlai has 2 dogs and 1 chicken… how many animal legs are there in all?", correctly refuses);
• branch disagreement refuses any competing reading.

3. What this deliberately does NOT do (ADR cross-reference)

"What is the total number of <unit>?" is NOT admitted here, even though the solver would sum it correctly. ADR-0131.G.5 pins that exact surface as an out-of-closed-cue refusal probe (tests/test_adr_0131_G5_aggregate.py:: TestMismatchedUnitRefusal::test_outside_closed_cue_refuses, case G5-refuse-002). Promoting it is a correct future step, but it must amend ADR-0131.G.5's closed-cue contract — it must not be contradicted from this branch. test_total_number_of_still_deferred locks that boundary so this ADR cannot silently break the parallel lane.

This is the discipline the standing doctrine requires ("no contradicting in-use ADRs"): the non-conflicting verb-frame ships now; the cue-contract change is surfaced for the ADR-0131.G owner.

4. Evidence

• Composes end-to-end: "Jamie has 28 marbles. Kyle has 12 marbles. How many marbles are there in total?" → 40.0 (proof the frame is load-bearing, not inert — any multi-possession problem now solves once its statements parse).
• 23 real problems now parse the question (advance from the question wall to their next wall — statement parsing).
• wrong=0 HOLDS on the full 7,473-question corpus; train_sample byte-identical 4/46/0; full-corpus correct unchanged at 4.
• No metric delta on train_sample — no train_sample case has the (existential-aggregate + all-statements-parsing) shape. This is the recurring composition-wall lesson (ADR-0190 / #497, now quantified a third time): a single-layer widening advances problems but flips none; every flip needs the conjunction of statement-parse + question + solver.
• Tests: tests/test_aggregate_total_question_forms.py (frame emits total-across over each closed cue; composes; conjoined/derived units refuse; total number of stays deferred). ADR-0131.G.5 lane and the synthetic-registry wrong=0 capability-axis gate both green.

5. Consequences & follow-ups

• The aggregate branch's existential frame is now complete; the remaining aggregate gap is statement-parsing for the 23 advanced problems — dominated by conjunction-of-possessions ("X has A and B"; ADR-0192 left compound closed) and container-subject possessions ("Jar A has 28 marbles"; the entity recognizer rejects the Noun + label subject). The proven compose case shows that closing either statement gap flips real multi-container / multi-category aggregate problems.
• Surfaced for the ADR-0131.G owner: amend the closed-cue contract to admit "What is the total number of <unit>?" (solver-correct; ~29 real cases), retiring G5-refuse-002 as a stale conservatism probe.