core/evals/grammar_roundtrip/contract.md
Shay 7d6760ae5b feat(evals): the fluency lanes report the writer that actually ships (Phase 4)
Phase 4 of the grammar-unification arc, resolved by option (b) of the plan.

The problem: 149 green fluency cases scored `realize_target`, and
`core/cognition/pipeline.py` never calls it -- it calls `realize_semantic`.
`english_fluency_ood` reported 117/117 + 39/39 for a function that does not
speak, for the whole life of the lane.

The plan framed this as "which realizer is better". Reading the source says it
is not a quality question. `render_semantic`'s signature is
`(intent, subject, predicate, obj, secondary, language, root)` -- no `negated`,
no `quantifier`, no `tense`, no `aspect` -- and `realize_semantic` never reads
them off the step. So the serving writer cannot express content the
ArticulationStep is carrying:

    negated=False -> 'Knowledge is defined as opinion.'
    negated=True  -> 'Knowledge is defined as opinion.'

It serves the AFFIRMATIVE of a negated proposition. That is the ADR-0261 §5.1
family, not a fluency defect. Pinned here as a defect; NOT fixed, because
fixing it changes served output and belongs to Shay.

Measured -- identical contract, all seven scored corpora
--------------------------------------------------------
    bucket                                n     realize_target   realize_semantic
    feature-bearing, single node        214          207               49
    no features, multi-node             100          100                3
    no features, single node (CONTROL)   33           33               33
    total                               347          340               85

The control is what makes the rest mean anything. Every corpus hardcodes
IntentTag.UNKNOWN, so "the serving writer scores badly" could have been an
artifact of never giving it a real intent. On the 33 cases carrying nothing it
cannot express, the two are IDENTICAL -- so the gap on the other 314 is the
dropped features and the clause joining, not the intent.

Delivered
---------
- `grammatical_coverage/runner.py` reports `serving_accuracy` beside
  `accuracy`; `english_fluency_ood` delegates to that run_lane and gains it
  for free. The realizer is a parameter now instead of a hardcoded import.
- `tests/test_phase4_realizer_resolution.py` -- the control, the decomposition,
  the negation defect pin, and the §6 evidence.
- The claim is restated at both places it was made: the lane docstring and
  `grammar_roundtrip/contract.md`.

Zero served bytes change. No serving authorization needed.

§6 -- the plan's pre-commitment was wrong, and is corrected rather than
quietly edited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
§6 forks on read_rate: risen => Phase 5 diversity; near-zero => §1.8 graph-model
mismatch => ADR. It pre-committed to the second. Neither is what the
measurement says.

g_read_rate went to 1/293. The unblocked case was blocked by a one-line WRITER
defect (predicate-nominal object agreement, #135), not by §1.8. The other 292:

    no_template_match     289   reader has no SUBJ-VERB-OBJ template at all
    unknown_morphology      2   prepositional objects (reserved_word_in_np)
    unsupported_negation    1   reader has no negated-categorical template

Every one is the reader declining a CONSTRUCTION, not a projection disagreeing
about a graph it parsed. Where a construction is in both inventories the round
trip closes exactly. So the barrier is the OVERLAP of the two construction
inventories, currently one construction wide -- Phase 5's item 1, tractable,
not an ADR-scale model decision.

§1.6 read "uniform no_template_match" as evidence FOR the type mismatch. It is
not: no_template_match is a coverage fact, and the corpus was 289/293 bare
transitives, a construction the reader never claimed to read. The measurement
was mostly reporting the corpus's composition.

And a finding in my own stack
------------------------------
`tests/test_realizer_quantifier_agreement.py` lived ONLY in the `cognition`
suite, which is not on the AGENTS.md pre-push gate. So every pin Phases 3 and 4
added to it -- including the invariant covering all twelve inflection branches
-- ran in NO gate. That is why smoke stayed at 621 across two PRs that added 13
tests between them, and it is the same silent-red shape the smoke list already
calls out for test_adr_index.py.

Registered into `deductive`, which now runs 504 instead of 406.

Mutation
--------
    baseline                                             12 pass
    serving metric computed with realize_target           4 FAIL
    render_semantic GAINS a `negated` parameter           2 FAIL
    realize_semantic delegated to realize_target          6 FAIL

Row 2 matters most: if someone FIXES the negation defect, the pin forces a
deliberate revision instead of passing silently.

Still open, still Shay's: option (a), promoting realize_target to the serving
path. It now has a price tag -- 340/347 over 85/347 and the ability to say
"not", against a move in every surface hash and whatever the Shadow Coherence
Gate ruling in core/cognition/surface_resolution.py was protecting.

[Verification]: in-worktree on CPython 3.12.13 with `uv sync --locked` --
smoke 621, deductive 504 (was 406; +12 new Phase 4 pins, +86 previously
ungated), lane pins 11/11 unchanged, no pin edited.
2026-07-27 11:57:48 -07:00

6.6 KiB

Grammar Round-Trip Eval Lane — Contract

Lane: grammar_roundtrip Version: v1 Created: 2026-07-26 Plan: docs/plans/grammar-unification-2026-07-26.md (Phase 1)

What this lane measures

Whether CORE can read what it writes and write what it reads — and, critically, whether it refuses word salad.

Why it exists

evals/deterministic_fluency reports 1.00 on all six of its predicates and still passes every one of these:

candidate passes deterministic_fluency?
"banana does the." yes
"wet ground rains the is." yes
"is is is is." yes

It checks terminal punctuation, presence of a verb-shaped token, and two anti-shape regexes. It cannot distinguish English from word salad, so its 100% carries no information about fluency.

Heuristic predicates will always have that failure mode, because grammaticality cannot be measured without a grammar. This lane therefore measures agreement between the two halves of CORE that already encode grammar — the reader and the writer — and requires the measurement to fail on salad. Round-trip is falsifiable with no judge, no embedding, and no gold aesthetic.

The two directions

direction pipeline what a failure means
G-round-trip graph → realize_target → surface → comprehend → graph CORE cannot read its own writing

realize_target is eval-only (Phase 4). core/cognition/pipeline.py calls realize_semantic, never realize_target, so g_read_rate is a measurement of the grammar library and not of served English. Run through the serving writer instead, the G-direction reads back nothing (0.0 vs 0.003413) — see tests/test_phase4_realizer_resolution.py. Any claim made from this metric must say which writer it is about.

| S-round-trip | surface → comprehend → graph → categorical renderer → surface | CORE cannot reproduce what it just understood |

Both are reported because they fail for different reasons and have different remedies.

Metrics

metric definition
g_write_rate fraction of graph cases the writer produced any surface for
g_read_rate fraction of written surfaces the reader comprehended
g_args_rate fraction of expected propositions whose argument pair was recovered
g_predicates_rate fraction whose predicate name was recovered on the same arguments
g_exact_rate fraction recovered exactly (predicate + arguments + polarity)
s_read_rate fraction of positive surfaces comprehended
s_renderable_rate fraction whose projection the categorical renderer can express at all
s_surface_match_rate fraction that render back to the input surface
reject_rate fraction of the negative corpus refused or reduced to zero propositions

g_args_rate and g_predicates_rate are reported separately on purpose. High argument agreement with low predicate agreement means the grammars align and only the vocabulary is split — a materially different remedy from both being low. Collapsing them into one boolean would hide the distinction that decides this arc's direction (plan §6).

Corpora

corpus source size
positive graphs committed english_fluency_ood + grammatical_coverage case files 293
positive surfaces in-module, each verified comprehensible by probe 8
negative surfaces hand-authored salad + deterministic token shuffles of the positives 16

The shuffles are load-bearing: they are lexically identical to positive cases — same vocabulary, same length, order destroyed. A lane that rejects hand-authored salad but accepts the shuffles is doing vocabulary checking, not grammar checking. Shuffling uses a fixed rotation rather than a PRNG so reject_rate is byte-reproducible.

Thresholds

metric v1 requirement rationale
reject_rate 1.00, always the guarantee; regression is a hard failure
g_read_rate recorded baseline, revised upward only currently a measured defect
s_surface_match_rate recorded baseline, revised upward only currently a measured defect

v1 baseline — measured on main @ 9696443a

graph_cases              293
g_write_rate             1.000
g_read_rate              0.000     <-- CORE reads 0% of what it writes
g_propositions_expected  370
g_args_rate              0.000
g_predicates_rate        0.000
g_exact_rate             0.000

surface_cases              8
s_read_rate              1.000
s_renderable_rate        0.625
s_surface_match_rate     0.000     <-- nothing renders back to its input

negative_cases            16
reject_rate              1.000     <-- the guarantee holds

Two of these are pins on known defects, not goals. They are expected to be revised upward by plan Phases 2B and 5, and must never be revised downward to accommodate a regression.

s_renderable_rate = 0.625 is not a defect: 3 of the 8 positive surfaces project to member / less predicates, which have no all X are Y categorical surface at all. Those are reported as unrenderable rather than as match failures, because "cannot write this" and "wrote this wrongly" need different fixes.

What this lane does NOT prove

Round-trip is necessary, not sufficient for fluency. It measures mutual intelligibility — both halves agreeing about a surface. Two halves can agree on an impoverished construction: english_fluency_ood accepts "river flows valley" as a correct surface, and round-trip would be perfectly happy with it.

So a high round-trip rate licenses "CORE means what it says", never "CORE writes well". The negative corpus is what prevents the first failure mode. Nothing in this lane prevents the second, and no metric here should ever be cited as evidence of prose quality.

Mutation guarantees

Every guarantee is paired with a test proving it can break (tests/test_grammar_roundtrip.py):

  • test_reject_rate_goes_red_when_the_reader_accepts_everything — an accept-everything reader must drive reject_rate to 0.0. Without this, reject_rate == 1.0 would be unfalsifiable, which is precisely the defect that makes the existing fluency lane decoration.
  • test_shuffled_negatives_reuse_positive_vocabulary — closes the vocabulary-checking escape hatch.
  • test_positive_surfaces_are_all_inside_the_reader_envelope — a refused positive would silently measure reader coverage instead of round-trip.
  • test_quantifier_map_matches_reader — the lane keeps a deliberate local copy of the reader's quantifier map so it never becomes a consumer of the thing it measures; this test fails loudly if the reader's map changes.