core/evals/CLAIMS.md
Shay 596e2313be feat(epistemic): Leak C read-side audit — INV-24 callsite registry, Leak C fully closed
Categorizes every production vault.recall() callsite as RECOGNITION,
EVIDENCE_TELEMETRY, or EVIDENCE_USER_FACING. Adds INV-24 architectural
invariant (TestINV24VaultRecallRegistry, 3 tests) that forces any new
callsite to declare its role and requires EVIDENCE_USER_FACING sites to
pass min_status=COHERENT.

Audit findings:
- chat/runtime.py:330        → RECOGNITION (gate decision input)
- vault/decompose.py:121     → RECOGNITION (grade-decomposed gate fallback)
- generate/stream.py:147     → EVIDENCE_TELEMETRY (walk_surface per runtime contract)
- No EVIDENCE_USER_FACING sites exist today — user-facing surface comes from
  pack-grounded realize(proposition, vocab), not vault.recall.

Why this closes Leak C: the write-side fix already stamps SPECULATIVE on
self-stored propositions; the read-side audit confirms no inference path
treats them as ratified evidence. If a future change routes the
generation walk into the user-facing surface, INV-24 forces the
recategorization to be explicit.

CLAIMS.md Tier 4.5 Leak C row now CLOSED. docs/truth_seeking_schema.md
§Leak C updated with full audit categorization.

Verified: smoke (67), cognition (121), runtime (19), all architectural
invariants (40) — green.
2026-05-17 09:48:39 -07:00

14 KiB
Raw Blame History

CORE — Public Claims

Status: DRAFT v0 — evidence rows below marked TBD are not yet regenerated by the harness. Do not cite externally until every row is either a number with a reproducible command, or removed.

Regenerate: core bench claims --json > evals/reports/claims_latest.json

Verification contract: every claim row carries (a) the command that produced it, (b) the lane/version, and (c) a trace hash or report SHA that a third party can re-derive locally. A claim without all three is not a claim — it is marketing.


Smaller. Faster. Stronger.

CORE is a new AI architecture designed to make intelligence more efficient, understandable, and correctable. It aims to provide modern AI capabilities with a much lighter footprint, lower operating cost, stronger memory, clearer reasoning, and a training process built around structured learning instead of brute-force scale.

The thesis, mapped to evidence

Every adjective in the positioning statement below corresponds to a row in the tier tables. If an adjective is not yet backed by a green row, it is an intention, not a claim — and is marked as such here.

Virtue What it means in practice Where it's proved
Smaller / lighter Curated packs + exact CGA recall, not corpus dumps + ANN indexes Tier 4 · bench footprint
Cheaper to train Reviewed corrections move the needle; no retraining cycle Tier 3 · learning-curve lanes
Cheaper to run Practical on a laptop — energy + latency budget below frontier API floor Tier 4 · bench latency + bench cost
More transparent Every answer carries a trace hash, term provenance, and intent path Tier 2 · provenance lane
More consistent Same (pack, vault, seed) → byte-identical surface Tier 1 · rows 12
Easier to correct A reviewed correction becomes part of future behavior, deterministically Tier 1 · row 6 + Tier 3
Better long-term memory Structured vault, not a sliding context window Tier 1 · row 4 + Tier 4 · bench long-context-cost
Less prone to fabrication Unsupported answers marked uncertain or refused; surface grounded in vocab Tier 2 · surface_groundedness, inference_closure
More private / local-first Runs without network egress; no model-provider dependency Tier 4 · bench footprint (deployment profile)
More adaptable Specialty courses graduate via the Formation pipeline Tier 3 · zero_code_domain_acquisition
More stable over time New teaching does not silently regress prior lanes Tier 3 · monotonicity invariant
More auditable Mistakes, corrections, and reasoning paths are inspectable artifacts Tier 2 · provenance + Tier 5 holdout gap

Positioning statement

CORE is a new AI architecture designed to make intelligence more efficient, understandable, and correctable. It aims to provide modern AI capabilities with a much lighter footprint, lower operating cost, stronger memory, clearer reasoning, and a training process built around structured learning instead of brute-force scale.

A shorter form, for places that need one sentence:

CORE is designed to be a lighter, more efficient, more transparent, and more teachable alternative to today's large AI models.


Tier 1 — Structural asymmetries (CORE vs frontier LLMs)

These are the load-bearing claims. They are properties of the architecture, not of training scale. They should be bit-stable across releases, not just "high."

# Claim Metric CORE Frontier LLM Lane / bench Trace hash
1 Same prompt → byte-identical surface across N runs unique_surfaces / N 1/N TBD bench determinism --runs 50 TBD
2 Same (pack, vault, seed) → byte-identical trace hash unique_hashes / N 1/N n/a (no trace) bench replay-vs-llm TBD
3 Versor closure on every intermediate field state max_versor_condition < 1e-6 n/a bench versor TBD
4 Exact CGA recall (no ANN, no cosine) recall@1 on vault probe 1.00 n/a bench versor + vault probe TBD
5 Reviewed-mutation-only learning (prompt-injection-resistant) identity-override rejection rate 1.00 TBD (expected ≪ 1.00) evals/adversarial_identity TBD
6 Deterministic teaching replay — N corrections → identical post-state post-state hash equality true n/a bench learning-curve --verify-replay TBD

Why these come first: every Tier-1 row is something a transformer structurally cannot match without abandoning sampling, weights, or non-deterministic kernels. If any Tier-1 row regresses, ship is blocked.


Tier 2 — Capability lanes (expected strong now)

Lanes where CORE's deterministic pipeline already lands at or above the contract threshold on v1 public split. Numbers below come from evals/<lane>/results/.

Lane Metric CORE v1 Contract threshold Last run
cognition intent_accuracy TBD ≥ 0.90 TBD
cognition versor_closure_rate TBD 1.00 TBD
compositionality lane score TBD TBD TBD
grammatical_coverage coverage_rate TBD TBD TBD
discourse_paragraph lane score TBD TBD TBD
inference_closure closure_rate TBD TBD TBD
provenance trace_completeness TBD 1.00 TBD
adversarial_identity rejection_rate TBD 1.00 TBD
teaching_injection_resistance speculative_admission_rate 1.00 1.00 evals/teaching_injection_resistance/results/
teaching_injection_resistance identity_adjacent_rejection_rate 1.00 1.00 same
teaching_injection_resistance auto_promotion_count 0 0 same

Tier 3 — Learning-curve lanes (expected to improve with teaching)

These are the lanes whose scores should rise monotonically as reviewed teaching examples are added. The headline demo is "N corrections → +X%, locked deterministically, replayable forever."

Each row should be populated by bench learning-curve <lane> --cycles 0,5,10,25,50,100. The bench writes one curve per lane to evals/reports/learning_curves/<lane>.json with a per-step trace hash proving every intermediate state is replayable.

Lane Score @ 0 @ 5 @ 25 @ 100 Δ (1000) Curve file
cognition TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/cognition.json
compositionality TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/compositionality.json
monotonic_learning TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/monotonic_learning.json
sample_efficiency TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/sample_efficiency.json
inference_closure TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/inference_closure.json
multi_step_reasoning TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/multi_step_reasoning.json
symbolic_logic TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/symbolic_logic.json
cross_domain_transfer TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/cross_domain_transfer.json
zero_code_domain_acquisition TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD learning_curves/zero_code_domain_acquisition.json

Monotonicity invariant: for each row, score @ N must not regress below score @ M for M < N once teaching has plateaued. A regression is evidence of a non-coherent correction having been admitted and is a hard finding, not a metric noise event.


Tier 4 — Cost and performance

Claim Metric CORE Frontier LLM Bench
Median time-to-first-surface seconds TBD TBD bench latency
p95 time-to-first-surface seconds TBD TBD bench latency
Rust vs Python backend speedup x faster TBD n/a bench speedup
Energy per turn (estimated) joules TBD TBD bench cost (not yet implemented)
Cost per 1000 turns USD TBD (≈ electricity only) TBD (API list) bench cost (not yet implemented)
Total deployed footprint (on-disk) bytes 7.06 MiB 14.9 GiB (Llama 3.1 8B fp16) — 2,160× larger; 754 GiB (Llama 3.1 405B) — 109,358× larger python -c "from benchmarks.footprint import run_footprint; print(run_footprint().summary())" — see evals/reports/footprint_latest.json
Resident memory at idle / after one pulse MiB 17.9 / 33.3 n/a (frontier inference requires GPU memory measured in GiBTiB) bench footprint (RSS rows)
Runs offline on commodity hardware yes / no yes no (requires datacenter GPU + network) bench footprint (deployment profile)
Cost growth with conversation length USD / turn at depth N TBD (flat — vault, not window) TBD (super-linear — context tokens) bench long-context-cost (uses evals/long_context_cost)
Hallucination / fabrication rate unsupported-answer fraction TBD TBD Tier 2 · surface_groundedness + inference_closure

Tier 4.5 — Known gaps, openly measured

Per the transparency principle of this project: weaknesses we have a test for live in the public claims document, not in a private TODO. Each row below is a real failure today against a real metric. The intended fix is named so the row turns into a green tier-2 claim when the work lands.

Lane Metric Current Target Known fix
refusal_calibration refusal_rate (on out-of-grounding prompts) 0.00 ≥ 0.95 Realizer emits an explicit unknown surface when no vault hit lands and no grounded vocabulary covers the subject.
refusal_calibration fabrication_rate 0.00 0.00 Already at target — system is not asserting ungrounded definitions, but is not yet refusing either.
refusal_calibration in_grounding_answer_rate 1.00 ≥ 0.90 Already at target.
contradiction_detection contradiction_flag_rate 0.50 ≥ 0.90 Coherence checker at TeachingStore.add that detects (S, R, O)(S, ¬R, O) pairs and transitions both to EpistemicStatus.CONTESTED. Versor-delta alone is not a clean signal.
contradiction_detection false_flag_rate 1.00 0.00 Same fix — replace the versor-delta heuristic with the coherence checker.
One-mutation-path audit · Leak A pack vocab default epistemic_status speculative speculative CLOSED 2026-05-17language_packs/compiler.py:331 and language_packs/schema.py::LexicalEntry now default to SPECULATIVE; docstring corrected to match ADR-0021 §Schema impact; regression guarded by tests/test_architectural_invariants.py::TestINV22PackDefaultSpeculative (3 tests, all passing). 365 existing unmarked pack rows now correctly report SPECULATIVE; explicit COHERENT remains the curator stamp.
One-mutation-path audit · Leak B vault.recall epistemic awareness min_status filter min_status filter CLOSED 2026-05-17VaultStore.store() now stamps every entry with epistemic_status (default SPECULATIVE per ADR-0021 §3); VaultStore.recall(min_status=EpistemicStatus.COHERENT) filters out non-admissible entries. All 4 vault.store call sites updated with explicit status. Regression guarded by tests/test_architectural_invariants.py::TestINV23VaultEpistemicFilter (4 tests). Inference paths can now opt into evidence-only recall; session lookup retains tier-agnostic default.
One-mutation-path audit · Leak C self-reinforcing fabrication via propose() stamped + read-side audited stamped + categorized read sites CLOSED 2026-05-17 — write-side stamps SPECULATIVE (generate/proposition.py:198). Read-side audit categorized every production vault.recall() callsite as RECOGNITION, EVIDENCE_TELEMETRY, or EVIDENCE_USER_FACING. INV-24 (TestINV24VaultRecallRegistry, 3 tests) forces every new callsite to declare its role; EVIDENCE_USER_FACING sites must pass min_status=COHERENT. No EVIDENCE_USER_FACING sites exist today — user-facing surface comes from pack-grounded realize(proposition, vocab) (now SPECULATIVE-default per Leak A), not from vault.recall. Site-level # INV-24 recall role: comments at every callsite. See docs/truth_seeking_schema.md §Leak C.
articulation_of_status speculative_articulation_rate 0.00 ≥ 0.90 Realizer consults pack_mutation_proposal.epistemic_status (or the read-path filter from Leak B) and emits a status marker when the answer draws on non-COHERENT material.
articulation_of_status false_certainty_rate 0.60 0.00 Same fix — bare assertions on SPECULATIVE-backed claims become hedged surfaces.

A green row in Tier 4.5 graduates to Tier 1/2/3 in the same commit that lands the fix and the result.


Tier 5 — Holdout (sealed)

Held back from the team. Only the harness sees these. Scores are written by the holdout runner and surfaced here without inspection.

Lane Holdout score Public score Generalization gap
cognition TBD TBD TBD
compositionality TBD TBD TBD
inference_closure TBD TBD TBD

A gap > 0.10 on any lane is a fail signal — investigate before claiming the lane in public.


How to extend this document

  1. Add a row only after the bench command that produces it has been run and committed evidence exists under evals/reports/ or evals/<lane>/results/.
  2. Never paste a number without the command and trace hash that made it.
  3. If a number regresses, do not edit the old number in place — append a dated row and explain the regression in the same commit.
  4. Tier 1 rows are immutable in shape. New rows go to Tier 2 or 3.