7c28bb0ba4
Code archaeology before treating 'no injection' as a defect: it is a DELIBERATE narrowing, not broken code. recognizer_anchor_inject.py's discrete-count injector refuses comparative surfaces with the explicit comment 'Refuse here until a real compare_multiplicative operation can be emitted' (~L324) and 'does not create any new admitting path' (~L460). The lockstep thesis of the arc in the code's own history: the reader refused compare shapes to protect wrong=0 + ADR-0191 completeness because nothing downstream could compile them. The compiler tier this increment shipped IS that operation -> the fix is LIFTING a now-obsolete guard whose reason has shipped, not patching injection.
3.6 KiB
compare_multiplicative Increment — Per-Layer Attrition Funnel (diagnostic artifact)
Status: DIAGNOSTIC — instrument-first, decides the fix order (PR #76 ruling)
Date: 2026-07-18
Scope: the 61 compare-multiplicative-marked cases in the tune split of official holdout_dev/v1
(measure split untouched). Signals are the reader's own: branches_enumerated, refusal_reason,
selected_graph, then the corridor compiler.
The funnel
Reader pipeline stages: recognizer-match → injection → enumeration → admissibility → graph → solve.
| Layer | Cases (of 61) |
|---|---|
| Died pre-enumeration | 57 |
| Enumerated | 4 |
| …enumerated but no graph | 1 |
| …graph has a compare op | 3 |
| Solved today | 3 |
Pre-enumeration refusal reasons (the 57):
| Reason | Cases |
|---|---|
| "recognizer matched but produced no injection" | 45 |
| "no admissible candidate for statement" | 8 |
| "expected exactly one question sentence" | 3 |
| "no admissible candidate for question" | 1 |
The finding
The leverage is the injection layer: 45 / 61. The recognizer already matches these compare statements (e.g. 0000: "Aria has twice as many … as Emily, who has twice the number … as Spencer"); the injection step then produces no candidate — the multi-clause / compare shapes don't inject. This is where the mass is — not the candidate regexes (they fire on clean clauses but the real sentences never reach them), and not segmentation writ large.
The "no injection" is intentional — the reader was waiting on the compiler
Code archaeology (before treating "no injection" as a defect) found the cause is a deliberate
narrowing, not broken code. In generate/recognizer_anchor_inject.py, the discrete-count injector
carries explicit fail-closed guards for comparative surfaces:
- Line ~324: "…it is an incomplete comparative-multiplicative clause. Letting this through as an initial … defeats the ADR-0191 completeness guard. Refuse here until a real compare_multiplicative operation can be emitted."
_count_token_followed_by_times(~460): "it only suppresses the malformed initial candidate and does not create any new admitting path."
This is the lockstep thesis of the arc written into the code's own history: the reader
deliberately refused compare shapes — to protect wrong=0 and completeness — because nothing
downstream could compile them. The compiler tier this increment just shipped is exactly that
"real compare_multiplicative operation." So the fix is not repairing injection; it is lifting a
now-obsolete guard whose reason has shipped — turning the deliberate suppression into a compare
emission — which is a cleaner, safer change than patching around it.
Consequence for the fix (emitter-fix, not gate-loosening)
Injection is an emitter (it produces candidates), not a validator — so making it inject compare candidates for statements the recognizer already matches is the sanctioned kind of change (fix emitters; never loosen the round-trip gate). The remaining piles are secondary and sequenced after: "no admissible candidate for statement" (8), the one-question-sentence constraint (3).
Fix order, by measured mass: injection (45) → statement-admissibility (8) → question-sentence (3).
Each fix is developed against tune only, to wrong=0 on tune; the measure split gets its single run
at the end. Refusal-by-reason on the measure split (frequency / nested / anaphora / temporal /
inverse-undeterminable) is reported with the delta as the fail-closed evidence + the practice-lane
curriculum.