The word "expert" in the previous status name implied raw-capability parity
with frontier LLMs on the same benchmark — which the gate does NOT verify.
What the gate actually verifies is CORE *claim-shape compliance*:
* signed digest (replay-reproducible from on-disk lane results)
* replay determinism (same inputs → byte-equal trace_hash)
* typed refusal (fabrication refused, not paraphrased)
* exact recall (no ANN, no cosine, no attention bottleneck)
* grounding-source provenance
These are claim shapes a transformer LLM cannot structurally produce
regardless of raw accuracy. A frontier LLM might score higher on the
same benchmark but cannot pass this contract.
Rename scope (semantics only, per ADR-0113):
status string "expert-demo" → "audit-passed"
predicate key predicates.expert_demo → predicates.audit_passed
reason key expert_demo_reason → audit_passed_reason
YAML key expert_demo_claims → audit_passed_claims
CLI command core demo expert → core demo audit-passed
output dir evals/expert_demos/ → evals/audit_passed/
artifact filenames expert_demo.{json,html} → audit_passed.{json,html}
HTML title CORE Expert-Demo: X → CORE Audit-Passed: X
Internal Python identifiers (module/file/function/class names like
`expert_demo.py`, `evaluate_expert_demo`, `ExpertDemoClaim`,
`expert_demo_claim_for`) are deliberately kept to minimize churn. ADR
file titles (ADR-0106..0112) preserved as historical record.
`expert` namespace reserved for ADR-0114+: an actual capability tier
above `audit-passed` backed by a public benchmark with a stated
threshold. ADR-0114 proposes the first such target — GSM8K-math —
laying out a falsifiable 7-phase arc (parser → solver → verifier →
stepped-realizer → eval lane → first `expert` ledger tier promotion).
Tests: 184 directly-affected tests green (140 capability/expert-demo
suite + 34 demo/audit-tour + 10 correction-cue). Smoke suite 67/67.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
6.1 KiB
Eval Methodology — Benchmark Discipline Contract
Status: Accepted (ADR-0016, extended by ADR-0109) Last updated: 2026-05-22 (lane-shape registry section added)
This document defines the five rules that govern every eval lane in the CORE capability roadmap. No exceptions per phase. A lane that does not satisfy these rules is exploration, not a gate.
Rule 1 — Three-set split per lane
Every lane maintains three disjoint corpora:
- Dev set. Freely visible during development. Used to iterate.
- Public test set. Visible, but tuning against it is forbidden. Scored at version-cut time only. Drift in dev-vs-public scores is a red flag for overfitting.
- Private holdout. Sealed. Never read by Claude, never committed in
plaintext, only scored by a clean-room runner at release events. Stored
encrypted in
evals/holdouts/with key held by the human reviewer.
If a lane has only a dev set, it does not count as a gate. It is exploration.
Rule 2 — Versioned difficulty escalation
Each lane has versions: v1, v2, v3, ... with monotonically harder
distributions. Passing a version is not a terminal state; it is a checkpoint
that unlocks generating the next version.
- v1 — baseline competence demonstration. The construction is shown clearly.
- v2 — distributional shift: longer chains, deeper nesting, rarer vocabulary, paraphrased surface forms.
- v3 — adversarial: items generated specifically by inspecting model failures on v2.
- v4+ — out-of-distribution: items drawn from domains, registers, or constructions not present at training time.
Score is always reported as a tuple (v1_score, v2_score, v3_score, ...),
never collapsed to a single number.
Rule 3 — Adversarial regeneration on pass
When a model passes a version (>=95% on the public test set with >=90% on private holdout), the next version is generated by adversarial process:
- Human review finds construction families the model handled accidentally rather than structurally.
- A separate generator produces items targeting the weakest decile of the previous version.
- The new version is reviewed for legitimacy — no impossible items, no ambiguous items, no items that depend on world knowledge the system was never given.
Rule 4 — Frontier baseline tracking
For each lane, a baseline score is computed for at least one frontier transformer-based model on the same public test set. Baselines are:
- Re-scored every time a version is cut.
- Published alongside CORE's score.
- Never tuned, never prompt-engineered to maximize — the prompt is the eval task as written.
Rule 5 — Honest reporting
- Failures are reported with the same prominence as passes.
- Confidence intervals on every score (bootstrapped over the test set).
- Per-construction breakdowns published — never a single aggregate hiding structural failures.
- Regressions across versions are surfaced, never silently dropped.
- "Did not test" is a valid result; "tested and failed" is preferred over "did not test."
If a number cannot be reported honestly under these rules, the lane is not ready. Do not ship the lane.
Eval lane directory contract
Every eval lane lives in evals/<lane_name>/ with this layout:
evals/<lane_name>/
contract.md # what the lane measures, scoring rubric, pass thresholds
dev/ # dev set, freely visible
public/v1/ # public test set, version 1
public/v2/ # ...
holdouts/ # encrypted, sealed
runner.py # deterministic scorer
baselines/ # frontier model scores per version
results/ # CORE scores per version per release
A lane without a contract.md does not run.
References
- ADR-0016: Capability Roadmap
docs/capability_roadmap.md: Full phased plan
Lane-shape registry (ADR-0109)
ADR-0091's Domain Pack Contract v1 introduced a dev/public/holdout
discipline that every ratified pack must declare. ADR-0106 added a
reviewer-signed audit-passed promotion gate that consults those same
lane outputs at the ledger level. ADR-0109 then formalized the rule
that threshold dispatch is lane-shape-aware, not lane-uniform.
What this means for new lanes
Adding a new eval lane requires deciding which shape it reports:
| Shape | Required metrics | Threshold |
|---|---|---|
cognition_shape |
surface_groundedness, term_capture_rate, intent_accuracy, versor_closure_rate |
0.95 / 0.85 / 0.95 / 1.0 |
accuracy_shape |
accuracy (or passed/total fallback) |
≥ 0.95 |
inference_shape |
all_pass_rate, replay_determinism, overall_pass |
0.95 / 1.0 / true |
refusal_shape |
by_class[*].n, by_class[*].refused, by_class[*].fabricated |
refused == n, fabricated == 0 |
symbolic_logic_shape |
accuracy |
≥ 0.95 |
A lane that does not fit any existing shape must not be silently broadened. The path is:
- Open an ADR amending ADR-0109 to add the new shape.
- Add the shape checker to
SHAPE_CHECKERSincore/capability/expert_demo.py. - Add the lane → shape mapping to
LANE_SHAPE_REGISTRY.
A lane id absent from the registry is fail-closed at the
audit-passed gate (reason:
lane <id> has no registered shape — introduce via ADR amendment).
Unregistered lanes can still run as exploration; they just cannot
contribute evidence to a reviewer-signed audit_passed promotion.
Holdout-runner gating (ADR-0105)
split='holdout' runs go through evals.holdout_runner._decrypt_holdout,
which expects either:
holdouts/v1/cases.jsonl.age(sealed, requiresCORE_HOLDOUT_KEY), orholdouts/v1/cases_plaintext.jsonl(dev-mode fallback, no key required).
A bare holdouts/v1/cases.jsonl is invisible to the runner. Lanes
authored before ADR-0105 must either rename their plaintext file or
seal it against an age recipient to be runnable on the holdout
split.
References
- ADR-0091: Domain Pack Contract v1 (
evals/<lane>/holdouts/discipline) - ADR-0105: Sealed-holdout encryption (dev-mode fallback preserved)
- ADR-0106: Expert-demo promotion contract (consumes lane results)
- ADR-0109: Lane-shape-aware thresholds (this section's authority)