9cf6a164d5
Rank 5 on the docket, and the first item this arc whose expected outcome is LOSING capability. conservative_floor is a one-sided Wilson lower bound, and Wilson assumes independent trials. CORE's pipeline is deterministic, so replaying an identical case is not a second trial — it is the same trial with a guaranteed outcome. The deduction sealer folded the raw practice corpus and counted every replay, so bands recorded 720/720 committed whether that was 720 decisions or 28 decisions seen 26 times each. conservative_floor(720,720)=0.990868 cleared theta_SERVE=0.99; conservative_floor(28,28)=0.808413 is not close. RESULT: 25 licensed bands -> 4. Twenty-one demoted. Survivors: en_conditional_chain, en_disjunctive, en_verb_fact, en_verb_universal — the only bands whose corpus holds enough independent cases. What the demotion did and did not do, stated exactly. NO ANSWER CHANGED. No answer became wrong. `wrong` stayed 0 across all 25 bands. The engine is exactly as correct as it was. What changed is the CLAIM attached to the answer: 21 bands now serve the same sound conclusion prefixed with "(reasoned, but I haven't yet earned a verified track record on arguments of this shape)". The reasoning did not get worse; the boast did. The producer is hardened, which is the half that stops this recurring. seal_ledger now refuses outright — assert_sealed_evidence_distinct compares the ledger about to be written against the corpus's distinct-case count and raises BEFORE anything is written. The curriculum sealer has carried this guarantee since ADR-0264 R9; the deduction sealer had no equivalent, which is exactly how the exposure arose. Catching it at seal time rather than in an audit matters: an audit finds a padded ledger after it is committed, trusted, and gating a live flag, and unwinding that then needs a ruling — it needed one. A HOLLOW GUARD OF MY OWN, caught by sabotage rather than trusted. The first version compared all_gold_problems() with distinct_gold_problems() — two functions that agree with each other by construction, and neither of which is what build_ledger folds. Reverting build_ledger to the raw corpus walked straight past it AND re-sealed the inflated artifact. Same defect class the ledger already suffered: a guard checking something adjacent to the thing it protects. It now takes the BUILT LEDGER as input, because the invariant is about the artifact. Re-running the identical attack: refused, wrote nothing. Pinned as test_sealer_refuses_a_ledger_that_counts_replays. A SECOND MISS, caught by the gate rather than by me. My blast-radius scan grepped for deduction_serve_license / deduction_serve_ledger / 720 and found nine files. It missed tests/test_construction_inventory.py, which asserts deduction SURFACE STRINGS and never mentions the ledger — so a pattern search over the wrong noun could not see it. The full gate found it. Recorded because "I scanned for the blast radius" is worth exactly as much as the scan's key, and mine was the wrong key. That test is the #138 fabrication defect pin, and it is updated WITHOUT being weakened. Both surfaces now carry the disclosure prefix, and the fabrication survives untouched — which is a sharper finding than before: a disclosure prefix looks like it might cover the hazard, and it does not. The user is still told they said "furthermore". Exact-match assertions kept on the full strings so neither the fabrication nor the licence state can drift unnoticed, plus an isolating assertion that the only difference between clean and leaked recitals is the fabricated premise. Four records corrected in the same PR, each of which would otherwise have gone on asserting capability that no longer exists: - CAPABILITY_LEDGERS' manifest note ("25 bands at 720/720 wrong=0") - the published CLAIMS.md claim — caught immediately by G-22's own pin, which is that fix earning its keep three days after landing - test_volume_honesty.py's module docstring, which said the exposure was "NOT silently repaired ... changing it is Shay's ratification, not a test's". R-13 IS that ratification, so the line went stale by being acted on - the exposure inventory's framing: it now pins the repair, not the gap test_volume_honesty's sealed-vs-producer assertion is strictly stronger than it was. It compared sealed committed counts to the producer's committed counts and both were the inflated 720 — the assertion held perfectly while the number it agreed on was the wrong number. Two records agreeing is not evidence that either is right. It now pins committed == distinct, plus a non-vacuity check. Nine tests encoded the unearned expectation and were updated to the honest one. Closes G-19 and H-1. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wcw2pnMBwyvmNyQg4uPEt4 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| adr | ||
| agents/grok | ||
| analysis | ||
| architecture | ||
| assessment | ||
| audit | ||
| benchmarks | ||
| briefs | ||
| curriculum | ||
| decisions | ||
| evals | ||
| examples | ||
| handoff | ||
| handoffs | ||
| implementation | ||
| issues | ||
| lab | ||
| outreach | ||
| paradigm-archive | ||
| plans | ||
| research | ||
| sessions | ||
| specs | ||
| workbench | ||
| zig | ||
| 3lang-depth-pr-plan.md | ||
| admissibility-exemplars.md | ||
| ci-optimization.md | ||
| conceptualizing_engineering_mastery.md | ||
| core-rd-base-prompts.md | ||
| ethics_packs.md | ||
| EVAL_AUDIT_2026-05-20.md | ||
| eval_methodology.md | ||
| frontier_baselines.md | ||
| gaps.md | ||
| handoff_template.md | ||
| hitl-backpressure.md | ||
| holdout_recipients.txt | ||
| identity_packs.md | ||
| master-plan-post-substrate-audit.md | ||
| memo.html | ||
| model_dependency_size_tally.md | ||
| pack_inventory_2026-05-21.md | ||
| position_paper.md | ||
| PROGRESS.md | ||
| README.md | ||
| recognizer-registry.md | ||
| refusal-taxonomy.md | ||
| reviewers.yaml | ||
| RUST.md | ||
| safety_packs.md | ||
| sponsors.md | ||
| teaching_order.md | ||
| test-debt-quarantine.md | ||
| testing-lanes.md | ||
| Whitepaper.md | ||
| Yellowpaper.md | ||
CORE Documentation Index
This is the central index for all documentation in the CORE project.
Canonical Root Documents
- Whitepaper.md - The CORE architectural and philosophical whitepaper.
- Yellowpaper.md - Technical specifications and mathematical formulation of the CORE engine.
- PROGRESS.md - High-level project progress tracking.
- specs/runtime_contracts.md - Critical invariants and bounds for the runtime execution flow.
Directories
Architecture & Design
- adr/ - Architecture Decision Records (ADRs). The canonical history of all ratified engineering choices.
- architecture/ - High-level architectural documents (e.g., pipelines, schemas).
- analysis/ - Deep dives and master plans for structural changes.
- specs/ - Detailed technical specifications and invariants.
Planning & Progress
- plans/ - Capability roadmaps and implementation plans.
- briefs/ - Project briefs and scoping documents for upcoming work.
- issues/ - Detailed issue analyses and technical reproductions (not standard trackers).
- audit/ - Audit reports and claims ledgers.
Operations & Usage
- examples/ - Usage examples and reference integrations.
- workbench/ - Documentation for the CORE workbench UI and related tooling.
- agents/ - Agent-specific operational guides.
Note regarding
agents/grok/: Operational guide for using Grok 4.3 + Grok Build with CORE. This is not architecture documentation.
Learning & Evaluation
- curriculum/ - Documentation on the teaching/learning order and knowledge progression.
- evals/ - Evaluation methodology and performance criteria documentation.
- benchmarks/ - Benchmark evidence and performance tracking logs.
Historical & Experimental
- sessions/ - Chronological session logs documenting the "decision trail" and intellectual history of major choices.
- handoffs/ - Legacy brief, audit, and investigation notes (historical; the formal HANDOFF mechanism is retired — see AGENTS.md for the current lightweight
session-break-summary-<DATETIME>.mdconvention). - research/ - Raw research notes and preliminary findings.
- lab/ - Experimental content (Warning: Not ratified; must not be referenced as authoritative in production PRs).