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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| 10-layer-cards | ||
| 20-component-cards | ||
| 00-scope-and-method.md | ||
| 01-phase0-ground-truth.md | ||
| 02-layer-taxonomy.md | ||
| 03-card-schema.md | ||
| 04-phase2-findings.md | ||
| 05-phase3-findings.md | ||
| 30-gap-register.md | ||
| 31-hindrance-audit.md | ||
| 40-assessment.md | ||
| 50-execution-plan.md | ||
| 50-rulings.md | ||
| README.md | ||
docs/assessment/ — The Holistic Macro→Micro Assessment (2026-07-27)
A read-only, evidence-bearing assessment of CORE's cognitive-cycle design versus implementation fulfillment, conducted under docs/conceptualizing_engineering_mastery.md at forgejo/main @ 8927c563. Phases 0–5 change no runtime behavior, fix no defect, and decide nothing — they produce evidence and judgments for ruling. Phase 6 adds the execution plan built on them and the ruling packet they require.
Start here: 40-assessment.md — the synthesis (the verdict, the five frontiers, the recommended attack order). Then 50-execution-plan.md for what follows from it, and 50-rulings.md for what is waiting on a decision. The registers rank the work; the cards are the evidence base.
| File / dir | Phase | What it is |
|---|---|---|
00-scope-and-method.md |
— | Charter, method, rules of engagement, phase/executor table |
01-phase0-ground-truth.md |
0 | Corpus triage, the five unreconciled articulations, system-map recovery |
02-layer-taxonomy.md |
1 | The two-axis taxonomy: 7 macro layers + 2 cross-cuts over 33 zones; the Candidate Register (CR-1…4); completeness criteria |
03-card-schema.md |
1 | The card metadata schema: liveness ⊥ fitness, design ⊥ build, sabotage-tested evidence, verified_at stamps |
10-layer-cards/ |
2 | Nine layer cards (M0–M6, MG, MV), every liveness label re-verified against code |
04-phase2-findings.md |
2 | Stage-coverage audit; corrections to Phase 0; findings F-1…F-5 |
20-component-cards/ |
3 | Eight component cards: the four zero-subsystem zones + always-on, derivation organs, surface selection, attention |
05-phase3-findings.md |
3 | Corrections C-1…C-5; findings F-6…F-10; the consolidated Phase-4 seed list |
30-gap-register.md |
4 | The live gap register — 23 entries (G-21, G-22, G-23 added during execution), 4 tiers, each with evidence + deciding authority; supersedes docs/gaps.md and the substrate-liveness ratchet per R-7 |
31-hindrance-audit.md |
4 | Fourteen hindrances with fitness verdicts and better homes; seventeen candidates examined and cleared — five in Phase 4, six in the first 2026-07-28 external-assessment triage, six in the second (of which one, the pack/domain seam, survived as G-23) |
40-assessment.md |
5 | The synthesis |
50-execution-plan.md |
6 | The execution plan — five waves + five frontier tracks over every G/H entry, with the dependency gates and the risks. §0 carries nine corrections to the assessment found while sizing and executing it; §2.1 carries the adopted ruling docket and its execution order |
50-rulings.md |
6 | The ruling packet — R-1…R-14, each with evidence, options, a recommendation, and the exact diff that follows from each choice. RULED 2026-07-28: twelve adopted, R-10 and R-14 stricken, §5 NO-GO ratified. Carries the standing delegation under which residual sub-questions are decided, and marks each ruling EXECUTED as it lands |
../specs/flag_register.md |
— | The flag register (PR-5, R-3 + R-4) — all 32 RuntimeConfig booleans by class, governing ADR, and what evidence flips it; profiles as the unit of decision; §5 indexes every declared table in the repository and the pin that makes each true |
Maintenance contract (from §8 of the synthesis): a card whose verified_at falls behind a load-bearing arc is testimony, not evidence. Update cards when their subsystems move, or this directory becomes the next dead instrument it was built to replace.
Execution status (2026-07-28). Phases 0–6 produced the evidence; the arc that followed executed everything in it that needed no ruling, Wave 0 closed (twelve rulings adopted, two stricken, the §5 NO-GO ratified), and the docket then began executing in its corrected order. Landed: Track A's §5 verdict (pre-registered), PR-4 (+ pin 3), PR-6, PR-7, PR-9, PR-1, PR-3 + PR-3b (R-7), R-12 (two ADR record amendments + the §5 verdict banner + the §6 retirement-condition amendment), PR-5 (R-3 + R-4 — the flag register, the profile mechanism, and the daemon's missing fourth flag), and four defect fixes (H-13, H-8e, G-22, G-23).
Closed: G-6, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-15, G-22, H-6, H-7, H-8 (all five instances), H-11, H-13. Added: N-8, N-9, G-21, G-22, G-23, H-13, H-14. Wave 4's F-6 half-gate is lifted. What remains is owed work, not open questions — see 50-execution-plan.md §Status for the board and §2.1 for the adopted docket and its execution order.
Standing note: the PR #138 fabrication findings appear throughout as measured & pinned, fix held for ADR + ratification — recorded, never re-discovered, never fixed here, per explicit instruction.