9a7f9f6a66
The actual coverage lever (ADR-0177 established cue-precision is its gate+prune, not the unlock). Gap B = which quantities group via which ops in what order. The reframe that resolves the rich-search-vs-uniqueness tension: structure-from- READING, not enumeration. The text encodes its own structure — every gold case fits a sequential clause-by-clause read (0021 one clause 15x10x3; 0003 48 ->x24 ->x0.75; 0024 sum ->x3; 0033 seq chain + branch). So Gap B is comprehension: read the problem, build the derivation structure as you read, hold alternatives on ambiguity, reevaluate on lookback. This IS the project's original 'word-to-word with lookback + problem-solving throughout' articulation, and the synthesis of reader (0174) + solver/gate (0176) + learning (0177) + packs. Decision: a comprehension-guided sequential composer — clause-local bounded sub-derivations combined across clauses via relational cues (per/each/of->multiply, and-list->sum, comparative->scale, more/older->add, fewer/less->subtract), held- hypothesis on ambiguity + eliminate/reevaluate (REPOINT ADR-0174's inert reader substrate from parse to STRUCTURE — where it finally becomes load-bearing), scored by the 0176 self-verification gate + uniqueness, guided by 0177 cue-precision. Locality bounds the search; relational cues constrain the cross-clause op so uniqueness can RESOLVE (not just refuse). Coverage rises only as far as the reading constrains structure; irreducible ambiguity refuses (wrong=0). wrong=0 obligations: per-step self-verification, irreducible-ambiguity-refuses, completeness+uniqueness over the whole structure, no-spurious-structure, determinism, sealed. Honest hard parts: relational-cue precision (co-dependent with 0177 + data-starved), clause segmentation, referent binding, branch/DAG (0033 quantity reuse, GB-5), scale. This is the comprehension core — largest remaining capability; serving lift materialises here, incrementally. Sub-phases GB-1..GB-6.
10 KiB
ADR-0178 — Compositional Structure: Comprehension-Guided Multi-Step Derivation (Gap B)
Status: Proposed Date: 2026-05-28 Author: Shay Anchor: thesis-decoding-not-generating Builds on / synthesises:
- ADR-0174 — Held-Hypothesis Comprehension — its held-hypothesis /
eliminate_violating/reevaluate/contemplatesubstrate is repointed here from reading-to-parse to reading-to-structure (where it finally becomes load-bearing). - ADR-0176 — Multi-Step Composition — the chain model + the self-verification gate that scores each structure.
- ADR-0177 — Cue-Precision Learning — the learned
(cue→op)reliabilities that guide the structural search and that this search feeds. - The comparatives pack (and a future relational-cue / superordinate-units pack) — the irreducible relational world-facts.
Context — the actual flip lever, and what it really is
MS-3 proved the multi-step search is built and wrong=0-safe but low-coverage: blunt whole-problem shapes (product-of-all / sum-of-all) flip only the one case where the shape happens to match (0021), and a rich unguided search drowns in disagreement-refusals. The dominant failure (0019, 0041) is compositional structure — which quantities group, via which ops, in what order. That is Gap B, and ADR-0177 established it is the real coverage lever (cue-precision is its safety gate and prune, not the unlock).
The central tension: a richer search produces more self-verifying candidate structures that disagree, so uniqueness refuses more. Coverage cannot come from enumerating more structures — it must come from steering to the right one.
The reframe that resolves it — structure-from-reading, not enumeration. The text already encodes its own compositional structure: clauses group local quantities, and relational cues across clauses say how the pieces combine. Every gold structure fits a sequential, clause-by-clause read:
| Case | Read sequentially |
|---|---|
| 0021 | one clause: 15 × 10 × 3 |
| 0003 | 48 → ×24 (24 in each box) → ×0.75 (sell for $0.75 each) = 864 |
| 0024 | 20+36+40+50 (the and-list) → ×3 (three times as many) = 438 |
| 0033 | 12 → ×7 (7 times) → ÷2 (half) → +5 (5 older) → … |
So Gap B is, at bottom, comprehension: read the problem, build the derivation structure as you read, holding alternatives when a clause is ambiguous and revising on lookback when a later clause disambiguates. This is precisely the original project articulation — "articulate word to word, with lookback re-evaluation, with problem-solving throughout, without insane complexity." It is also the synthesis of every prior strand: the reader (ADR-0174) supplies structure, the solver/ gate (ADR-0176) scores it, the learning (ADR-0177) guides it, the packs supply the relational facts.
Decision
A comprehension-guided sequential composer: read the problem clause-by-clause; within a clause, derive a local sub-result by a small, bounded search over that clause's few quantities; across clauses, combine the running result with the next clause via the relational cue the text presents (per/each/of → multiply; same- unit and-list → sum; comparative → scale; more/older/then → add; fewer/less/lost → subtract; fraction-of → scalar). When a clause's relation is ambiguous, hold multiple candidate structures and eliminate them downstream (repointed ADR-0174 machinery); when a later clause disambiguates an earlier choice, reevaluate (repointed). Every structure is scored by the ADR-0176 self-verification gate (grounding ∧ cue ∧ unit ∧ completeness) + uniqueness; the relational cue→op choices are guided/ranked by ADR-0177 cue-precision.
Why this gets coverage without breaking wrong=0: locality bounds the search (each clause has few quantities → no flat explosion), and the text's relational cues constrain the cross-clause op (so the surviving structure set is small enough that uniqueness can resolve, not just refuse). Where the text is genuinely ambiguous and no constraint or learned cue-precision resolves it, the held- hypothesis set stays >1 and the composer refuses — refuse-preferring, unchanged. Coverage rises exactly as far as the reading constrains the structure; no further.
Repointing ADR-0174 (where the inert reader becomes load-bearing)
ADR-0174's held-hypothesis substrate was built for reading-to-parse and is inert
(0/50). Gap B is its true home: ProblemReadingState.open_hypotheses becomes the
set of candidate derivation structures; eliminate_violating prunes structures a
later clause contradicts; reevaluate revises an earlier structural commitment;
contemplate consults vault/packs when a relation is unknown. These are reading-
coupled today (per ADR-0175's audit) and must be generalised off their parse-
specific types — not a drop-in, but the conceptual machinery is exactly right.
wrong=0 obligations (must be proven, not asserted)
- Per-step self-verification. Each clause-local and each cross-clause combination is grounded + unit-consistent before it joins the structure (the ADR-0176 gate, applied per step). A test fails if an ungrounded/unit-incoherent step is admitted.
- Irreducible ambiguity refuses. When the held structure set stays >1 with no eliminating constraint or decisive cue-precision, the composer refuses (does not pick). A test fails if it resolves an unresolved hold.
- Completeness + uniqueness (ADR-0176) over the whole structure: all body+ question quantities used; a single distinct verified answer or refuse.
- No spurious structure. A structure whose grouping is not licensed by the reading (relational cue absent/ungrounded) cannot self-verify even if its value matches gold (extends invariant #2 to trees/chains).
- Determinism/replay; sealed (no serving import; serving stays
3/47/0until Phase 5 ratifies).
The honest hard parts
- Relational-cue precision — the cross-clause op hinges on relational lexemes (per/each/of, times/half, more/older, fewer/less, then). Their op-mapping is partly packs (comparatives) and partly learned (ADR-0177 cue-precision, which is itself bottlenecked + data-starved). This is the same Gap-A/Gap-B co-dependency: Gap B produces gold-matching chains that give cue-precision its signal, and cue-precision ranks Gap B's structural choices. They co-evolve.
- Clause/clause segmentation — deciding clause boundaries is itself a parse decision; start with sentence + simple conjunction splits, refine cautiously (ADR-0165: orthographic/lexeme splits, not grammar templates).
- Referent binding — whose value a clause refers to ("Brooke does 3× as many as Sidney" → scale Sidney's result). Cross-sentence entity tracking (ME-2 / the discourse-subject machinery already exists) must say which running value a relation applies to.
- Branch/DAG structures (the hard end) — 0033 reuses
12in two branches (12×7…and25−12); a pure sequential chain cannot express quantity reuse. DAGs are GB-5, after chains work. - Data/scale — coverage and the cue-precision it feeds compound only with volume (ADR-0163 §Phase F). On 50 cases this is mechanism + incremental flips, not a finished solver.
This is the comprehension core — the largest remaining capability and the place serving lift actually materialises. It is multi-phase by nature; each phase is gated wrong=0-first and measured honestly.
Sub-phases
- GB-1 — clause segmentation + clause-local sub-derivation. Split the problem into clauses (lexeme/sentence-level); within a clause, a small bounded search over its quantities → a local sub-result (self-verified). Tests: locality bounds the search; a clause-local product/sum self-verifies; ambiguous clause holds/refuses.
- GB-2 — sequential combination (chains). Combine running result with the next clause via the relational cue → op (guided by ADR-0177 + comparatives). Flips the sequential-chain gold cases (0003/0024-class) under self-verification + uniqueness.
- GB-3 — lookback / reevaluate (repoint ADR-0174
reevaluate): a later clause revises an earlier structural choice. wrong=0-first. - GB-4 — held structural hypotheses + eliminate (repoint
eliminate_violating/contemplate): hold >1 structure on ambiguity, eliminate downstream, refuse if irreducible. - GB-5 — branch/DAG structures (quantity reuse, 0033-class). The hard end.
- GB-6 — measurement + perturbation + the cue-precision/scale dependency.
Acceptance criteria (Proposed → Accepted)
- GB-1/GB-2 land; the per-step gate + completeness + uniqueness hold; sequential-
chain gold cases flip under self-verification with
wrong=0in serving. - Invariant: spurious/unlicensed structures and irreducible holds refuse (proven).
- Flips hold under ADR-0114a perturbation; determinism/seal invariants hold;
capability lanes G1–G5/S1 stay 100%
wrong=0. - The measurement reports honestly against the relational-cue-precision + scale dependencies (no coverage claim the substrate can't support).
Cross-references
- Repointed substrate: ADR-0174
(held hypotheses,
eliminate_violating,reevaluate,contemplate,ProblemReadingState) — generalised from parse to structure. - Scoring/gate: ADR-0176.
- Guidance/learning (co-evolves): ADR-0177.
- Relational facts: the comparatives pack + a future relational-cue / superordinate-units pack (ADR-0175 §10 self-proving-vs-pack split).
- Scale: ADR-0163 §Phase F.
- Thesis & origin: thesis-decoding-not-generating — this is the word-to-word, lookback-revised, problem-solving-throughout reader the project set out to build; Gap B is where it lands.