core/docs/analysis/close-derived-proposal-bridge-2026-06-16.md

PR-2: Derived CLOSE Facts → Review-Gated Proposal Bridge

Date: 2026-06-16
Branch: feat/close-derived-proposal-bridge
Base: a1bdaa2c (origin/main with PR #788 merged)
Governing sequence: PR-1 (substrate — relational transitive CLOSE) → PR-2 (this: proposal bridge) → PR-3 (yardstick measurement)

What PR-2 adds

A deterministic, default-off proposal emitter that surfaces proof-gated derived CLOSE facts as reviewable proposal artifacts.

Eligible derived facts (after consolidation):

• derived is True
• derivation is not None with verdict == "entailed"
• epistemic_status == "speculative"
• relation_predicate ∈ {"member", "subset"} ∪ TRANSITIVE_PREDICATES (the four strict-order predicates)

Ineligible (skipped safely, never emitted):

• Direct (non-derived) facts
• Missing or non-entailed derivation
• Non-speculative standing
• Unsupported predicates (e.g. parent_of, sibling_of, left_of)
• Malformed records

Artifacts are written as JSON to teaching/proposals/derived_close_facts/<dedupe_key>.json with explicit fields:

• source: "derived_close_fact"
• predicate, subject, object, relation_arguments
• derivation: {rule, verdict, premise_structure_keys}
• epistemic_status, structure_key, dedupe_key
• status: "proposal_only", requires_review: true, mounted: false

Dedupe is stable across ticks and runs (predicate + args + derivation provenance + structure_key).

Why (the flywheel bridge)

PR-1 (CLOSE relational transitive) lets the lived loop derive and remember more sound conclusions as SESSION/SPECULATIVE facts. Without a proposal path, those facts stay trapped in session memory and never reach the reviewed learning path.

PR-2 completes the "comprehend → realize → determine → CLOSE consolidate → propose" half of the flywheel while preserving the hard boundary: only human-reviewed mutation (via the existing HITL proposal review) can produce durable (COHERENT/ratified) knowledge. Derived CLOSE proposals are proposal-only.

Architecture & boundaries (strictly observed)

• After consolidation, before (or alongside) existing proposal review. Runs in idle_tick only when config.review_derived_close_proposals (default False).
• Read/write separation. The emitter writes artifacts. Review consumption re-uses or parallels the existing read-only core.proposal_review machinery (no mutation of the review contract in this PR).
• No side effects on serving/determine. Emission never alters user-facing surface, determine answers, or any runtime field.
• No learning/ratification. Artifacts stay SPECULATIVE/proposal_only. No pack writes, no corpus mutation, no COHERENT promotion, no mounting.
• Safe failure. Malformed records and I/O errors are counted/skipped; the tick continues. No did_work / engine checkpoint is set by proposal emission (proposals live outside engine_state).
• Determinism. Collection sorts by (predicate, subject, object). Dedupe key is a content hash of the provenance tuple. Repeated identical state → zero new emissions.

Tests & gates

• Flag-off: no emission, no behavior change.
• Emission for member/subset derived and for relational-transitive derived (less_than, before_event, etc.).
• Stable dedupe on second run.
• Skips for direct facts, malformed, unsupported predicates.
• No status upgrade (remain speculative, proposal_only).
• Re-run of PR-1 tests + architectural invariants remain green.
• wrong_total == 0 on touched surfaces.

Documentation

• docs/specs/runtime_contracts.md — new subsection under idle passes documenting the bridge, eligibility, and contract.
• This note.
• Tiny pointer in root README (if a learning-loop section existed; kept high-level).

Commit shape

1. test(proposals): cover derived CLOSE proposal bridge (flag-off, emit for both is-a and relational, dedupe, skips, no mutation).
2. feat(proposals): emit review-gated proposals from derived CLOSE facts (emitter + idle_tick wiring behind the flag).
3. docs(proposals): document the bridge in contracts + this analysis note.

Non-goals (explicit)

• No PR-3 yardstick / capability index lane.
• No FrameVerdict serving or default wiring.
• No determine() answer=False or semantic broadening.
• No corpus/pack mutation.
• No auto-ratify, no COHERENT, no mounting.
• No broad hygiene or unrelated test fixes.
• No change to existing comprehension-failure proposal review contract (additive only).

PR-2 is the minimal bridge that makes the richer derived facts from PR-1 visible to the review path without violating any red line or the SESSION vs. reviewed learning boundary.

Next (after merge): PR-3 yardstick to measure the autonomous CLOSE climb (answerable-set growth with wrong_total=0).

---

This note + the contracts update close the documentation obligation for the design/capability change.