core/teaching/epistemic.py
Shay 5a221a7e50 docs(epistemic): correct §3.4 promotion doctrine + de-claim enum docstring
§3.4 said promotion "requires a curator-mediated coherence judgment." That
over-states a necessity. ADR-0021 §3 only requires promotion be a function of
coherence with the reviewed field. For claims *deductively entailed* by
already-COHERENT facts, the entailment proof IS that coherence judgment and can
be machine-certified by the sound deductive_logic_v1 engine — the logical arm of
the "structural coherence metric" ADR-0021's v2 gap already names.

- position_paper.md §3.4: split "own asserted output" (no standing — kept) from
  "deductively entailed from COHERENT facts" (proof = coherence judgment);
  relocate review to the *reading*, not the deduction; flag the proof-carrying
  path as specified-but-unwired with a link to the new issue.
- teaching/epistemic.py: the EpistemicStatus docstring claimed transitions are
  "computed from coherence" — they are not; review_correction carries status as
  a curator-supplied input. Docstring now states this honestly.
- docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md: thorough spec for the
  unbuilt capability (scope, the reading hazard, INV-21 impact, trust boundary,
  falsification tests, phased plan, proposed ADR-0218).

No runtime behavior change. Green: test_epistemic_invariants,
test_epistemic_phase3_state_tagging, TestINV21OneMutationPath (15 passed).
2026-06-11 13:52:51 -07:00

66 lines
2.6 KiB
Python

"""Epistemic Grade Policy — typed status surface per ADR-0021.
`EpistemicStatus` is a *position in the revision graph*, not a trust tier.
Source labels (peer_consensus, outsider_empirical, established,
unauthoritative) are deliberately not part of this enum — they would
re-import the bias ADR-0021 refuses.
The four positions form an open lattice under review. No member carries
a "hardened" or "permanent" flag (non-hardening invariant, ADR-0021 §2).
Every claim remains revisable; a Stage-3 inversion path is always
available for `FALSIFIED` claims.
"""
from __future__ import annotations
from enum import Enum, unique
@unique
class EpistemicStatus(Enum):
"""Position of a claim in the reviewed revision graph.
Coherence is the only admission signal (ADR-0021 §3): a status is a
function of coherence with the existing reviewed field, never of
source authority, credentials, or the system's own asserted output.
The *judgment behind* a transition is curator-mediated today —
``review_correction`` carries the resulting status as an input, it does
not yet compute it. ADR-0021's "Named gap (v2 work)" commits to
replacing curator mediation with a structural coherence metric; one
arm of that successor (proof-carrying promotion for the deductively
*entailed* subclass, via the sound ``deductive_logic_v1`` engine) is
specified but not yet wired — see
``docs/issues/proof-carrying-coherence-promotion.md``. Until it lands,
do not read this enum as evidence of an automated coherence computation.
"""
COHERENT = "coherent"
CONTESTED = "contested"
SPECULATIVE = "speculative"
FALSIFIED = "falsified"
# Statuses that admit a claim as evidence in downstream inference.
# `SPECULATIVE` is admissible only as a candidate, not as evidence.
# `CONTESTED` is admissible but cannot drive inferences depending on its truth.
# `FALSIFIED` is retained for provenance and Stage-3 inversion, not evidence.
ADMISSIBLE_AS_EVIDENCE: frozenset[EpistemicStatus] = frozenset({
EpistemicStatus.COHERENT,
})
def parse_status(value: str | None) -> EpistemicStatus:
"""Parse a serialised status string, defaulting to SPECULATIVE.
SPECULATIVE is the safe default at proposal creation per ADR-0021
§Schema impact: "transitions to COHERENT / CONTESTED / FALSIFIED only
via the review path." An absent or unknown value must not silently
promote a claim to COHERENT.
"""
if value is None or value == "":
return EpistemicStatus.SPECULATIVE
for status in EpistemicStatus:
if status.value == value:
return status
return EpistemicStatus.SPECULATIVE