The honest gear (roadmap Step 4). `determine(question: Comprehension | Refusal, ctx)`
answers a membership question ("Is X a Y?") ONLY from what the held self has already
REALIZED (R1a structural recall) — never from the field, an LLM, or absence.
Honesty (from the design review): every realizable record is SPECULATIVE, and
ADMISSIBLE_AS_EVIDENCE = {COHERENT}, so a determination grounded in SPECULATIVE records
carries `basis="as_told"` — "based on what I was told (unverified)", NEVER "verified".
Until COHERENT promotion exists (out of scope), D0 produces only as-told assertions or
typed `Undetermined` refusals. No estimation; no corpus mutation (teaching stays HITL
proposal-only).
Soundness (open-world, wrong=0): D0 asserts an answer ONLY on DIRECT structural
entailment by a realized fact; absence never refutes (so it never asserts a positive
answer from missing knowledge — it refuses). It asserts only `answer=True` on a direct
hit; it never asserts False. Negated questions and non-`member` queries are an explicit
`Undetermined` — D0 ships no entailment path the reader cannot exercise.
Tests (test_determine_d0.py, 8) BITE: present-but-non-entailing (a record about the
subject exists but not the asked relation) MUST refuse; the same question against a
fresh context with no realized fact flips Determined→Undetermined (the verdict is
entailment, not mere presence); the negated + unsupported-query refusals are exercised
via hand-built queries (the reader refuses them upstream, so a comprehend-based test
would pass vacuously). Independent of #593: reasons over R0/R1 `member` facts only.
bf9ad77fda