core/evals/inference_closure/gaps.md

inference-closure lane — architectural findings (v1)

Resolution — 2026-05-17 lane re-run

After the typed deterministic operators (ADR-0018: transitive_walk, multi_relation_walk, path_recall in generate/operators.py) and their pipeline wiring (_maybe_transitive_walk + _fold_walk_into_surface in core/cognition/pipeline.py) landed, this lane passes:

Split	n	derived_recall_rate	premises_stored	replay	overall
public/v1	20	1.0	1.0	1.0	✓
holdouts/v1	12	1.0	1.0	1.0	✓

Gap 1 (no transitive composition) and Gap 2 (no path-recall) are both closed. The probe for wisdom is light, light is truth, What is wisdom? now produces wisdom is defined as ... — wisdom is truth (via wisdom light truth), and the chain endpoint truth is folded into the user-facing surface.

Historic finding preserved below.

Original v1 result (now superseded)

Split	n	derived_recall_rate	premises_stored_rate	replay_determinism	overall_pass
public/v1	20	0.0	1.0	1.0	False
holdouts/v1	12	0.0	1.0	1.0	False

This is the expected v1 outcome documented in docs/capability_roadmap.md Phase 3: lanes may fail v1 honestly, and each failure becomes either a closed engineering gap or a documented architectural deferral.

What v1 confirms

• Foundation intact. Every premise emits a PackMutationProposal (M3 = 1.0); every (premises, probe) sequence is replay-deterministic by trace_hash (M4 = 1.0). The work that landed in Phase 2 (symbolic-logic v1+v2) — storage and replay — holds at this depth.
• No inference operator. Across all 32 cases (20 public + 12 holdouts) covering five relation families (is, precedes, grounds, causes, belongs_to), the probe response surface never references the derived entailment token. Both surface and walk_surface are template-driven definitions/disclaimers, not derivations.

Concrete probe trace

For INF-DEV-001 — premises wisdom is light, light is truth, probe What is wisdom? — the runtime produces:

PREMISE 'What is wisdom?'          surface='wisdom is defined as ...'  vault=0
PREMISE 'Actually wisdom is light' surface='Light write.'              vault=9
PREMISE 'What is light?'           surface='light is defined as ...'   vault=5
PREMISE 'Actually light is truth.' surface='Truth thought — λαμβάνω…'  vault=9
PROBE   'What is wisdom?'
  surface              = 'wisdom is defined as ...'
  articulation_surface = 'wisdom is defined as ...'
  walk_surface         = 'Wisdom does not with.'
  vault_hits           = 9

The probe retrieves 9 vault entries (so the premises are in recall reach) but the realizer template emits a generic definition stub. The transitive entailment (truth) appears in neither surface nor walk_surface.

Architectural gaps (where the inference closure step is missing)

The roadmap pre-identified two suspects. v1 evidence narrows it to both:

Gap 1 — generate/graph_planner.py has no transitive composition

When the premise wisdom is light is taught, a proposition-graph node is created. When light is truth is taught, a second node is created. No edge composition step runs that would emit a derived node wisdom is truth. The articulation target planner picks a single node to articulate; it has no mechanism for chained traversal.

Engineering shape (out of scope for v1, in scope for v2):

• Extend graph_from_intent() to detect a probe whose form is "what does A R?" / "what is A?" and walk outgoing R-edges of A.
• Extend plan_articulation() to optionally compose a multi-node surface when the walk produces a single deterministic chain.

Gap 2 — field/propagate.py has no derivable-but-not-asserted recall path

Vault retrieval scores cga_inner(query, stored_versor) and returns the top-K direct matches. There is no path-based recall that says "return X if there is a relation-chain from the query entity to X." The 9 vault hits for the probe include the premise versors but not a derivation versor (none exists).

Engineering shape (also v2 candidate, may overlap with Gap 1):

• A path-recall operator over the relation-typed edges of vault entries. Preserves exact-CGA semantics: the chain composition is deterministic, not approximate.

Pass criterion review

The pass thresholds in contract.md (derived_recall_rate >= 0.50, premises_stored_rate >= 0.95, replay_determinism >= 0.95) are unchanged. v1's failure is uniform on the derived-recall metric — exactly what the contract was built to detect.

What stands today

• The lane exists as a permanent regression and progress signal.
• Foundation guarantees (storage, replay) are independently scored and remain at 1.0 — closing the inference gap will not cost them.
• Structural-zero frontier baseline recorded (baselines/v1_structural_zero.json): frontier LLMs do not emit the typed signals these sub-metrics score by construction.

Phase 3 exit posture

This lane satisfies the roadmap's v1 expectation: "v1 results with honest scores (which may be failing — that's acceptable for v1)." Phase 3 exit requires at least two lanes passing v1 by phase exit; inference-closure's gap-1 / gap-2 engineering work, if undertaken, flips this lane from failing v1 to passing v2 and contributes to that count. Until then it stands as load-bearing evidence of the specific engineering work needed.