5c77c9eece
The falsifiable experiment's measurements #2 (ablation) and #3 (diversity). Builds the competent, code-disjoint SYMBOLIC reader (the control arm AND the C3 capability path) and the ablation instrument that runs both readers through the real verify_tier2_agreement gate. VERDICT: C3 — the field is decoration on this domain (a sanctioned, honest negative): - field_wrong_commits = [] (wrong=0 holds; the per-step drift guard refuses bad ints) - field_caught_symbolic_errors = [] (the field caught ZERO symbolic errors) - per-class diversity = 0 everywhere (both readers agree and are both correct) - the only admitted-set change is the field LOSING coverage at the precision ceiling. Insight: on forward-substitutable relations, geometric translation IS arithmetic addition, so there is no metric over-determination for the field to exploit — field and symbol are common-mode (Knight-Leveson), not a genuine second derivation. This is the deductive finding's twin: logic was combinatorial (field can't earn it), additive is arithmetically trivial (field adds nothing). The field needs metric-nontrivial AND arithmetically-hard structure to earn a reasoning role — dedicated research, not near-term. Field-as-reasoner is NOT earned; no field vote enters any serving path; the field stays a servant. Capability path = symbolic (C3), not shipped here. - generate/relational_symbolic_reader.py: competent independent reader (pure int). - evals/relational_metric/ablation.py: the reusable decoration instrument. - docs/analysis/field-wedge-ablation-result-2026-06-04.md: the recorded verdict. All prior artifacts STAY (field reader = real wrong=0 read demo + 3rd panel domain). Green: full wedge suite 104; 53 architectural invariants.
59 lines
2.1 KiB
Python
59 lines
2.1 KiB
Python
"""The symbolic reader — the ablation control arm and the C3 capability path.
|
|
|
|
It must be a *competent* reader (correct on the grammar, fences the same out-of-domain
|
|
cases, detects over-determination), so the ablation is a fair test of whether the field
|
|
adds anything over it. Unlike the field it has no precision limit (pure int).
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
from __future__ import annotations
|
|
|
|
from generate.relational_symbolic_reader import READER_LINEAGE, read_relational
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_commits_additive_more_than():
|
|
r = read_relational(
|
|
"Tom has 3 marbles. Jane has 5 more marbles than Tom. "
|
|
"How many marbles does Jane have?"
|
|
)
|
|
assert not r.refused and r.answer == 8
|
|
assert r.reader_lineage == READER_LINEAGE
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_commits_part_whole_sum():
|
|
r = read_relational(
|
|
"Tom has 3 marbles. Jane has 5 more marbles than Tom. "
|
|
"How many marbles do Tom and Jane have?"
|
|
)
|
|
assert not r.refused and r.answer == 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_commits_beyond_field_ceiling():
|
|
"""The symbolic reader has no f64 precision limit — it commits where the field
|
|
refuses (over_ceiling). This is the field's coverage liability, not a symbolic bug."""
|
|
r = read_relational("Gus has 9000000 apples. How many apples does Gus have?")
|
|
assert not r.refused and r.answer == 9000000
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_fences_multiplicative():
|
|
r = read_relational(
|
|
"Tom has 3 marbles. Jane has twice as many marbles as Tom. "
|
|
"How many marbles does Jane have?"
|
|
)
|
|
assert r.refused and r.refusal_reason == "fenced_multiplicative"
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_detects_over_determination():
|
|
"""A competent reader refuses a conflicting re-statement (so the field's geometric
|
|
coherence check is not a unique advantage)."""
|
|
r = read_relational(
|
|
"Tom has 3 marbles. Tom has 5 marbles. How many marbles does Tom have?"
|
|
)
|
|
assert r.refused and r.refusal_reason == "over_determined_conflict"
|
|
|
|
|
|
def test_refuses_forward_reference():
|
|
r = read_relational(
|
|
"Jane has 5 more marbles than Tom. Tom has 3 marbles. "
|
|
"How many marbles does Jane have?"
|
|
)
|
|
assert r.refused and r.refusal_reason == "non_forward_substitutable"
|