core/docs/handoff/curriculum-license-loop-2026-07/DIVISION-OF-WORK.md
Shay 55a3f79f18 docs(arc): curriculum-license-loop plan of record + tier division of work
Two prior arcs closed on "the binding constraint is ratified curriculum volume,
not machinery." Verified against code 2026-07-25: the machinery half is wrong in
a load-bearing way, and the correction is the reason this arc exists.

evals/curriculum_serve/practice/ does not exist. seal_ledger exists only for
deduction (evals/deduction_serve/practice/runner.py:96), yet
chat/curriculum_serve_license.py's own docstring names
evals.curriculum_serve.practice.runner.seal_ledger as "the only writer" of the
artifact it reads -- that writer was never built, and
chat/data/curriculum_serve_ledger.json does not exist. And the ceremony stops
short: RatificationReceipt.pending_stages = (arena_queue_entry, ledger_reseal).

So the pipeline is author -> ratify -> ??? -> ??? -> license -> serve. Authoring
curriculum today cannot earn a license at ANY volume. Content is necessary and
currently insufficient. The build is still modest, because oracle.py is already
an independent decision procedure usable as the gold tether and ADR-0263 already
extracted the sealers for exactly a third instance.

Two measured facts shape the content work. `refuted` has NEVER been produced --
the physics lane gold is entailed 14 / unknown 12 / declined 6, and no corpus row
can express it. And bands key on (domain, operator_family), so negative content
must live INSIDE operator_family "modal" with a row-level polarity marker; a
separate modal_negative family would create a new band at n=0 instead of adding
refuted volume to the target band -- the easiest available way to waste the whole
authoring effort.

DIVISION-OF-WORK.md records the tiering criterion and why it is not difficulty.
The evidence does not support a prestige split: in the same 48h window Sonnet 5
found the DEFAULT_SINK bug that wrote outside the repository and did the
six-worktree public_demo archaeology, while Opus 5 mis-diagnosed the CGA hot path
by multiplying a microbenchmark by a call count. Model tier was not the variable;
verification discipline was.

The split is therefore: would an error here be caught by a gate, or is it silent?
Two units are silent-failure BECAUSE THEY ARE THE GATE -- the negative-curriculum
epistemology (wrong => corpus encodes falsehoods and wrong=0 still passes, since
lane gold and the oracle both read the same rows) and the volume-honesty invariant
(wrong => conservative_floor cannot tell 657 independent facts from 16 asked 41
times, so the ledger clears theta=0.99 having earned nothing). Those get Opus.
Everything loud goes to the cheapest competent tier.

Also records the ordering correction: the epistemology ADR must precede the
generator, or the generator gets built twice.

[Verification]: docs-only; no code paths touched. Every referenced path confirmed
to exist and all five line citations confirmed accurate at HEAD (gold.py:1163,
curriculum_serve/runner.py:71, discovery_yield.py:67-70, entail.py:125,
curriculum_surface.py:184). Pre-push gate runs on push.
2026-07-25 15:09:09 -07:00

13 KiB
Raw Blame History

Division of Work — Curriculum License Loop

Arc: curriculum-license-loop-2026-07 · Written: 2026-07-25 · By: Opus 5 Plan of record: docs/plans/curriculum-license-loop-2026-07-25.md (binding) Read before any unit: that plan §1§3, then AGENTS.md.

This file is the contract for who does which unit and why. It is written to be read cold, by a tier that was not present for the analysis. If it conflicts with a memory or a chat instruction, the plan of record and AGENTS.md win.


1. The tiering criterion — read this first, it is the whole rationale

Units are not assigned by difficulty, and not by model prestige. The evidence does not support that split. In the 2026-07-24/25 window Sonnet 5 (Tier S) produced the six-worktree public_demo archaeology, found the derived_close_proposals.py::DEFAULT_SINK bug that wrote outside the repository, and found an engine-refused misclassification while building the instrument meant to measure something else. In the same window Opus 5 mis-diagnosed the CGA hot path by multiplying a microbenchmark by a call count, and made three wrong readings of this branch's own commits that survived only until they were checked.

Model tier was not the variable. Verification discipline was.

So the split is by one question:

If this unit is done wrong, does a gate catch it, or is the error silent?

  • Gate-caught — a test fails, an import breaks, a lane goes red, a hash drifts. The work is safe to execute at the cheapest competent tier, because being wrong is loud. Iterating against a red gate needs no design authority.
  • Silent — the system stays green while asserting something false. No downstream check can recover it, because the wrong thing has become the reference. These units need the tier that can reason about what the gate cannot see, and they must be finished before the units that depend on them.

Two units in this arc are silent-failure units because they are themselves the gate. Those are the ones worth spending expensive tokens on. Everything else is loud, and spending expensive tokens on it is waste.

Corollary for whoever picks this up: if you find yourself about to make a judgment call that no test would catch, you have crossed a tier boundary. Stop and escalate (§6). That is not a failure — it is the mechanism working.


2. Ownership at a glance

Unit Phase Owner Failure mode
Negative-curriculum epistemology ADR A Opus silent
Volume-honesty invariant (tests first) B Opus silent
R7 assertion — what to assert E1 Opus silent
Articulation feasibility study §6 of plan Opus silent
assert_corpus_sound rename E2 Sonnet loud
Practice producer implementation C Sonnet loud
core proposal-queue reseal verb D Sonnet loud
R7 code move + suite registration E1 Sonnet loud
Rust parity measurement plan §6 Sonnet loud
ADR status vocabulary sweep E3 Haiku loud
Content authorship (≈219 relations) F Shay
Capability-index scoring / stratification / hash_surface rulings plan §5 Shay
curriculum_serving_enabled flip G Shay

3. Opus units — expectations

A. Negative-curriculum epistemology (ADR) — do this first

Why Opus. This is the highest-risk unit in the arc. If the epistemology is wrong, the corpus encodes falsehoods and wrong=0 still passes — because the lane's gold derives from the same corpus, and evals/curriculum_serve/oracle.py is independent in code but reads the same rows. Corpus-level epistemology errors are structurally unfalsifiable by every gate this repo has. Nothing downstream notices; the whole arena inherits the error and certifies it at volume.

Binding constraints (from the plan, not re-litigable):

  • Absent edge ⇒ UNKNOWN, never "no". This is the open-world reading and it is the reason curriculum serving is honest at all.
  • Explicit negative edge ⇒ REFUTED. These are different states and the corpus must distinguish them.
  • Polarity is a row-level field or intent value, never a new operator_family. Bands key on (domain, operator_family) (chat/curriculum_surface.py:184), so a modal_negative family creates a new band at n=0 rather than adding refuted volume to curriculum_physics_modal.
  • The oracle must learn polarity independently of the serving path. Its code-level independence is the entire evidentiary value; do not let the two share a polarity helper.

Done when: ADR is Accepted, the row schema shape is fixed, and the UNKNOWN-vs-REFUTED boundary is stated precisely enough that Phase B can enumerate against it. No code.

B. Volume-honesty invariant (tests, written before any producer)

Why Opus. This unit is the anti-gaming gate, so there is nothing above it to catch a mistake. S6 already proved the exposure: conservative_floor cannot distinguish "657 independent facts" from "16 facts asked 41 times each" (docs/research/curriculum-volume-quantification-2026-07-24.md §1). An unbounded generator therefore clears θ=0.99 at n≥657 without earning anything, and the resulting license reads as identical to a real one. Getting the bounding rule wrong silently invalidates all of Phase F's authoring effort.

Expectations:

  • Tests come first and must fail for the right reason before any producer code exists. The test file is the specification of the invariant; that is why it is the deliverable and not a by-product.
  • At most one committed case per distinct (relation, direction, polarity, question-shape) tuple. No paraphrase padding.
  • Assert the bound structurally: N ratified chains cannot yield more than a bounded multiple of N committed cases.
  • Mutation-check it. Pad the generator ⇒ red. A pin that cannot fail is worthless; this is the same discipline tests/test_adr_status_governance.py was held to.

Done when: tests exist, fail correctly, fail under mutation, and the module interface they imply is unambiguous enough that Phase C needs no design decisions.

E1 (Opus half). The R7 assertion

Why Opus. The code move is trivial and specified — docs/specs/runtime_contracts.md:448-456 already says "defer the single sink emission to the pipeline serve boundary." What is not specified is what to assert, and the default sink is None, so nothing exercises this path. A wrong move is therefore silent. This is also the exact seam that regressed silently for two days in the #96 register-axis incident, so it gets the careful tier by history as well as by reasoning.

Done when: a written assertion exists — the sink receives the post-override event, and its trace_hash matches a pipeline replay — precise enough for Sonnet to implement against.


4. Sonnet units — expectations

Every unit here has a loud failure mode. You are expected to iterate against the gate until it is green, not to re-derive design. If a unit seems to require a design decision, that is the signal in §6.

Order: E2 → C → D → E1(code) → parity. E2 first because Phase C adds a third assert_corpus_sound caller and renaming after that is strictly more work.

E2. assert_corpus_sound rename

Two functions, one name: evals/deduction_serve/practice/gold.py:1163 (no args, practice corpus) and evals/curriculum_serve/runner.py:71 (domain, cases, lane contract). Not a missing contract — a name collision, flagged in BRIEF-CLOSE-assessment-verification-2026-07-25.md §9.5. Gate: imports break.

C. Practice producer

evals/curriculum_serve/practice/{__init__,generator,runner}.py. Mirror evals/deduction_serve/practice/ topology exactly: producer in evals/, sealed artifact next to its reader in chat/data/.

Reuse, do not rewrite — this is why the unit is small:

  • evals/curriculum_serve/oracle.py — already an independent decision procedure; wrap as the gold tether.
  • core/learning_arena/engine.py::run_practice — the ADR-0199 pure fold.
  • core/ratified_ledger.py::{seal_artifact, tally_dict, write_sealed_ledger} — extracted by ADR-0263 for exactly this third instance.
  • core/reliability_gate::{Action, Ceilings, ClassTally, license_for}.
  • chat/curriculum_surface.py — the solver under test.

Determinism is required: no clock, no RNG, byte-identical sealed output across runs, so the artifact is safe to commit and SHA-verify on load. Read evals/deduction_serve/practice/runner.py docstring for the pattern.

Gate: Phase B tests; wrong=0 on the physics lane.

D. core proposal-queue reseal

teaching/ratification.py, core/cli_proposal_queue.py. Explicit verb — never auto-reseal on ratify (doctrine forbids ratification automation, and per-row reseal would churn the ledger's content_sha256). ratify_chain records the enqueue; a human runs the seal. Follow the existing status|list|show|review|ratify verb patterns.

Gate: CLI tests; the verb produces a SHA-sealed chat/data/curriculum_serve_ledger.json, and curriculum_serve_license() reads a real but still-unearned ledger instead of an absent one.

E1 (code half). R7

Move the emission per Opus's written assertion. Do not improvise the assertion.

Rust parity measurement

PYO3_PYTHON=/opt/homebrew/bin/python3.12, cargo test in core-rs/, then rerun the hash-pinned lanes under CORE_BACKEND=rust. cargo 1.97.1 and the registry cache are present locally; the cloud session was blocked only by sandbox network policy. Report the measurement; do not act on it. A parity failure is a silent-class finding about determinism — escalate rather than "fix."

Suite registration (all units)

Anything you add goes into a curated suite in core/cli_test.py. Two files from PR #113 landed in no suite and ran only under full, which gates nothing — that was the fifth instance of this pattern in three arcs. Do not make it six.


5. Haiku unit

E3. ADR status vocabulary normalization

27 unparseable status lines plus draft/ratified/active/accepted. variants across 312 ADR files (inventory: docs/research/adr-status-governance-2026-07-25.md §6). Normalize to the intended lifecycle, then widen tests/test_adr_status_governance.py from its deliberately narrow scope to a closed vocabulary.

Bulk mechanical with an objective acceptance criterion: the widened pin goes green. Do not change any ADR's decision — only its status token. If a file's intended status is genuinely ambiguous, list it and stop; do not guess.


6. Escalation — when a cheaper tier must stop

Stop and hand back up when any of these is true. Escalating is the mechanism working, not a failure; guessing past one of these is the only real error available here.

  1. You are about to make a call no test would catch. By definition you have crossed into a silent-failure unit.
  2. A gate is green but you do not believe it. That is the signature of a reference that has become wrong — exactly the ADR-0256 shape, where the record asserted "not yet decided" about a live decision and nothing failed.
  3. The measurement contradicts the plan. Say so with the numbers. Both prior arcs improved by having their premises falsified in writing; a falsified plan premise is a deliverable, not an interruption.
  4. A parity or determinism check fails. Never "fix" a hash drift. Report it.
  5. Scope exceeds the unit as written. Flag it in the PR/handoff rather than improvising, per the standing Tier-S/O constraint.

7. Standing constraints (non-negotiable, all tiers)

  • wrong=0. No flag flips — those are Shay's ratification only.
  • Forgejo-primary; no gh, no tea. SSH:29222 often times out — push over the authenticated HTTPS remote instead.
  • Branch and worktree per unit; both deleted immediately after merge.
  • Pre-push gate in-worktree on canonical Python 3.12.13 with uv sync --locked: core test --suite smoke -q then --suite deductive -q. Baselines at arc start: smoke 555, deductive 285.
  • [Verification]: line in every PR description, naming the interpreter.
  • One PR per coherent unit. Compare-URL PRs; Shay merges — no merge automation, and green PRs sit until explicit authorization.
  • Never scripts/verify_lane_shas.py --update — surgical single-line pin edits only. Three arcs depend on that rule.
  • New tests go into a curated suite (§4).

8. At arc close

Fill in docs/handoff/ARC-CLOSE-TEMPLATE.md → this directory. The Falsified assumptions section is the one that cannot be recovered from the diff — state which parts of the plan of record turned out wrong, including your own claims. Also record whether the articulation trigger fired, which the previous arc left unrecorded.