Eight of nine group-3 tasks were rejected. Each defect was hiding a number,
and the numbers are why the loop was not learning:
- The fixed side was judged against the *vulnerable* side's function
ranges. 191 of 227 pairs with a resolvable labeled span (84%) have
different spans on the two sides, so a leak was recorded as silence,
always in the direction that flatters Youden.
- Round zero measured every family with the generalist. `family:unknown`
earns no credit against any real family, so every family but `unknown`
baselined at a structural zero and every noise floor with it.
- The cross-family sweep counted absolute failures instead of negative
flips. On a corpus where most pairs fail at round zero that rejects
every round for damage it did not do. Unscorable rows voted too.
- K runs was declared and never threaded; `pairs --k-runs` was parsed and
discarded, and its only test grepped `--help`.
- The meta-agent proposer was a stub, so `learning round` could never
propose anything. It now composes MetaAgent.evolve against a scratch
copy of the family directory, and `--proposals FILE` runs a recorded
sequence offline.
- `refused_holdout` was a vocabulary word no code path could produce, and
the covering test accepted either outcome.
- Cost was metered once, after everything had been paid for; a stage that
raised left no record at all.
- The corrected lever number was published beside the earlier one rather
than in place of it, and the test named for that property never checked.
- Refusals were `continue` statements: `Refusal.degradation()` existed and
nothing called it. A train-split identical twin was reported as
`split:train`, which is untrue.
Test repairs that each changed a number: two split tests measured an
`x = 1` fixture that teaches nothing whatever the rule says; two CLI
scoreboard tests asserted against all-zero output produced by a stub that
answers twice and puts its finding outside the labeled function.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
Task 3.7. A round proposes one change for one family and then lets the evidence
decide whether it stays. The stages run cheapest first: a train minibatch, then
the family's held-out pairs, then every other family. Each stage scores several
runs per pair, and asking for fewer than three is refused outright, because a
single run misses most real changes.
The family directory is snapshotted before the change, so every outcome other
than acceptance leaves the tree exactly as it was found: a tie, a regression on
either side, another family below its floor, a proposal that reaches beyond its
directory, or a round that crosses its cost cap. Acceptance bumps only that
family's version and records which configuration won which pair.
Every outcome is journalled, including having no proposal at all, and the round
directory holds the proposal, the scores, the pair identities behind the
attribution counts and the detector trajectories, all redacted, so a round can
be replayed and its attribution audited rather than taken on trust. A round
number is never reused.
Recorded while writing the sweep: with per-family directories a change cannot
reach another family, so the sweep is a floor check over every other family at
the moment this round would land, not a causal claim about this change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
