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 3.5. A proposer is handed facts, never the scores it is about to be judged
on: the misses and leaks of one family on the train split, what each run
actually did, and the hypotheses this family already tried and lost. A holdout
pair never appears in those facts. Self-diagnosis from free narrative
confabulates; structured facts are what make a proposal answerable.
A proposal is one hypothesis, one lever and one file inside one family's
directory, and the narrowness is the safety property: a round can only touch
what it targets, so every other family is frozen by construction rather than by
promise. A proposal that names two files, an unknown file, a path leaving the
directory, or a prompt over the cap is refused by name, and the write roots
exclude the verifier code and the corpus.
The scripted proposer runs out rather than repeating itself. The HarnessX
proposer reports its write roots and degrades with a recorded reason when the
extra is absent; its evolve call lands with the live rounds.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
