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 3.8. A number in a roadmap that nobody can regenerate is a claim, not a
measurement. One entry point now writes them all from the committed artifacts
and puts the denominator beside each: how many pairs could be scored, why the
rest could not, which taxonomy version scored them, the noise the family shows
against itself, and what the run cost per pair it got right. Every table says
whether hierarchical partial credit could apply, which today it cannot.
The roadmap section is replaced in place between markers rather than appended,
so the file cannot accumulate a stale number beside a fresh one, and running the
command twice without new artifacts changes nothing. With no baseline recorded
it says so instead of printing an empty table.
The corrected mechanism-lever number travels with the rest: detected five of
seventeen at a negative Youden once only train-split pairs teach, against seven
when every pair taught, with the difference named as what holdout pairs stopped
teaching. Round zero now records what it spent so the cost column has a source.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
The round-zero test decided which materialized side it was looking at by
searching the whole path for a substring, and the random temporary directory
name sometimes contained it. The detector then "found" the bug on the fixed side
too, the pair flipped, and the model comparison failed about one run in eight.
The check is now the directory name alone. This matters beyond the test: a noise
floor exists to measure how much a detector disagrees with itself, and noise
coming from the harness would be recorded as the detector's own and inflate
every family's regression budget.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
Task 3.3. Before anything learns, every family gets the same detector and is
measured against itself. Running a pair several times at the same settings does
not give the same answer, because the chat provider offers no seed, so the
spread between runs is real and unavoidable. That spread is the family's noise
floor and it becomes the budget a later round must stay inside before a
cross-family change counts as a regression. Choosing a budget instead of
measuring one would be a guess dressed as a threshold.
A pair the corpus already marked unscorable is never run: spending model calls
on a row that cannot be scored buys nothing and would put its noise into a floor
where it does not belong.
Artifacts are keyed by detector model, so a second model is baselined by
changing the model and running again, and the comparison table reads both side
by side. A model swap never touches a configuration, which is what makes the two
numbers comparable and reconsidering the model cheap. The web slices are the
default selection and the memory-safety family is measured with its floor marked
as never gating a round.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
