The consumer report (portfolio-optimiser, S7 SS 2) found that a mandate-shaped
cost question withheld the corpus's one priced table under `below_k`. Measured
here, on a bundle proven byte-identical to a fresh HEAD rebuild:
- The mechanism is a VOCABULARY gap, not a `k` defect: two of three ranking
signals are exactly 0.0 and the concept is candidate 249 of 269.
- The k-sweep buys nothing: k in {8,12,16,24,32,64,128} all withhold it, at
+9.5 % tokens. It also found a regression -- for the question that WORKS,
k >= 16 EVICTS the gold concept, because one 67 838 B excerpt is 56.5 % of
the budget and the knapsack maximises a sum.
- Two proposed rules were falsified BEFORE any code: number/table density ranks
the priced table 178/165/46 of 269 (the form is unfilled, so it is
number-poor), and per-document spread puts its document 30th of 35.
Built instead, behind `--cost-vocabulary` (default OFF, DEFAULT byte-identical):
one declared cost/price/quantity vocabulary family that bridges a question and a
document naming money with different words. It moves the concept from candidate
rank 249 to 10 -- and does NOT close the blind spot: the budget still refuses
it, which is now a separately measured second lock.
Seven RED tests first; six mutations of the rule, six red (two survived the
first version of the tests and the tests were strengthened). Control: a question
with no cost term produces a byte-identical payload with the flag on, at every
k, on the real corpus. Known-positive: 164 987 B / 40 425 o200k tokens, equal to
the published pair.
Report: docs/2026-09-08-blindsone-below-k-k2.md
Suite 1268 green, mypy --strict clean over 28 files, both goldens unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <claude-opus-5>
Two producer-side defects from the S7 acid test (ordre 20260907T234741Z-9578626297-from-.claude), both reproduced on K2 before and after.
F1: `okf build --ingested-at` alone stamped only 11/629 concepts -- the unsegmented ones, which read the call's value directly. The 618 segmented concepts read `segment.ingested_at`, the plan's `proposed_at`, independently defaulted to `DEFAULT_STAMP`. `proposed_at` now falls back to `ingested_at` when omitted; neither flag passed still yields `DEFAULT_STAMP` for both.
F2: the consumption pre-pass's index walk counted a root-linked `log.md` (`corpus.link_log_in_root_index`, `95eb271`) as a concept, inflating a 629-concept K2 rebuild to 630 and letting the log rank and cut like real content. The link stays -- the contract is silent on `log.md` and `95eb271` already named it a LOCAL choice -- but the walk now treats `LOG_NAME` like the index itself: reachable, never a concept.
K2 rebuilt twice from the same corpus and diffed against the delivered `K2-bundle-20260903`: FOR (stashed fix, matching fbaac6d) reproduces po's numbers exactly -- 619/1108 files differ, 618 ingested_at-only, ref `sha256-tree:4ffd750c...`. ETTER (fix applied) leaves exactly 1 line differing (the deliberate log link, predating this fix) -- 0 files stamped 1970, 629/629 stamped 2026-09-03, ref `sha256-tree:f14872a0...`. The delivered bundle's ref is unchanged before and after (`sha256-tree:9a4e5561...a968b5`), since it carries no log link and the new branch never fires. Conservation identity holds both times: merged + coded rejections = 43 = N, 39/0/4.
1258 -> 1260 tests. mypy --strict clean on 28 files. ruff clean. Both goldens byte-unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
hit@8 = 5 of 6, every hit at rank 1, against a chance baseline of 1.35 of 6
over a denominator of 629 concepts per question. Wall time 0.51-0.56 s per
question; spent 17 970 - 74 838 bytes against a 120 000 limit.
Two things this measurement did NOT establish, both in the report:
- BOTH known-negative controls FAILED. A question the bundle has no answer to
still returns eight excerpts, because no natural Norwegian question is
lexically disjoint from a 629-concept corpus under a four-character
shared-prefix rule -- measured per token, the interrogative `hvor` reaches 40
concepts, `brukes` 83. So `no_lexical_match` works per concept and not as a
whole-question gate: an empty excerpt list is evidence of absence, a full one
is not evidence of presence. The fix is named (rarity weighting) and NOT
built, because this step's fence freezes the instrument before it is measured.
- The question texts were written during execution, after the ranker existed.
The plan recorded the gold documents' SIZE profile -- its per-row baselines
sum to 1.35 and the sizes used here reproduce that exactly, which is an
independent check that this is the set the plan profiled -- but it recorded no
question texts, and three of six gold documents could not be pinned uniquely
from the sizes. Not a blind evaluation, and the report says so.
The scorer is a tool, not a script in a document: `tools/okf_consume_measure.py`
takes the gold set as an INPUT because it is tracked in a public repository and
an answer key names a consumer's documents. hit_rank, both chance baselines and
the document-size census are unit-tested; the corpus run is a measurement.
Public-file rule, checked with a pattern DERIVED from the corpus's own 39
document names rather than hand-picked, and shown able to find first (67 hits on
the bundle's own index): zero corpus document names in any tracked file in this
repository. One leak was found and removed on the way -- a corpus concept name
in a code comment and a hardcoded corpus path in a test.
Suite run after git add: 1230 passed, mypy --strict clean on 27 files,
ruff clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Two corrections the plan did not carry, both found by running the instrument:
- A question matching nothing still returned the top eight by tie-break -- a
confident guess wearing a denominator. The closed rule set gains
no_lexical_match, so the known-negative returns a measured empty set with
every considered concept named in withheld.
- The stage-one document prior summed overlap across a document's units, so it
measured document SIZE. Measured on K2 for the price question: the
competition document sums to 6.0 over 79 concepts (0.076 each), the price
document to 2.0 over 1. The prior is now a density; the price-form gold moves
from outside the top eight to rank 1. Found with that answer visible, which
the measurement document states beside the number.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
