`okf check --payload` takes the reply to one call over a folder as well
as a single payload: every bundle's payload is held to all 19 rules on
its own, a finding is named with its bundle, one every payload carries
alike is reported once, an answer labelled with a bundle its payload
does not describe is `answer_misattributed`, and a reply with no answer
is `payload_invalid`. No rule is added, and a single payload's report is
unchanged. Contract SS 2.5.4 names the folder run and SS 8.11 fixes the
reply; the known-positive moves to 24 620 / delta 592.
The skill text follows: the working method's steps 1 and 4 name the
folder, and the generic skill says to use the server's tools first where
they are registered, with the skill as the supplement. The folder is an
instruction in both generators, never a path: the bundle's parent
written absolute named this checkout, and the test holding generated
commands to no repository path fell on it.
v1.1 order F, part F4.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
C6. `docs/consumption-contract.md` now says what the pre-pass emits:
- SS 2.5 point 2: sub-questions are written in the bundle's terms and given to
the pre-pass in ONE run where it takes several;
- SS 8's example is `okf-consumption/2` as shipped: `withheld` is the
`{total, by_rule, nearest, complete}` mapping, `coverage` carries
`absent_terms` and `weak`, an excerpt carries `text`, `text_sha256`,
`passage` and `own_title`; point 1 closes the identity on `withheld.total`;
- point 7 keeps the falsified verdicts on record and states the one reading
carried since v1.1, `weak`, with its rule: a word held in no form, or
nothing delivered -- whether a word exists at all, which does not move with
question style or corpus size the way the two shares did;
- point 8 the passage (`{start, end, of}`, `text_sha256` over the passage,
`sha256` still the file's), point 9 several sub-questions in one run (one
cut, `questions`, `subquestions`, per-sub-question coverage), point 10 a
title inherited from the heading above, with `own_title`;
- SS 10 names this library's default ranking (BM25) and `--ranking fusion`.
`okf check` holds the two new forms a reader acts on: `passage_malformed`
(not whole numbers with 0 <= start < end <= of) and `subquestions_unindexed`
(not distinct indices into `questions`, or indices in a payload listing none).
17 -> 19 rules; the two tests that pin the published count move with it.
Each rule is held against a real payload (0 findings) and against that
payload broken six ways.
Editing the contract moved the SS 7.4 known-positive, measured once after the
edit: 19 837 -> 23 672 encoded, 19 358 -> 23 092 raw, delta 479 -> 580. The
example payload and `skills/okf-consume` are regenerated by the published
recipe and `okf check` reports 19 rules, 0 findings on them.
Suite on a clean tree after `git add`: 2443 passed, 2 skipped, 4 xfailed.
ruff, ruff format, mypy --strict clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Operator decision 2026-09-21: nothing from that consumer's collection goes out
on the public remote. The NAME stays where it is already published -- it is a
consumer of this library, named as such, and removing it would mean rewriting
published history, which this repository does not do. What goes is everything
that describes their CONTENT.
Removed across README, CLAUDE.md, CHANGELOG, four dated reports, the
consumption contract, three source modules and three test modules: their
corpus's document and page counts, the concept count of a bundle built from
it, the byte figures of a payload built from it, the question and fasit counts
and recorded score of their evaluation set, a bundle id with two content refs,
an order id naming them, and a path into their repository.
Kept, because the argument survives without the corpus: RATIOS and
percentages. A ratio is the finding -- a withheld list that is 65.5 % of a
payload is a defect at any corpus size -- and it discloses nothing about how
large anyone's collection is. Where a claim lost its denominator it now SAYS
so rather than quietly reading as unmeasured: the gate-refusal limitation in
the README states that the corpus and its counts are deliberately withheld and
points the reader at their own build, which is the number that binds them
anyway.
One integrity pin is kept and named here rather than left to be found: the
retrieval gate still pins that set by sha256, because the pin is what refuses
a self-written file in the right shape, and a checksum discloses nothing about
what it checksums. Its recorded SCORE is gone -- that was their figure about
their own corpus, and the row now says so instead of restating it.
The known-positive constants move with the contract document, as they must.
Suite green, 2372 passed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The operator built a 2313-concept bundle from one project's own documentation,
asked it a question in his own words, and judged the result unusable. The
generated skill was an audit contract: all its discipline sat on the accounting
-- markings, denominators, budget lines, source pointers -- and none of it on
understanding the question, searching again, or writing one coherent answer.
Two sentences actively forbade the second of those.
**The two forbidding sentences are gone and their replacements are tested from
both sides.** "Do not go looking for context the pre-pass deliberately
withheld" read as "one run per question", and no wording of the operator's
question put the right document inside a single run's cut -- so a rule against
a second run was a rule against finding it at all. "Not something to retry with
a narrower question" generalised a budget-refusal case into the same ban.
SS 2.2 of the contract said the first of them, so the contract moved with the
skill rather than being left to disagree with it: a second pre-pass run with
other terms, and a fetch of a concept the payload NAMED, are reachable; SS 9's
two real boundaries -- directory enumeration, the verdict layer -- are not.
**Two new sections, and the checker requires them.** `## Working method`: read
the bundle's map, put the question into the bundle's own words, split a broad
question into 2-4 sub-questions, search per sub-question, read what lay just
outside the cut and search again with its words, same method across several
bundles, then assemble ONE answer ordered by sub-question, saying which source
holds and what is not covered. `## Answer form`: the questioner's language,
plain prose, no `below_k`, no digests, no budget lines, no denominators; short
textbook-style references (document + section, plus bundle where several were
read); and the audit trail written only when the questioner asks for it or
into a document that travels without the skill. `REQUIRED_SECTIONS` follows the
template and the contract's new SS 2.5 and SS 2.6 -- never the other way round.
**The generic skill becomes what `okf skill` and `okf project` write.** A
per-bundle skill's numbers go stale the moment its bundle is rebuilt, one copy
per consuming project, and a project with two bundles installs two
near-identical skills; the generic form carries no bundle's numbers and names
`okf card` for them. `--for-bundle` is the opt-in for the instantiated copy,
which still refuses out loud on a stale pairing -- safe to keep, not enough to
keep default. `rule_bundle_identity` learned to tell a generic skill from an
unfilled template by the frontmatter name the generator writes, so the template
still fails for the opposite reason: it declares no identity because it is
unfinished.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Measured 2026-09-20 on a 2313-concept bundle of one project's own
documentation: `withheld` held 2 305 entries = 186 440 B of compact JSON =
**65.5 % of the 284 850-byte payload**, and not one of those bytes counted
against the budget the same payload reports (`spent` was 45 192). A reader was
handed 239 658 bytes the budget line did not know about, to learn 2 305 concept
ids with nothing beside them -- the title being exactly what `--withheld-titles`
existed to buy, and which was off because buying it for 2 305 entries cost
another 37.9 %.
`withheld` is now a mapping: `total` (equal to `denominators.withheld`, so
SS 5.2's identity is unmoved and closes on the NUMBERS), `by_rule` (the same
total decomposed over the closed rule set, so "what kind of drop" is answerable
without the list), `nearest` (the best-ranked drops BY NAME, with title and
source document, so a reader who sees a near miss can ask for it) and
`complete`. The near misses are read off the ranking, not off `cut`'s output:
`cut` sorts by id so the partition is comparable, and that order says nothing
about which concept a reader might want next.
Same question, same bundle, after: **52 421 bytes, 18.4 % of the old file**.
The whole list stays reachable behind `--withheld-full`, and the two
instruments that classify EVERY miss by its rule -- the retrieval gate and
`okf_consume_measure` -- now ask for it explicitly and assert `complete`
rather than assuming it. `--withheld-nearest N` sets the cap (default 20,
which is `k` plus the next twelve). `--withheld-titles` is retired: a flag
whose only remaining effect would be to STRIP the title from a list the caller
asked for in full names no decision worth two shapes for one list.
`CONTRACT_REVISION` moves to `okf-consumption/2`, because a consumer indexing
the old key as a list would otherwise break silently. Three checker rules move
with it, and one of them is the interesting case: `parent_unfollowable` used
`excerpts` + `withheld` as the bundle's own denominator, which a truncated
block is not -- so that clause now runs only where the payload SAYS it is
complete, stated in SS 8.6 rather than left as a silence, with the other two
clauses (shape, self-reference) running either way. `Report` carries both
denominators, because a report claiming it examined 2 305 entries it never saw
is the same defect one level up.
The generated skill's "breaking point" section goes with it: it extrapolated a
concept count from the cost of ONE withheld entry, and there is no such slope
any more. It now states what this bundle's bookkeeping cost and that the block
is bounded by the cap rather than by the bundle -- an extrapolation from a
slope the code no longer has would be a measurement of the previous revision.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
`coverage` carries three lists: the terms the pre-pass read the question as,
the terms no concept in the bundle answers, and the terms no delivered
excerpt answers. Without it a reader holding eight excerpts cannot tell a
bundle that ANSWERED its question from one that merely ranked something --
the two payloads have the same shape.
FACTS, AND NO VERDICT, which is a measurement and not caution. Two readings
were built and both falsified over 81 questions (16 synthetic, 65 across the
three real sets, 2026-09-20): the share of question terms a delivered
excerpt answers separates the synthetic controls at 0.33 against 0.50 and
REVERSES on real data (covered questions down to 0.27, one genuinely
uncovered question at 0.71); the share of a bundle tying the best lexical
match is ~0.00 for every real question either way. Question style dominates
the first, corpus size the second.
The one bar this repository declares is the gate's: `UNANSWERED_BAR = 2/3`
over `unanswered_in_bundle`, swept and collapsing at both ends -- at 0.50
eleven real covered questions are marked, at 0.70 the row falls to 5 of 6,
at 2/3 the row is 6 of 6 and 0 of 65 real questions are marked. The margin
is thin (0.6087 against 0.6667) and is published that way, together with
what it does not catch: r761-sk2's own known-negative sits at 0.2857.
Row 4: 3 of 6 RED -> 6 of 6 GREEN, with the 10 answered synthetic questions
held unmarked as the known-negative. The contract's SS 8 gains point 7, the
consumption skill is told to read the block, and the SS 7.4 known-positive
moves with the document (14 721/375 -> 16 389/417). Suite 2292 passed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
K3-21 B. The second form of `parent`: `okf consume --follow-parent`
(`consume.attach_parent_text`) puts the enclosing concept's text inside an
excerpt's `parent`, with that concept's own `sha256` so a claim resting on it
is cited as that concept. It runs AFTER the cut, on the room the cut left, in
rank order, so the delivered set, its order, the withheld list and the
denominators are the same with the flag as without it -- inherited text
cannot displace an excerpt, the mechanism a consumer measured when copied-in
ancestor text pushed the right section to withheld place 504 and 1 069. A
text that does not fit is cut to the longest prefix that does and marked
`truncated`; a parent the payload already holds, or one a higher-ranked
excerpt already carried, travels once. OFF; the defaults are chosen on the
measurement that follows this commit.
`delivered_text` is the one normalisation an excerpt's `text` and a parent's
share. Contract SS 8 point 6 gains the MAY; the template tells the reader
what `text`, `sha256` and `truncated` mean. README and CLAUDE.md name the
flag.
Moved on purpose: the SS 7.4 known-positive again (14 455 / 14 083 / 372 ->
14 721 / 14 346 / 375), and `skills/okf-consume/` regenerated with it.
`tests/test_parent_text.py::test_no_room_means_no_text_and_no_lost_excerpt`
changed from its red form: it asked through `build_payload` at `limit ==
spent`, where the knapsack's 500 B buckets admit nothing at all
(`budget_admits_nothing`); it now holds the rule at `attach_parent_text`.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
K3-21 A. `okf consume` resolves a concept's `parent:` pointer -- a
`segment_id`, unique only inside one document's plan -- among the concepts
sharing its `source_file` (`consume.link_parents`, one pass, no file opened
again) and an excerpt carries `parent: { concept_id, title }`. Conditional
like `req_number`: a concept with no `parent` key moves no byte. A pointer
that lands nowhere is named `parent_unresolved: true`, never dropped.
The door writes ONE line into a heading-only body whose entry has a parent:
`Enclosing section: [<title>](/<bundle-relative path>)` (SPEC SS 5.1 lineage
through links, SS 6.1 the recommended absolute form and the kind in the
prose). Only such a body, so the segmented goldens' declared parents -- bodies
holding text -- are untouched. Appended AFTER structure derivation and
screened on its own (`_screened`, the `description` rule): read as body text
the link was derived into a second, unresolved `references` edge, measured on
the fixture. `segmentation.heading_only` is the one predicate the proposer and
the door share.
`okf check` gains its seventeenth rule, `parent_unfollowable`: a `parent`
that is not a concept_id and title, names its own excerpt, or names a concept
in neither `excerpts` nor `withheld` (together every considered concept).
Contract SS 8 point 6 added, the figure carries `parent`, and "additional
members are not read by the checker" now says the checker reads only the
members SS 8 names. The template tells the reader what `parent` is and that
SS 2.2 lets it read that one concept; `skill.CONDITIONAL_FIELDS` gains
`parent`. README and CLAUDE.md say what consume now reads.
Moved on purpose, each named: the SS 7.4 known-positive IS the contract
document, so `budget.known_positive` moves in every payload (13 238 / 12 893
/ 345 -> 14 455 / 14 083 / 372); `skills/okf-consume/` regenerated from the
segmented golden, whose plan declares s1 and s2 under s0 -- its example
payload now carries both parents; `test_bundle_identity` 16 -> 17 rules;
`test_shell_parent`'s byte test also accounts for the link line.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Measured outside this repository on a 3206-concept bundle of a published
handbook: the code's own process overview contributes 28 of 3206 concepts
(0.87 %) and 117 488 of 1 469 225 source characters (8.0 %), and took 8 of 8
delivered places on one question and 7 of 8 on the known-positive -- which was
not delivered at all. Identical at 343 and 1651 concepts, so the cause is the
corpus's COMPOSITION, that it holds its own table of contents, and NOT its size.
Splitting the corpus would move the defect, not remove it: any corpus with a
contents list, a project overview or a summary document has the same property.
`--source-quota N` caps how many DELIVERED places one source document may take.
It cuts where the shortlist is cut -- before the pack, never inside the DP,
which maximises a sum over a set it is handed -- so the freed place goes to the
next candidate and `k` is still delivered in full.
DEFAULT 2 SINCE TODAY, and it is the third change here that alters a payload
with NO bundle changing (after `--tie-shared-rank` and `--stem-prefix`).
Opt-out `--no-source-quota` reproduces the previous excerpt order.
Swept over {2, 3, 4, off} on three bundles, with the fasit prefixes validated
against the bundle FIRST (that control caught a defect in the measuring query
itself -- it read the last id segment where the document is the first):
- K2, both bundles: at 2 and 3, hit@8 goes 5 of 6 to 6 of 6 with all five
standing rank-1 rows unmoved. The recovered row had missed on every bundle and
every configuration measured until now. At 4 and off it is 5 of 6.
- The handbook bundle: hit@8 2 of 6 -> 4 of 6, the known-positive from not
delivered to rank 4, and the dominant document's share of delivered places
8 of 8 -> 2 of 8 (7 of 8 -> 2 of 8 on the known-positive).
- 2 rather than 3 on rank alone: the recovered rows come in at 5 and 4 rather
than 7 and 5.
WHAT THE GAIN IS NOT. hit@8 asks whether the gold DOCUMENT appears among the
delivered excerpts, and a document quota directly raises how many distinct
documents a payload holds, so that metric is not neutral with respect to this
rule. The five rows that were already rank 1 are neutral, and they did not move.
THE ADVERSE CASE IS NAMED, not left to a consumer. A bundle built from ONE
document carries the same `source_file` on every concept, so a quota applied
literally would deliver 2 excerpts where `k` were asked for -- a rule against
dominance turned into a rule against small bundles. The shortlist is topped back
up from the best-ranked over-quota candidates, which makes such a bundle
byte-identical to the quota being off, and a test holds it.
`--rarity-weight` was measured against the same defect and does NOT repair it:
it leaves the dominant document at 8 of 8 places on the question it floods,
delivers neither that answer nor the known-positive, and holds 5 of 6 on both K2
bundles. Combined with the quota it is worse than the quota alone (the
known-positive falls back out). It stays off.
The vocabulary stays CLOSED and the new code is published in all three places a
consumer can read it: `WITHHOLDING_RULES` (six -> seven),
`docs/consumption-contract.md` 5.3, and the generated SKILL.md -- verified by
reading the generated file, not the code that writes it. `source_quota_exceeded`
is a DIVERSITY drop and not a relevance one, so folding it into
`no_lexical_match` would tell a consumer the question reached nothing in a
concept the question in fact reached. `okf check --skill --payload` stays
conformant, 0 findings over 15 rules.
Editing the contract moved the 7.4 known-positive, which is the coupling
working as intended: 12 563 -> 13 238 encoded, 12 227 -> 12 893 raw, delta
336 -> 345, updated in the constant, the instantiated skill and the shipped
example payload.
Also adds the O6 guard on the reading side: `build_payload`'s signature defaults
are asserted equal to `okf consume`'s argparse defaults for every same-named
parameter. `okf project` shipped that exact disagreement for two rounds.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Two changes, one theme: what a reader needs in order to cite is a property of
the PRODUCER, so neither the excerpt nor the skill may hard-code a list of the
producers someone thought of.
The pass-through rule is now the `source_` PREFIX, not the five keys this
library writes. Measured on the N500 bundle currently on disk: 269 of 274
concepts carry `source_element_id`, a locator that repository chose under this
chain's own rule ("the key says what it indexes") and that this library never
writes. The allowlist dropped it, and an excerpt that names a document without
naming the place in it is the defect this work exists to close. A prefix and
never a substring - `resource_owner` contains the literal and is not a locator,
and promoting it would be fabricated provenance produced by a matching bug. The
known-negative is tested: `bundle_id`, `type` and `ingested_at` do not travel.
Contract 8.5 states the rule as a prefix rather than a list.
K2 control, re-measured against the frozen tool at b6a8c8b, same question and
same k: the RANKING is untouched - same 8 ids in the same order, identical
`text_sha256`, identical `withheld`, denominators 629 = 621 + 8. The FIELD moved:
payload 108 877 -> 113 143 B (+3.92 %), spent 18 606 -> 22 210 (+450.5 B per
excerpt), excerpt members 9 -> 17, 99 changed lines. Known-positive follows the
contract document's bytes again: 12 049 -> 12 563 measured, 11 719 -> 12 227
raw, delta 330 -> 336.
`tools/okf_skill.py` instantiates the template for one bundle: id, ref, concept
count, the conditional-field table with a denominator per field (the `source_*`
rows DISCOVERED from the bundle, not listed), the whole-bundle cost by the gate's
own instrument, the share one measured answer spent, the concept count at which
the withheld bookkeeping alone reaches the limit, and the index-walk-against-
directory control - run once at generation time, never on the question path.
The form was chosen on a measurement that came out against the obvious gate:
the contract checker passes the UNFILLED template against a real payload, and
passes a skill built for a different bundle against this one's. It cannot tell
the two forms apart, so conformance could not decide it. What decides it is that
5's denominators, 6.4's conditional fields and 7.6's breaking point are
per-bundle numbers - a generic skill either leaves them as holes (the template's
own definition of unfinished) or states another corpus's numbers, which is worse
than a gap. Every gate the checker lacks is therefore a test here: no placeholder
survives, the skill names its own bundle's id and ref and not another's, its
commands are absolute and point at files that exist, and it refuses a directory
with no index (exit 1, `bundle_unreadable`), an index with no `bundle_id`
(`bundle_id_missing`), an empty bundle, and an occupied target without --force.
It lives in `tools/` for the reason `okf_consume.py` and `okf_contract_check.py`
state for themselves - outside `src/`, so no consumer's install surface changes -
and because a wheel-installed `okf skill` would emit a command pointing at
`tools/okf_consume.py`, which the wheel does not contain.
Suite 1372 (1347 before), ruff clean, mypy src clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <claude-opus-5>
The pre-pass delivered the right concept and the answer could not name it.
Measured by portfolio-optimiser 2026-09-08 over three paid arms: the gold
concept came back at rank 1 of 8 on 3 of 3 bundles, and the model answered
correctly on 1 of 3, because a delivered excerpt carried `concept_id`, body
text and nothing the document is known by. The previous session measured the
same gap from the other side: the provenance it had just written into every
concept did not reach the payload at all.
`excerpt_for` now carries `title` unconditionally, and `req_number`, the SPEC
5.1 address `sources` and each locator key (`source_pages`, `source_sheet`,
`source_rows`, `source_lines`, `source_offset`) when the concept has them. A key
the producer did not write stays absent: an empty value would assert that they
wrote an empty one, which is the contract's 6.4 failure.
`sources` is read in BOTH YAML forms, on a measurement rather than a taste. K2
writes the flow form on 629 of 629 concepts; the largest N-bundle writes the
block form on 270 of 270 and carries no locator key at all, so a flow-only
reader delivers that bundle with no address whatsoever. Reading the block form
is not a licence to write it - the emission rule is untouched, because the
line-oriented parser still cannot round-trip a block list. A `sources` value
this reader cannot decode is named (`sources_unreadable`), never dropped into
the same silence as an absent one.
Contract 8 gains the requirement and the checker gains its code
(`excerpt_unnamed`, 15 rules now, was 14): an excerpt a reader cannot name is
one an answer cannot cite, whatever its rank. `req_number`, `sources` and the
locators are SHOULD, not MUST - they are conditional on the producer, and a
bundle whose concepts carry no identifier cannot deliver one.
K2 controls, same question and same k, before against a frozen copy of the tool
at b6a8c8b: the RANKING does not move - the same 8 concept ids in the same
order, identical `text_sha256`, identical `withheld`, identical denominators
(629 = 621 + 8). The FIELD is what moved: payload 108 877 -> 111 744 B
(+2.63 %), budget spent 18 606 -> 20 907 (+287.6 B per excerpt), excerpt
members 9 -> 15, 83 changed lines. The contract document's own bytes moved with
8, so the budget instrument's known-positive moves with it: 10 349 -> 12 049
measured, 10 060 -> 11 719 raw, delta 289 -> 330.
New fixture `tests/fixtures/consume-provenance`: the two address forms and a
concept carrying neither address nor identifier. Purpose-built, because the two
real bundles are complementary and neither exercises both forms.
Suite 1347 (1339 before), ruff clean, mypy src clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <claude-opus-5>
The plan document decided what the contract is and who owns it, and said of
itself that nothing in it was implemented. This states the same six elements as
numbered paragraphs with MUST and SHOULD, in the form a checker can read, and
adds the three things the plan layer had no way to carry: concept identity as
the (bundle_id, concept_id) tuple with a content digest per excerpt, the closed
adjudication state set with unknown written explicitly rather than collapsed,
and the prohibition on reaching the verdict layer with a query-time retrieval
tool.
The plan document is not rewritten to match. It records why; this binds. Two
copies of the same rules drift, so the plan carries a pointer instead.
