docs(ms-ai-architect): R11 §9.2 — cond2-rekkevidden er en uratifisert forgrening, ikke en måling [skip-docs]

docs/r11-pilot-results.md

@@ -368,7 +368,26 @@ a now-trailing colon, and the `**Verified** (Microsoft Learn - Enable semantic
 caching for LLM APIs)` stamp on line 258 afterwards stamps only the direction
 statement. Neither makes the remainder false.
 
-**idx 8 — cond 2 does not hold, and the candidate is not ratifiable as written.**
+**idx 8 — not ratifiable as written, under either reading of cond 2 — but the
+reason and the remedy differ, and choosing between them is an operator call.**
+
+First, the fork, because everything below depends on it. Cond 2 says the
+remainder must not be misleading. **Its scope was never fixed:**
+
+- **Broad reading** — misleading *to a reader of the file*. Then the rest of the
+  file is in scope, and a remainder that contradicts a passage seventy lines
+  down fails.
+- **Narrow reading** — misleading *as a statement of what the source grounds*.
+  Then only the edited passage is in scope, and a contradiction elsewhere in the
+  file is a **separate ungrounded claim**, to be flagged on its own, not a
+  defeater of this subtraction.
+
+The analysis below takes the **broad** reading. It is not ratified, and it is
+the operator's to settle — the same operator who ratified conditions 2 and 3 as
+human-judged. Under the narrow reading the classifier did exactly what cond 2
+asks and idx 8's cond 2 holds; the finding then becomes "lines 263-265 are a
+second ungrounded claim" rather than "the classifier was wrong".
+
 The classifier justified cond 2 on one of the two sub-deletions and never
 checked the other:
 
@@ -377,12 +396,20 @@ checked the other:
   (`**Azure Monitor + Application Insights** (Verified)` / "Drift metrics
   emitteres til Application Insights"), so removing the prerequisite bullet
   leaves no false implication.
-- Sub-deletion (a), `eller managed compute cluster`: **fails.** The same file
-  documents `**Managed Compute Cluster** (for store volumer)` as a real compute
-  option at lines 263-265, with pricing and a usage recommendation. Deleting the
+- Sub-deletion (a), `eller managed compute cluster`: **fails under the broad
+  reading, holds under the narrow one.** The same file documents
+  `**Managed Compute Cluster** (for store volumer)` as a real compute option at
+  lines 263-265, with pricing and a usage recommendation. Deleting the
   alternative from the prerequisites leaves the file asserting serverless Spark
   as the only compute requirement seventy lines above a cost section that prices
-  the alternative. That is precisely a misleading remainder.
+  the alternative. Broad: that is a misleading remainder. Narrow: the remainder
+  states what the source grounds, and 263-265 is a separate claim needing its
+  own verdict.
+
+Either way the candidate does not go in as written — under the broad reading
+because (a) must be dropped from the subtraction, under the narrow reading
+because lines 263-265 must be adjudicated first and may themselves need an edit.
+The remedies are different and the operator picks which applies.
 
 There is a further limit the O2 envelope cannot resolve: cond 3 passes for (a)
 only because the source does not *mention* managed compute — not-mentioned
@@ -397,13 +424,20 @@ string** than the one V2b attested, so it is not machine-clean until
 amendment, including dropping idx 17's trailing colon: **amended remainder →
 re-run the check before it counts as verified.**
 
-**The generalisable finding.** The classifier judged cond 2 against the *source*
-and against citations it chose itself. It did not systematically judge it
-against **the rest of the same file**. Internal consistency is a cond-2
-dimension the wave prompts never assigned, and idx 8 — the single `high`
-confidence record in the set — is the proof that it bites. The remaining 15
-candidates have not had this check. It must be run per candidate before any of
-them reaches a ratifier; expect it to move some of them.
+**The generalisable finding — conditional on the broad reading.** The classifier
+judged cond 2 against the *source* and against citations it chose itself. It did
+not systematically judge it against **the rest of the same file**. Under the
+broad reading that is a defect: internal consistency is a cond-2 dimension the
+wave prompts never assigned, and idx 8 — the single `high` confidence record in
+the set — is the proof that it bites. Under the narrow reading it is not a
+defect at all; the same sweep is still worth running, but its output is a list
+of *additional* ungrounded claims rather than a list of corrections to the
+existing verdicts.
+
+Either way the remaining 15 have not had the check, and it should be run per
+candidate before any of them reaches a ratifier. What changes with the reading
+is what the results *mean*, not whether to gather them — which is why the sweep
+can proceed before the scope question is settled, and the verdicts cannot.
 
 ## Appendix A — the 15 admitted proposals, hand-verified
 
@@ -500,11 +534,13 @@ additionally carries a machine flag: its remainder recapitalises rather than
 deletes (§9.1, V2b), so it is a text change and must be reviewed as one.
 
 ⚠️ **The `cond 2 = yes` column is the classifier's claim, not a verified fact.**
-Hand-checking the two affirmative rows (§9.2) falsified idx 8: half its cond-2
-justification was never checked and does not hold, because the same file
-documents the deleted alternative in its cost section. Read every `yes` in this
-column as "the classifier believed this", and verify against the rest of the
-file before ratifying. Only **idx 17** has survived that check so far.
+Hand-checking the two affirmative rows (§9.2) showed that half of idx 8's cond-2
+justification was never checked, and that the same file documents the deleted
+alternative in its cost section. Read every `yes` in this column as "the
+classifier believed this". Only **idx 17** has been hand-verified so far, and
+idx 8 is not ratifiable as written under either reading of cond 2 — but **which
+reading applies is an open operator decision** (§9.2), and it governs both the
+count and what a sweep of the remaining 15 would mean.
 
 Reproduce the tally and the machine checks:
 `node scripts/kb-eval/check-o2-returns.mjs`.