docs(ms-ai-architect): cond2 ratifisert som hele-fila-lesning; verifisert skår 1 av 46 [skip-docs]

This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-08-03 19:51:36 +02:00
commit e1d344307c

View file

@ -382,11 +382,14 @@ remainder must not be misleading. **Its scope was never fixed:**
file is a **separate ungrounded claim**, to be flagged on its own, not a file is a **separate ungrounded claim**, to be flagged on its own, not a
defeater of this subtraction. defeater of this subtraction.
The analysis below takes the **broad** reading. It is not ratified, and it is **The operator ratified the broad reading, 2026-08-03.** Cond 2 is measured
the operator's to settle — the same operator who ratified conditions 2 and 3 as against the whole file: a remainder that contradicts the file it sits in is
human-judged. Under the narrow reading the classifier did exactly what cond 2 misleading, whatever the source says. The stated ground is that these files are
asks and idx 8's cond 2 holds; the finding then becomes "lines 263-265 are a publicly distributed and read as wholes — a self-contradicting file is a trust
second ungrounded claim" rather than "the classifier was wrong". defect regardless of which half is wrong. The narrow reading (cond 2 scoped to
the edited passage, with contradictions elsewhere handled as separate ungrounded
claims) was considered and rejected. Recorded here because the fork was real and
a later run must not silently re-open it.
The classifier justified cond 2 on one of the two sub-deletions and never The classifier justified cond 2 on one of the two sub-deletions and never
checked the other: checked the other:
@ -396,20 +399,16 @@ checked the other:
(`**Azure Monitor + Application Insights** (Verified)` / "Drift metrics (`**Azure Monitor + Application Insights** (Verified)` / "Drift metrics
emitteres til Application Insights"), so removing the prerequisite bullet emitteres til Application Insights"), so removing the prerequisite bullet
leaves no false implication. leaves no false implication.
- Sub-deletion (a), `eller managed compute cluster`: **fails under the broad - Sub-deletion (a), `eller managed compute cluster`: **fails.** The same file
reading, holds under the narrow one.** The same file documents documents
`**Managed Compute Cluster** (for store volumer)` as a real compute option at `**Managed Compute Cluster** (for store volumer)` as a real compute option at
lines 263-265, with pricing and a usage recommendation. Deleting the lines 263-265, with pricing and a usage recommendation. Deleting the
alternative from the prerequisites leaves the file asserting serverless Spark alternative from the prerequisites leaves the file asserting serverless Spark
as the only compute requirement seventy lines above a cost section that prices as the only compute requirement seventy lines above a cost section that prices
the alternative. Broad: that is a misleading remainder. Narrow: the remainder the alternative. That is a misleading remainder under the ratified reading.
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 The candidate therefore does not go in as written: **(a) must be dropped from
because (a) must be dropped from the subtraction, under the narrow reading the subtraction**, leaving (b) alone.
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) 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 only because the source does not *mention* managed compute — not-mentioned
@ -424,20 +423,19 @@ string** than the one V2b attested, so it is not machine-clean until
amendment, including dropping idx 17's trailing colon: **amended remainder → amendment, including dropping idx 17's trailing colon: **amended remainder →
re-run the check before it counts as verified.** re-run the check before it counts as verified.**
**The generalisable finding — conditional on the broad reading.** The classifier **The generalisable finding.** The classifier judged cond 2 against the *source*
judged cond 2 against the *source* and against citations it chose itself. It did and against citations it chose itself. It did not systematically judge it against
not systematically judge it against **the rest of the same file**. Under the **the rest of the same file**. Under the ratified reading that is a defect:
broad reading that is a defect: internal consistency is a cond-2 dimension the internal consistency is a cond-2 dimension the wave prompts never assigned, and
wave prompts never assigned, and idx 8 — the single `high` confidence record in idx 8 — the single `high` confidence record in the set — is the proof that it
the set — is the proof that it bites. Under the narrow reading it is not a bites. The remaining 15 have not had the check. It must be run per candidate
defect at all; the same sweep is still worth running, but its output is a list before any of them reaches a ratifier, and its output corrects the existing
of *additional* ungrounded claims rather than a list of corrections to the cond-2 verdicts rather than merely adding to them; expect it to move some.
existing verdicts.
Either way the remaining 15 have not had the check, and it should be run per **Score after hand-verification: 1 of 46 clears both conditions, not 2.** Only
candidate before any of them reaches a ratifier. What changes with the reading idx 17 survives. That is the number §10 measurement #2 should be read with — the
is what the results *mean*, not whether to gather them — which is why the sweep classifier's own "2 of 46" counted idx 8 on a cond-2 justification that was
can proceed before the scope question is settled, and the verdicts cannot. half-unchecked.
## Appendix A — the 15 admitted proposals, hand-verified ## Appendix A — the 15 admitted proposals, hand-verified
@ -537,10 +535,11 @@ deletes (§9.1, V2b), so it is a text change and must be reviewed as one.
Hand-checking the two affirmative rows (§9.2) showed that half of idx 8's cond-2 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 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 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 classifier believed this". Only **idx 17** has been hand-verified. Idx 8 is not
idx 8 is not ratifiable as written under either reading of cond 2 — but **which ratifiable as written: cond 2 is measured against the whole file (operator
reading applies is an open operator decision** (§9.2), and it governs both the ratification, 2026-08-03, §9.2), and the file contradicts the remainder at lines
count and what a sweep of the remaining 15 would mean. 263-265. **The verified score is 1 of 46, not 2.** The other 15 rows have not had
the whole-file check.
Reproduce the tally and the machine checks: Reproduce the tally and the machine checks:
`node scripts/kb-eval/check-o2-returns.mjs`. `node scripts/kb-eval/check-o2-returns.mjs`.