open/portfolio-optimiser
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases 3 Activity

feat(simulation): the demo now RUNS the Step-7 file inbox it narrates (P1/S1.a)

Browse source 
The Step-7 trace line said "lang fil-løkke" while the verdict arrived as a
function argument (`verdict_input`) — the short, in-run capture. The long loop
was tested but never exercised by the thing on stage.

An expert now drops a real verdict FILE (`write_verdict`) into an inbox between
the runs, and Run B is given `verdict_dir=`, so `run_project` merges it into the
store before the Step-1 fold.

Not done as the plan point was worded, and the difference is load-bearing:
routing the PERSONA verdict through the inbox would have put ONE marker on two
paths — Step 7 (inbox) and Step 8 (promotion) both end in Run B's prompt, so
either could carry it alone and `test_simulation_loadbearing.py`'s promotion
assertion would have stayed green with promotion detached. A second verdict with
its own marker keeps both seams independently red-able; `simulate_learning_loop`
raises when the two markers are equal. The inbox sits beside the bundle copy,
never inside it, and the id is an explicit sentinel (a minted id would collide
with the promoted verdict's, and `VerdictStore.add` is first-write-wins).

766 -> 769 passed (773 collected). Criterion 6 re-measured: stdout byte-identical
across two runs; stderr unchanged at 6 lines. Mutations measured against the full
suite, four red + a green control: detach `verdict_dir=` · point Run B at an empty
folder while the file is still written · marker set to `realization_rate: 0.82`
(measured present in the verdict seed) · marker set to `energy performance gap`
(measured present in a navigated concept file) · benign rename of the inbox dir.

Honesty limit found while measuring: the last two mutations fell on the causality
assertion, not the Run A control — generation prompts carry the debate output, not
the bundle context. The pair holds, but each assert defends a different property.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVYDeJ9evZicgU5r3roZVW
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-08-09 13:13:21 +02:00
commit 1e11dcb96c
5 changed files with 252 additions and 15 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
README.md
View file

@ -58,9 +58,13 @@ uv run python -m portfolio_optimiser.simulation
```
Each run shows the refinement step: the proposer's first claim is falsified by the deterministic
validator, and the corrected claim validates. The trace then ends with the approved verdict's marker
present in Run B's prompt and absent from Run A's — knowledge crossing runs purely through the
file-backed wiki (promote → re-seed → fold).
validator, and the corrected claim validates. Between the runs, knowledge travels back on **both
feedback timescales, each carrying its own marker** so neither can stand in for the other: the
persona's approved verdict is promoted into the file-backed wiki (promote → re-seed → fold), and a
second verdict — an operations note an expert drops into an inbox folder *after* the run, the way a
reviewer would days later — is merged from disk into the next run's store before its hypothesis is
formed (write file → merge → fold). Both markers are present in Run B's prompt and absent from
Run A's. Nothing crosses in memory.
**3 — Run the loop over a knowledge base, with answers you supply.** Write the stand-in replies,
then point the CLI at the bundle: