Fable-review 2026-08-09 made durable: P1-P10 in plain language with the
commands behind every number (evidence table §4). Pre-demo: step-7 inbox
wired into the walkthrough (P1), Spor B sharpening (P2), the stage-0
first-contact check on Tuesday's GO (P3), fresh-clone/stderr/golden
criteria plus two honesty sentences on Wednesday (P4). Post-demo: CLI
portfolio cap (P6), one consolidated commons amendment (P7), method
skill [Voyage] (P8), and an explicit NULL for orchestration swaps (P10).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019xhQpH4oQBaf8dxCkXuB8Z
A prompt that lives only in a conversation dies at /clear, so it goes in the repo.
Three tracks, in the order the operator weighted them: the MAF feature set, the demo, and -- as
the actual deliverable rather than an appendix -- a ranked list of what the week's quota should
buy. Each item carries a mechanism, a hard [FØR TORSDAG]/[ETTER DEMOEN] tag, a cost in SESSIONS
rather than hours, and what would go red if the item were done. An item nothing can falsify is an
opinion, not a finding.
The measured starting points are embedded so the session does not re-derive them wrongly: two
debate agents rather than three, one orchestration in use out of the installed surface, a
hand-rolled portfolio fan-out, and a capability map organised by NEED that therefore never
compares TOPOLOGIES. The map is not stale on version -- 1.9.0/1.0.0 is what is installed -- which
matters, because "the map is old" would be the easy wrong conclusion.
The prompt carries its own discipline because Fable runs without an advisor: every figure must be
produced by a command shown beside it, and premises in STATE and in plan documents are named as
premises. This repo has measured at least three of them wrong, most recently today.
It is also forbidden from smuggling feature work in front of the demo. The demo is a hard date;
the feature set is not. Arguing otherwise is allowed -- but only out loud, with the consequence
spelled out.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
The demo shows "download and run". Implying you can point this at your own sources and build a
knowledge base claims three things the code does not carry -- and A5 (the code may not claim more
than it does) binds the presenter too, not just the source.
Measured first, and one measurement changed the plan: the guard is NOT v0.2 alpha. That figure came
from our own 2026-07-16 inclusion plan, which is a premise rather than a fact. It is v0.3.4, seven
published tags, `dependencies = []` -- stdlib only. Our okf pin (v0.3.2) declares no dependencies
either, so the guard is not coupled to it, and the 0.3.5-vs-0.4.0 release argument concerns the
release AFTER v0.3.4. Adoption moved from risky to tractable on that one reading.
The three claims, made precise: the demo bundle was hand-curated (honesty), the ingest path writes
unscanned (buildable), and the generic bundle factory does not exist (deferred at O1, not buildable
in four days). Two close with code, one with a sentence.
The two tracks are separated on a measured fact: `simulation.py` does not import `ingest`, so Door A
work cannot disturb what Wednesday freezes. Criterion 5 is the one that proves it -- the walkthrough
must stay byte-identical.
Four decisions are named as decisions rather than settled silently: which policy preset, fail-closed
versus flag-and-write, where the guard's report lands in provenance, and keeping `--strict`
meaningful across a seam that ships no py.typed. The honesty paragraph is written in BOTH variants
up front, so Wednesday is an observation and not a judgement call on stage.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
generate_via_llm consumed each validator Rejection internally (`last`), fed it into the
next attempt's prompt, and dropped it. So Step 5 was real but unobservable: a caller could
see THAT a proposal validated, never that it validated on attempt 2 after the deterministic
validator falsified attempt 1. It was the one step of the eight with no output to show.
The seam is a typed return value -- GenerationResult(outcome, refinements) -- rather than an
out-parameter or a callback: a returned value cannot be silently lost by a caller that forgets
to pass a collector, and mypy forces every call site to acknowledge it.
refinements carries ONLY rejections that were actually fed back. When the attempt budget runs
out the final rejection IS outcome; counting it here would be double-counting, and the bounded
control test goes red on the collect-everything implementation that gets this wrong.
The loop's bound is untouched: max_attempts and meter.tick_round stand, and `last` still drives
the prompt alone, so prompt growth is unchanged. run.py accumulates across _evaluate calls, so
_evaluate_mandate is untouched; RunResult.refinements defaults (the coverage precedent) and is
concatenated across approaches rather than keyed per approach -- stated as an honesty limit.
The simulation now shows it: the scripted proposer overclaims 250000, which the validator
falsifies against P90 = 90000, and the corrected 30000 validates. Only the overclaim is
scripted -- the rejection is computed. scripted_factory takes a per-role reply selector so this
needs no second scripted client body.
README records the two accuracy changes only (Step 5 is now inspectable; the simulation trace
shows the correction). The level-2 publishing claim stays deferred until after the demo (O4).
Load-bearing MEASURED against the full suite with a control, four mutations all red:
detach the returned history (4 tests) - collect-everything (control only) - detach the run
wiring (2 tests) - revert the simulation's proposer to a constant (the demo-protection test).
Control: 759 passed / 4 skipped; ruff, format and mypy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017CcWFcREUi6YPjEpN3ACDP
Seven of the eight steps already have their data in RunResult and need a print;
one does not exist at all. Putting that distinction in a table is the point of
this plan -- it turns "show all eight steps" from an unbounded week into one
build on Friday and presentation work over the weekend.
The go/no-go on Tuesday is deliberate. The content is being built in another
repo on a deadline nobody here controls, so the week is designed to survive it
not arriving rather than to hope it does. The content-keyed reply selector
lands Monday, before the content, for the same reason: a new project should
then be a data entry rather than a hand-written script under time pressure.
Honesty framing is section 1 rather than a footnote, because the demo's own
subject is a system that refuses to claim more than it proves.
The 20 claims went un-corrected, so they stand as confirmed. What the operator
actually decided were the four choices the QA exposed: hand-built example with
the factory path explicitly deferred, step 5 built and shown live, commons
ordered with a fallback, README after the demo rather than before.
Two measurements are recorded because they bound the order, not because they
are interesting: bundle_context renders every navigated file's full body, and
summary-first reading is not built -- so the full 15-30 measure library would
put 40-90k characters into every hypothesis prompt. The order is size-capped
for that reason and says so.
Also recorded: simulate_learning_loop already takes the bundle directory as a
parameter, so new content plugs into an existing seam. The cost is the scripted
replies, which are written against the LED case.
The demo-week brief was written by a session that read its way to the
intention through documents other sessions had written. Two of its frames
were overturned by the primary sources inside one conversation, so the
operator stopped planning and commissioned this: read the primary sources
directly, state the understanding back as numbered claims, and capture the
corrections where they survive.
Six gaps in the picture the brief rests on, all measured rather than argued:
- The intention has a SECOND axis that STATE's list of five primary sources
never named. review-2026-07 (F1-F14) and sesjonsplan-fase2-6 (S2.0-S5.4,
D-A-D-I, M1-M3) are where most of the repo's 31 modules come from: 20
S-numbers, 18 with hits in src/+tests/. A plan written from the five named
sources alone would describe a repo with eight steps and miss two thirds
of what is there.
- D-H's DECIDED demo path ("clone -> unzip -> factory builds -> loop runs")
is factory-dependent, and the factory (D-G/T0, `okf-toolkit`) does not
exist -- measured, not assumed. The brief's "anyone who downloads the repo
can run exactly the same" IS that path.
- The realistic example's content model is already decided (D-F): knowledge
types with required source citation, strict separation from the verdicts.
The commission to commons must reference it, not invent one.
- The demo is the programme's level-2 publishing proof (D-I), with an
honesty ceiling agreed in advance and a README update as its consequence.
- The shared spec covers the loop + ingest and NONE of the surplus: mandate,
notify, ledger, value report, cost simulation, dimension, portfolio
budget, concurrency, preflight all measure 0 mentions. The comparison is
therefore of the SPEC'd core, not of this repo.
- Step 5 is not a presentation-layer concern: `generate_via_llm` consumes
the intermediate rejection internally, and today's demo validates on the
first attempt, so the refinement never triggers. Steps 2 and 6 ARE
printable from data RunResult already carries.
Two inventory numbers spot-checked independently (759 collected; the offline
simulation re-run, output identical). Nothing here is sourced from STATE.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvjgY5NBg16D7kgQf14s6B
Ran `repo-standard` (v0.1.1, class `standalone`) and fixed everything it
flagged as ERROR, plus the WARN links that were genuinely dead.
README first screen:
- opening line is now byte-identical to the forge description, so
description == catalog == README is machine-checkable (badges moved below).
- `## Install` (required for class `standalone`): clone + `uv sync`, stated as
clone-only because the shared spec, persona skill and example bundles under
`shared/` are read from the working tree at run time. `uv run pytest` named as
the verification, with the fact that no CI runner exists said out loud rather
than implied by a badge.
- `## Non-goals` (required): the five limits already binding in CLAUDE.md —
not a compliance product, not a portfolio-level reallocator, not autonomous
decision-making, not turnkey, not a model benchmark.
Dead relative links (measured, not guessed):
- `docs/plan/2026-07-10-sesjonsplan-fase2-6.md` pointed at
`../2026-07-14-revisjonspakke-DF-DI.md` six times; the file sits in
`docs/plan/`, not `docs/`. (The sibling `../review-2026-07.md` links are
correct and untouched.)
- the Fase-1 spike brief linked repo-root-relative from
`.claude/projects/…/`; re-anchored with `../../../`.
The one remaining README ERROR was a gate false positive: `checkInternalLinks`
resolves targets against `git ls-files`, which lists files only, so a link to a
directory can never resolve. `[shared/](shared/)` now points at
`shared/README.md` — a better target anyway, since that file carries the
pull-only subtree rule. Not fixed here: the classifier lives in another repo.
Remaining WARNs are all inside `shared/`, deliberately untouched: it is a
pull-only commons subtree, and the nav-golden files are byte-level fixtures
that gate `test_nav_golden_*` — four of them are OKF bundle-internal links,
and the `/etc/passwd` ones are the negative escape fixture doing its job.
Suite green: 630 passed, 4 skipped (markdown-only diff; no test touched).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ri3aVJPfynCZtHRhesCzUH
Map untrusted-ingest surface (ingest.materialize http/I6, verdict-inbox
load, promote_verdict, future received-bundle) vs first-party paths;
verdict = planned, wire scan/sanitize before M3 as S2.4/S2.5 extension.
Plan only — guard not wired. shared/ hardening owned by commons session.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0145ZKPLMVeqM47z2jxxokym
Operatørkorreksjon 2026-07-04: §Rammer sa «Fable 5 med xhigh — global default»
(scoped bort fra 2026-07-02-planens Opus-direktiv). Reverseres: Opus 4.8 xhigh
for ALLE økter og alle subagenter, ingen Fable 5 — matcher den globale regelen
(~/.claude/CLAUDE.md, «Modellvalg for subagenter»). Kun plandokumentet endret;
I6-arbeidets untracked-filer urørt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017MM6BWb1hWmJZuXFZ7rjxT
Program-planleggingssesjon per brief 2026-07-03: alle brief-premisser
verifisert mot ground truth (retrieval-forbudet sitert ordrett), planen
adversarial-reviewet x2 (2 blockere + 8 majors innarbeidet: verdict-lag-
reservasjon, lag-separasjon ved re-ingest, deterministisk timestamp,
guard-dekning, D7/HTTP-ærlighet, gatede spec-endringer). I1 er GATET på
operatør-godkjenning av målbildet. Kun dokumenter — ingen kode-, shared-
eller søskenrepo-endring; suite 157/4 grønn.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi
Brief (ikke plan) for nytt program etter S11: ingest-steg som materialiserer
kildeuttrekk til OKF-bundles (metode-spec forbyr query-time retrieval i løkka),
delt manifest-kontrakt i commons, referanseimplementasjon per stack.
Inkluderer oppstartsprompt for planleggingssesjonen.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QdSfQdND84oeq2mbjueLTS
Defines the S11 yardstick BEFORE either stack exists: pinned commons-ref
as identical input, metrics M1-M4, the verbatim liveness-asymmetry
declaration, five binding LLM non-determinism rules for S10/S11, and a
ban on comparing offline numbers with live numbers.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi
Nordstjerne fra design-samtale 2026-06-26. Konsoliderer: 8-stegs sverm-loop,
trelagsmodell (OKF-kontekst/output-inbox/promoteringsgate), to feedback-
tidsskalaer (kort synkron + lang fil-basert/gjenopptakbar), OKF/LLM-Wiki
datagrunnlag (web-verifisert mot Google knowledge-catalog), den samlende
diagnosen (tilbakemelding-inn-i-prompt-dataflyt mangler 3 steder), invarianter,
testbar "ferdig", delt eksempel for begge repo, fase-nedbrytning. 2 Mermaid-
diagrammer. STATE peker hit. R1 besluttet (shared/-dir nå). Domene lener mot
energieffektivisering (lærings-overflate > FinOps' for-deterministiske kjerne).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019any9zfGNNwWJPX5Zq2QRz
Privat MS-tenant tilgjengelig men kostnadstak: lokal profil default i
utvikling, Foundry/Azure kun målrettet/minimal, ingen tunge test-kjøringer.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01H9FyyENxebxVThjrn9et8C
