Fase 3 (AAA+ på publisert flate). Tre av planens premisser falt på måling og er
rettet FØR handling, ikke etterpå:
* GOVERNANCE-raden hadde feil tiltak. Planen sa «skriv den»; org-ops D11 sier én
kanonisk fil som hvert repo LENKER, og filen er nå publisert (målt: HTTP 200 på
open/repo-standard). Å skrive vår egen ville gjort oss til kopi nr. 12 av en
fil D11-bølgen holder på å rydde vekk. README lenker den, i samme form som
repo-mailbox bruker, og bus-faktor 1 står uttalt i den kanoniske teksten.
* Release-objektet for v1.0.0 FINNES allerede på open/ (id 155, CHANGELOG-kropp,
siden rendrer) — det som mangler er vedlegg, ikke objektet.
* WARN RELEASE-STALE fyrer ikke, og kan ikke: regelen sammenligner utgivelse mot
tagg og er strukturelt blind for repo med null utgivelser (org-ops hovedbok
#18). Gaten var OK/20 sjekker FØR arbeidet startet, så den kan ikke tjene som
verifikasjon for denne fasen. Bevisene er Forgejo-APIet, filinnholdet og
ren-klon-kjøringen.
A5-defekten rettet: env.template:21 sa at credential resolves via
DefaultAzureCredential. Den har aldri gjort det — backends.py:149 konstruerer
ManagedIdentityCredential eller AzureCliCredential, og Learns MAF-veiledning
navngir den spesifikke credentialen NETTOPP for å unngå probing. En operatør som
kopierte templaten ble fortalt at feil identitet ville bli brukt.
To load-bearing gater (Iron Law: begge røde før fiksen, 2 failed / 7 passed):
1. env.template navngir de credentials backends.py faktisk konstruerer, og ingen
linje utgir DefaultAzureCredential for å være mekanismen. LINJEFORANKRET, ikke
delstreng: backends.py NAVNGIR klassen fire ganger i kommentarene som
begrunner hvorfor den ikke brukes, så en fil-bred substring-gate ville vært
rød på nøyaktig den prosaen den beskytter (repoets 08-09-klasse, fjerde gang).
2. README-ens wheel-filnavn bærer versjonen bygget stempler på fila. Uten den
ville en versjonsbump stille etterlatt en publisert install-kommando som peker
på en fil som ikke finnes.
Hver positiv assert er paret med en KONTROLL på at det søkes etter noe som
finnes — en ekstraktor som stille finner null lager en gate som bare kan bli
grønn.
MUTASJONER MÅLT MOT HELE SUITEN, begge røde på riktig test og på INGEN annen:
gjeninnfør den usanne credential-påstanden (2 røde, 844 grønne) · la
wheel-filnavnet drifte til 1.0.0 (1 rød, 845 grønne). Restaurert fra scratchpad
+ shasum -c mellom hver. Bumpen selv var den andre mutasjonen: pyproject 1.0.0 →
1.1.0 gjorde README-gaten rød alene, før README ble rettet.
SECURITY.md: varslingsfrist (minst én minor-release og aldri under 30 dager
mellom kunngjøring og fjerning, med sikkerhetskritisk fjerning som uttalt
unntak). Støttetabellen er bevisst VERSJONSFRI — et release-nummer skrevet der
ville drevet ved neste tagg, altså samme defektklasse som gate 2 fanger.
CLAUDE.md beholdt på flaten med en engelsk innramming øverst (operatørvalg): den
sier hva fila er for en fremmed. Innholdet er repoets sterkeste bevis på at hver
beslutning er målt; å fjerne det ville fjernet bevis, ikke friksjon.
Versjon 1.1.0 — synket i pyproject, __init__, test_smoke og README-kommandoen.
1.0.0-treet kan ikke produsere en kjørbar wheel (force-include kom etter taggen,
målt: git show v1.0.0:pyproject.toml har den ikke), så en wheel hengt på den
utgivelsen ville vært nøyaktig den usanne påstanden denne fasen finnes for å
fjerne. Operatøren valgte bumpen framfor et vedlegg som ikke virker.
846 passed / 4 skipped (fra 837). ruff + format + mypy rene.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011ckyg3Pc6k7FRuR6fDGQLJ
Wheel-beslutningen tatt på den ene armen som ligger i DETTE repoet: dokumentér
kravene. Å publisere de to pakkene er de to ANDRE repoenes beslutning
(open/llm-ingestion-okf, open/llm-ingestion-pipeline-security) og forblir åpen.
Premisset målt på nytt før teksten ble skrevet, ikke arvet: wheelen bygget her og
Requires-Dist lest ut — llm-ingestion-okf og llm-ingestion-guard står som BARE
NAVN, som rapportens §7.2 forutsa. Install-kommandoen er kopiert ordrett fra den
målte i §7.2 (65 pakker, exit 0), ikke formulert på nytt.
Rettet samtidig en påstand som var blitt ufullstendig av 4a: «an installed
distribution works without a checkout» gjaldt DATAEN (shared/ som pakkede data),
ikke avhengighetene. Presisert til «finds its knowledge without a checkout».
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018GfbDLY7YVLKVqpUHnbwVW
To målinger avgjorde formen FØR koden: (1) hosting-pakkas InvocationsHostServer
finnes kun i bygg som krever agent-framework-core>=1.13.0 (treet låser 1.9.0;
eneste 1.9-kompatible bygg er en forlatt alfa som importerer mcp udeklarert),
(2) et gjenbrukt bygget workflow er single-use på 1.9.0 (kall-serie [2,0,0] —
rundetaket persisterer; ferskt objekt per kall er ren kontroll). Derfor spikens
§5-fallback: hosting.py serverer kontrakten (8088/PORT, /readiness,
/invocations, SIGTERM→0) selv, stdlib asyncio på ÉN løkke — aldri as_agent()
(gatene ligger utenfor grafen), aldri tråder (NG1-guarden fanget første utkast
med ThreadingHTTPServer; asyncio-formen består den by construction).
Payload whitelistes på run_projects signatur — ukjente felt nektes ved navn
(400), aldri stille droppet; profile defaulter til azure kun her. ValueError →
400, alt annet → 500 {error_type, error}; Rejection er vellykket kjøring → 200.
outbox.outcome_payload ekstrahert som den ENE kopien av validated/rejected-
forgreningen (kø-(p)-regelen). azure.yaml validert GRØNN mot begge autoritative
skjemaer (jsonschema, hentet ferskt); ingen env:, ingen startupCommand (imagets
CMD er den ene kopien). Dockerfile: 3.12-slim-bookworm + git + uv==0.9.8 +
uv sync --frozen --no-dev; git archive <indeks-tre> | docker build
--platform linux/amd64 grønn på nøyaktig de stagede bytene.
Iron Law fulgt: testfila rød ved collection FØR modulen fantes. 835 passed /
4 skipped (fra 821), ruff+format+mypy rene. Seks mutasjoner mot HELE suiten,
alle røde på riktig test: detach felt-mappingen · dropp ukjente felt stille ·
flipp 400/500 · detach azure-defaulten · detach SIGTERM-handleren · detach
main.py-shimen (de to siste kun fanget av subprosess-testen, P4-presedensen).
Deploy IKKE utført — azd-steget er operatørens.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PEiiSGRShizKc771ZBa1iq
Endepunktet løses som første ikke-tomme av vårt eget
PORTFOLIO_FOUNDRY_PROJECT_ENDPOINT og Foundrys injiserte
FOUNDRY_PROJECT_ENDPOINT — vårt vinner, fallbacken lar samme image kjøre
hostet uten ekstra wiring. Presedensen gjelder verdier, ikke deklarasjoner.
Credential velges av samme miljø: AzureCliCredential lokalt,
ManagedIdentityCredential når FOUNDRY_HOSTING_ENVIRONMENT er satt, fordi
containeren ikke har noen Azure CLI. Ikke DefaultAzureCredential — Learns
MAF-veiledning navngir den spesifikke credentialen for å unngå probing.
Load-bearing målt mot hele suiten, fire mutasjoner alle røde + grønn
kontroll: detach credential-valget · presence i stedet for truthiness ·
detach fallbacken · snu presedensen. Fail-fast-testen var vakuøs først —
vårt variabelnavn inneholder det injiserte som delstreng.
De fire åpne azure.yaml-valgene lukket mot de to JSON-skjemaene og ført i
docs/2026-08-13-fase4-azure-yaml-valg.md. Ingen azure.yaml skrevet (4d).
821 passed / 4 skipped. Ruff + format + mypy rene.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jk8tauXXAojNKC7Tzq7ziF
README:24 sa det rett ut: shared/ ble lest fra arbeidstreet ved kjøretid, og
derfor kunne repoet verken publiseres som wheel eller kjøre i container. Målt
før endringen: 1.0.0-wheelen bar 58 filer, null under shared/.
Endringen er én søm + én pakkelinje:
- hatchling force-include speiler shared/ byte-identisk til
portfolio_optimiser/_shared/ (wheel 122 filer, 64 under _shared/; sdist
bærer treet, målt via uv build sdist→wheel)
- shared_root() løser ved kall-tid: PORTFOLIO_SHARED_ROOT → arbeidstreets
shared/ når det finnes (en checkout er autoritativ — det holder pull-only-
subtree-kontrakten og goldenene urørt) → pakket kopi
Iron Law fulgt: tests/test_shared_packaged_data_loadbearing.py skrevet FØRST,
alle tre røde mot dagens kode (ordnings-testen felt av sin egen kontroll på at
pakket kopi finnes). Deretter fiks, deretter MÅLT mutasjon mot hele suiten:
- detach fallbacken → 1 rød (resolusjons-testen)
- detach force-include → 3 røde
- snu rekkefølgen (pakket før arbeidstre) → 1 rød (ordnings-testen, som var
grønn før fiksen — flip-mutasjonen er beviset på at den diskriminerer)
Kontroll grønn: 813 passed / 4 skipped (baseline 810/4 målt på 142bfa9 samme
økt). Goldenene byte-uendret før og etter (shasum -c på demo-transkript +
begge nav-goldens). shared/ selv er urørt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018hfm6sWTk17Cbh6ZHYhvCu
Planens §3 sa at `ingest.materialize` er repoets ENE skrivepunkt på Door A, og
det premisset ble felt av måling FØR bygging: `materialize` er en ren delegasjon
til pinnet llm_ingestion_okf v0.3.2s `materialize_bundle`, som stager i minnet og
utfører sin egen disk-fase. Det finnes ingen callback mellom de to, så en gate
plassert der kunne bare kjørt ETTER at bytene landet — en opprydding, ikke en gate.
Sømmen ble i stedet kopier bundelen → materialiser inn i kopien → skann det som
ble generert → publiser eller forkast. Kopien er bærende, ikke bekvemmelighet:
bibliotekets §3 eierskaps-skann, kollisjonsgaten mot kuratert innhold og §6
index-merge leser alle den EKSISTERENDE bundelen. Staging i tom katalog mister
alle tre og publiserer en bundle uten kuraterte naboer — datatap forkledd som
sikkerhetsfiks.
De fire §4-beslutningene, tatt og målt: (1) ingen av guardens to preset —
Origin.EXTERNAL/AUTOMATIC, fordi trust_for utleder policy fra origin alene og
PRESET_USER_UPLOAD bærer en quarantine-semantikk Door A ikke har; (2) utfall per
BUNDLE, diagnostikk per DOKUMENT — delvis publisering ville etterlatt bundle +
index som svarer til intet manifest, men import_bundle itererer forbi første
avvisning; (3) Report til log.md, aldri konsept-frontmatter, der fire golden-suiter
pinner bytene; (4) mypy-override OG adapter, siden override alene gjør sømmen
type-blind i stedet for type-sikker.
`materialize` forblir ugatet med vilje — goldenene pinner den, og en kaller som
vil ha gaten ber om den ved navn.
Fem mutasjoner alle røde + grønn kontroll (hele suiten, ~120 s hver): detach
gaten · la den fyre ETTER publisering · Origin.INTERNAL · tom staging-katalog ·
rapporter kun første avvisning.
Målingen felte en VAKUØS test først: en hard injeksjon scorer fail_secure under
BEGGE trust-tierene, så Origin.INTERNAL-mutasjonen lot alle tre avvisningstestene
stå grønne — beslutning 1 så dekket ut uten å være testet. Båndet der tieren
faktisk avgjør er høy-entropi-innhold (quarantine_review vs warn), og testen ble
skrevet mot nøyaktig det før mutasjonen ble re-målt. Mutasjon 4 ble på sin side
felt av KUN én test; 809 andre merket ikke at bundle-kopien forsvant.
Laveste disposition er `warn`, ikke `allow` — `allow` finnes ikke i guarden. En
gate skrevet mot == allow ville avvist hvert dokument som noensinne ingestes.
Kriterium 5 står: demo-stdout er byte-identisk med tests/golden/demo-transcript.stdout,
målt både i suiten og ved eksplisitt kjøring. shared/ er urørt.
801 -> 810 passed / 4 skipped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01DDu94KoyxAmhJsG2n63X8Q
Two commands are now part of the install surface a fresh clone gets from `uv sync`:
`portfolio-optimiser` (run:main) and `portfolio-optimiser-demo` (simulation:main).
Deliberately two of five main()s — costsim/hitl/preflight stay module-invoked; every
name here is a name the freeze has to carry. Pinned against the INSTALLED distribution's
metadata, not the TOML: a [project.scripts] line that has never been synced is a claim,
not a command. Measured: stdout is byte-identical across both invocation forms.
stderr (P4 pkt. 2), the session's open decision, resolved by measurement rather than by
preference. Damped: the round-cap notice only, via a filter on the emitting logger, keyed
on the message and installed by main() — never at import, so a library consumer keeps its
own logging config. NOT damped: the two ExperimentalWarnings. They fire while the package
__init__ imports run -> agent_framework, always before simulation's own imports and under
both invocation forms, so silencing them would mean filtering warnings inside the library
package on every consumer's behalf; they are pinned in pkt. 3 instead. A console-script
wrapper was rejected for a second reason: the two forms would then write different stderr,
and a byte-fasit would pin the command rather than the program. stderr 6 -> 4 lines.
A first implementation wrapped simulation's own agent_framework import in a scoped mute.
Measurement showed it can never fire — the package __init__ has already imported
agent_framework by then — so it was removed rather than left as a green-but-dead seam.
Load-bearing MEASURED against the whole suite, five mutations all red + green control:
remove [project.scripts] · typo the target · detach the main() call · make the filter drop
everything · install the filter at import time. The typo mutation also felled a test: the
resolve-assert re-checked the expected constant against itself, and now resolves what the
distribution actually installs. 775 -> 785 passed / 4 skipped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01C2bxLcCRguxXzpM4priTMn
The validator can reconcile a proposal against the project's actual cost lines
(S4.0 stage 0), but only when the knowledge base ships a cost-baseline.json —
and no bundle under shared/ has one. So on stage the gate reasoned only about
numbers the proposal supplied itself.
The reserve can never receive the file in shared/ (pull-only subtree, and demo
criterion 8 requires the goldens byte-unchanged). That is a placement
constraint, not an impossibility: materialize_anchored_bundle copies the bundle
and adds the file outside shared/, and the run path reads it through exactly
the seam a delivered bundle would use.
The baseline is DERIVED IN CODE from the scripted register, never typed beside
it — two sources of the same numbers drift, and drift is precisely what the
10 % probe models. On GO day the direction reverses (plan P3 b). Both scripted
replies must state the same cost lines or ValueError: were they to differ,
hypothesis #1 would be falsified by stage 0 instead of by P90 — the same
REJECTED line on screen, a different mechanism behind it.
10 % probe, measured: baseline x 1.10 -> FORKASTET at stage 0, before the
solver; corrected -> FORESLÅTT. Criterion 6 re-measured (stdout byte-identical
across two runs); stderr unchanged at 6 lines. The ONLY diff against the
un-anchored demo is the new KUNNSKAPSBASE block — everything else is
byte-identical, which is the problem: an anchoring nobody can see is one nobody
can check. Hence it is printed, and hence `provenance` is a required argument.
769 -> 775 passed.
Five mutations red + green control. The measurement failed the TEST first:
"ingen kostbaseline erklært" CONTAINS "kostbaseline erklært", and
ENERGI-TOTAL-EL already appears in the Step-2 line, so both assertions survived
the detach mutation. The two branches now share no wording.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GD6Y2Y23NZZxPYtSRoCmst
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
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
`docs/bestille-en-kjoring.md` is the commissioning half of the expert-facing pair
(`ekspert-svar.md` is the judging half): the mandate file field by field, how to
run it, and — separated deliberately — what a commission does NOT do. It directs
what is evaluated, never what is approved.
Registered in _LIVE_DOCS, so it cannot silently fall behind the code.
The example output in it is COPIED FROM A REAL RUN, not composed, and running
that run is what found the defect fixed here: three approaches against the same
cost line each validated at 30000 NOK, and the settlement printed
"Validated total: 90000 NOK". Commissioned approaches are ALTERNATIVES — they
usually attack the same line — so summing them reports money the project cannot
realise. A domain expert reading that total would reasonably believe the run
found 90k.
The settlement now reports how many approaches held and which one the run
carries: a selection, not an arithmetic claim. That also removes the last money
addition from this module, which is the right place for it not to be.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULCqjLF61rehj5cZmdUoR3
Walked Door A from a fresh clone: materializing the file-family golden
manifest writes index.md plus one concept file per extraction, and pointing
the run at the result is refused —
run refused: IR projection not found in bundle: 'validator-input.json'
A clean fail-fast, but nothing adopter-facing said it was coming, while the
README actively invites it ("swap --bundle-dir for your own bundle"). The
run path needs the bundle's IR projection, which ingest does not and cannot
produce: ingest materializes source documents, the projection states the
candidate measure. Both docs now say so, with the shape reference named.
Also corrects a live-doc claim that was wrong in both halves: the MCP
timeout is `anyio.fail_after` nested inside both task groups, not
`asyncio.wait_for`, and `tests/test_ingest_golden_mcp.py` covers it
(verified — 2 passing timeout tests). And no bundled example ships a
`cost-baseline.json`, so the text no longer implies one does.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GyAbxJoyypnLLUDcMvnKh8
An independent reviewer found it and the claim was verified by measurement
before being accepted, not taken on trust.
test_portfolio_scripted_pass_makes_no_real_client raised from the patched
_default_factory to prove the scripted portfolio pass never builds a production
client. It cannot: the factory is called inside run_project's coroutine, and
run_portfolio gathers with return_exceptions=True, so the AssertionError was
collected into a RunFailure and never escaped. Measured directly -- with BOTH
the client_factory wiring and the rc rule detached, the blade stayed GREEN. It
was going red on rc alone, which means it was testing defect B while claiming
to test defect A. The original seven-mutation sweep did not catch this because
each mutation was applied singly, and dropping the wiring alone still flips rc.
Replaced with a call sentinel: a list appended inside the factory and asserted
in the test body, which the wave handler cannot swallow. Re-measured -- red on
the wiring detach alone, and red on both detaches together.
The docstring now also states what the sweep could not: blades 1 and 8 are
environment-conditional. The local profile points at loopback, so on a machine
running a local model server the wiring detach would make real calls and could
complete the pass. Their red was real on the machine it was measured on and is
not portable; blade 2's is.
Separately, the budget-stop print is marked as defensive and currently
unreachable from main(), because main() never constructs a PortfolioMeter and
every write to budget_stop is gated on one -- the strict=True precedent
directly above says untested future-proofing must be labelled as such. The
README claim that a portfolio pass reports a cap stop is corrected to say the
cap has no CLI flag yet. Noted for whoever wires that door: BudgetRefused is a
RuntimeError and the existing except clause would not catch it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0118noV9rCfrdREH26XqZB5z
The operator is not a domain expert, so the domain content is mine to own --
and the one thing the loop asks a human for is exactly the thing no example
existed for. docs/ekspert-svar.md is written for whoever has to deliver the
verdict: the two forms a judgement can take (a --rationale string during the
run, a JSON file in the inbox for later runs), where each field comes from, and
four complete paste-ready answers.
Every command and every verdict in it was RUN from a fresh clone before it was
written. The `hitl pending` line quoted is verbatim output. The rejection
answers close the gap STATE has carried since the demo shipped: the README
shows the VALIDATOR refusing a number, but nothing showed an EXPERT refusing a
proposal whose numbers are fine -- the only judgement in the whole loop that a
machine cannot make. Two rejection shapes are given, because "not feasible
here" and "right measure, wrong cost base" teach the system different things.
Everything is marked AI-authored and not verified professional judgement.
Also corrects the --outbox-dir help text, which claimed sharing a folder with
--verdict-dir "re-ingests raw agent output past the Step-8 promotion gate".
Measured, by pointing both at one folder and running twice: it does not. The
outbox artefacts are named {run_id}-*.json and carry none of the verdict keys,
so the tolerant inbox loader skips them and the run is unaffected. The hazard is
real but latent -- a future verdict-shaped artefact in the outbox -- so the
warning stays and says what is actually true. This also answers STATE's open
question about enforcing the distinction in the CLI: no. There is no reachable
contamination to refuse, and a guard for an unreachable case is the kind of
error handling this repo declines to write.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0118noV9rCfrdREH26XqZB5z
Steps 6 and 7, each run verbatim from a fresh clone before being written.
Step 6 is the portfolio pass, which the walkthrough could not reach until the
scripted door was wired into portfolio mode. It is also the clearest single
demonstration the framework has: all four reference projects carry a cost line
01.1 at four different amounts, so one unchanged proposal yields one
ValidatedProposal and three Rejection -- the gate is anchored to each project's
own baseline, not to the proposal's internal arithmetic. The shared verdict id
is explained rather than hidden: a verdict is keyed on the candidate, not the
project, and that key is how a later run finds the earlier judgement.
Step 7 documents the value report and, more importantly, the gap a downloader
hits first: nothing in the shipped code writes a savings ledger. Measured, not
assumed -- no .save call on a ledger exists outside the library API. That is by
design and is now said out loud: the ledger records savings actually realized in
the world, which is not a conclusion the system may draw from its own proposals.
A validated proposal is a claim; a ledger entry is a result. The refusal a
downloader sees before creating one is quoted, and the library snippet that
creates one is shown.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0118noV9rCfrdREH26XqZB5z
Measured before writing: the commands existed but were scattered across the
mode partition, and there was no path a newcomer could walk end to end. The
capability gap that made a complete offline walk impossible is closed in
3abc61b; this is the door onto it in the README.
Five steps, each RUN FROM A FRESH CLONE before being written down (git clone +
uv sync + uv run pytest -> 652 passed): read the knowledge base, watch the
learning loop close, run the loop with your own scripted answers, watch the
validator say NO, and price a real run before spending anything. Step 4 is the
one that was missing entirely -- the demo only ever showed a yes, and a
refusal carries far more weight than another approval.
Also documents that `Rejection (..., decision=approved)` is not a
contradiction: the first is the validator's outcome, the second echoes the
human's recorded verdict. Documented rather than changed -- altering a public
output format is the operator's call, not a side effect of writing docs.
`costsim` gets its first mention in the README at all; it was finished, tested
and completely invisible from the surface.
Also points the commons link at open/ (published 2026-08-04). NB: the
repo-standard v0.3.0 register still lists 19 repos and does not know that repo,
so pointing at the correct live URL now trips a false LINK-DEAD. Reported to
org-ops; the URL answers HTTP 200.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GWsexbQjPo9rsV3aUE54ZS
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
Every stage of validate_proposal reasoned only about numbers the proposal itself
supplied, so an internally-consistent hallucination cleared the whole gate (F3).
A new stage 0 reconciles each affected_item against the project's CostBaseline
before the CBC solve: an unknown cost code is rejected, and a real code carrying
a quantity/unit_cost outside the configured tolerance (5% default, relative to
the baseline value) is rejected. Validation, never repair.
The baseline argument is OPTIONAL (None = pre-S4.0 behaviour), but both run
paths set it: the road path projects project.cost_items, the bundle path loads
cost-baseline.json when the bundle ships one. Bundles written before the
amendment stay un-anchored, so the commons-owned goldens run byte-identically;
a baseline that exists but is malformed still raises on both loaders.
F8: the method-specific cap now comes from the METHOD_CAPS registry (measure
type -> fraction, injectable) instead of an energy_efficiency string comparison.
The baseline format and tolerance semantics were decided locally — the commons
amendment (D-A pt. 2) never arrived, exactly as in S3.2. D7 mirroring stays open.
Three portfolio fixtures quoted cost codes belonging to OTHER projects; the new
gate caught them. They now quote each project's own lines, and the two copied
REPLIES tables import the single source instead of drifting from it.
Load-bearing measured (tests/test_s40_cost_baseline_loadbearing.py), six
mutations all red: detach the reconciliation stage; detach the magnitude
tolerance; detach the road wiring; detach the bundle wiring; ignore the injected
cap registry; make the optional loader tolerant of malformed content. Control:
with the road wiring detached the repaired portfolio fixtures still pass, so
they are not masking the seam. 597 -> 612 tests.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JdwK7bQ4BZkWH4t8MRDKb4
seed_store_from_bundle keyed EVERY `type: verdict` file on bundle_candidate_features — the single
candidate the bundle's validator-input.json describes. A bundle carrying verdicts about several
candidates collapsed them onto one key, so a verdict about candidate B scored a perfect structural
match against candidate A's query and could be folded into A's hypothesis prompt. The ExpeL
substrate was single-candidate by construction.
A verdict file may now carry its own structural key in frontmatter (affected_codes / measure_type /
claimed_saving_nok); absent, keying falls back to the bundle candidate, so every pre-S3.2 seed keeps
working unchanged. promote_verdict writes the three fields, so a promoted verdict — frequently about
a different candidate than the target bundle's projection — does not impersonate that candidate.
Semantics decided HERE, not pulled: commons' seeding rule (method-spec §3 Steg 1 + bundle example)
has not arrived; we said we would build locally first. D7 mirroring stays open.
- ALL THREE fields or none. A partial declaration raises VerdictFrontmatterError rather than merging
with the bundle candidate, which would mint a key belonging to NEITHER candidate. Validation,
never repair (mirrors write_concept_file); the tolerant-skip rule belongs to the RAW inbox layer.
- claimed_saving_nok parses via json.loads — the SAME literal rule the IR projection went through —
and is written back with str() of the raw value. _mint_id hashes that value, so 30000 and 30000.0
are different keys; a normalising writer would split one candidate's signal across two ids.
- The structural key is signal-free, so it does not weaken the Step-8 no-leak property (Test C green).
Load-bearing MEASURED, five mutations all red: detach per-verdict keying · detach the fields
promote_verdict writes · make a partial/unparseable key tolerant · normalise the magnitude on write ·
remove the fallback (control — breaks the step1 suite at collection, proving the fallback bears load).
589 -> 597 tests. Full gate green (pytest, ruff, mypy).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QkjvTTxrg9LTrmghebfiij
PortfolioBudget + PortfolioMeter carry ONE token ledger over a whole portfolio
pass -- and, seeded from a persisted spend file, across passes -- while the
per-run Budget/TokenMeter pair is untouched. Three enforcement points, each
doing a different job:
- startup: a remainder that cannot fund one run raises BudgetRefused before
anything loads (a pass that can afford zero projects is a caller mistake,
not a result);
- wave assembly: an unfundable project is NEVER STARTED and the pass stops
structurally (budget_stop + stopped_early, completed runs preserved).
Because every member of a wave is funded against the SAME pre-wave
remainder, admission RESERVES each member's requirement -- otherwise a wave
of k over-commits the cap by up to k runs;
- pre-call: BudgetMiddleware refuses a call the remainder cannot pay for
instead of making it. The post-charge check stays: real usage is only
knowable after the response, so the guard stops the NEXT call, never the
one in flight.
budget_stop is its own field rather than a widened stop_reason -- a goal-stop
is success, this is resource exhaustion, and fusing them would make "we
stopped" unreadable. PortfolioMeter splits record/check so tokens the provider
already billed reach the ledger even when the same charge breaks the run's own
cap. read_spend raises on corrupt content (our own accounting state, unlike
the tolerant RAW inbox layer); write_spend takes a REQUIRED stamp with no
wall-clock default, mirroring promote_verdict.
Load-bearing MEASURED, not asserted -- 6 mutations, all red: detach the wave
check; detach the pre-call guard; detach the wave reservation; check the run
cap before crediting the global ledger; detach the startup refusal; make
read_spend tolerant. Files restored from shasum-verified copies after each.
Two findings worth keeping: the pre-call guard MASKS a detached wave check if
the test asserts on overspend (spend stays under the cap either way), so the
load-bearing assertion had to become failures == () plus never-started; and
the token arithmetic is probed (32 tokens/run at tokens=8), not guessed.
537 -> 553 tests, ruff + mypy green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015EaxFnaDAbMQkmTeX4u7sd
New English docs/knowledge-base-recipe.md grounded strictly in the D-H decision record
(revisjonspakke-DF-DI.md §3): setup is always a small team (technical + domain expert), the
deliverable is a recipe NOT a wizard (B9 onboarding interview + guided verdict command rejected),
domain expert delivers files in their own formats never schema/JSON, phased process (inventory ->
skeleton -> seed verdicts -> iterate), reading via Obsidian/VS Code. The honest 1-2 week
expectation is stated early and SOURCED verbatim to the record. Factory-dependent parts
(free-format verdict translation, clone-to-demo) are explicitly marked future/blocked-on-toolkit
so the doc never claims above the evidence level. Linked from README's Docs section with the
1-2 week expectation in context. SC5 (ASCII-only greps): file exists, '1-2 weeks' x2,
'knowledge-base-recipe' in README. src/ untouched; 431 passed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01KNNiJRk1sSwxgVLS5AobT1
README: the stale one-line CLI mention replaced by the two-mode flag matrix (single-project vs
--portfolio), runnable 'uv run python -m portfolio_optimiser.run ...' examples, the --outbox-dir
!= --verdict-dir self-contamination warning (documented, not enforced), and the --decision/
--rationale inert-in-portfolio note. Honesty scoping: the prior-verdict fold (the learning step)
is stated to happen ONLY on the --bundle-dir path; a --docs-dir-only run is single-shot (no fold).
CHANGELOG [Unreleased]/Added: S5.3 CLI-parity entry (six flags + portfolio mode + load_dimension +
recipe doc) plus catch-up for the shipped-but-undocumented S4.1 (preflight), S4.2 (--live-dry-run),
S5.1 (hitl CLI), S5.2 (notify); stale test count 237 -> 431. extending.md verified accurate (B11
notifier note stands verbatim — main() auto-wires no notifier; no CLI section to sync), left
unchanged.
SC4 honesty grep clean (each hit in bundle-path context, none on a fold-less path):
grep -rniE 'learning loop|learns from|self-improv' README.md docs/extending.md CHANGELOG.md
README:11 (system-level) :56 (wiki substrate) :67 (8-step bundle loop);
CHANGELOG:13 (gated ExpeL fold) :17 (offline simulation). Full suite 431 passed (no code touched).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01KNNiJRk1sSwxgVLS5AobT1
Rewritten around what the project is built on — Karpathy's LLM-wiki idea
as formalized by Google Cloud's Open Knowledge Format (spec-linked) — how
the 8-step loop works and is set up (shared commons core, per-project
bundles, specified ingest layer), and what the architecture enables.
Adds the AI-first framing: the wiki is written for the model, human
affordances (verdict inbox, promotion gate) are layers on top — the
inverse of a human-first wiki. Honest status kept: offline proof only,
ingest specified but not implemented.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi
Findings 4-7 from the 2026-07-02 status analysis, per the session plan (S1):
- CHANGELOG rewritten truthfully (was: 'Plan phase - no framework code yet')
- README stack line names the split GA packages, not the agent-framework meta-package
- CLAUDE.md: MCP downgraded to extension point (in-process FunctionTool is the default seam)
- Verdict conflict semantics documented as chosen (store first-write-wins per id,
disk/wiki last-write-wins per file; full B10 taxonomy deliberately deferred)
- docs/extending.md: explicit 90%-principle cut-list (B10, B11, U12, U14, concurrent fan-out)
- .gitignore covers .trekexecute-progress-* (docs/.DS_Store was already untracked/ignored -
the plan's git rm --cached assumption was stale; no-op)
No code behavior changed (docstring only in verdicts.py). Suite 152/4 green, mypy clean,
ruff format --check clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi
The expert reviewer was only a hardcoded verdict_input dict inside the offline
simulation. Build it as the real, shared artifact target picture §8 calls for:
shared/skills/expert-reviewer/ — a SKILL.md persona prompt (energy-advisor / M&V
role + the realization-gap methodology the validator cannot compute) plus a
canonical references/example-verdict.json. shared/ stays pure data; the MAF side
reads it via portfolio_optimiser.persona.load_persona_example (call-time,
fail-fast) and the Claude-SDK sibling reads the same JSON with its own loader.
This de-stubs the simulation: its persona judgement (decision + rationale + traced
marker) is now sourced from the artifact at call time, not an inline literal — so
the shared persona is genuinely consumed and cannot rot silently. decision is
binary (approved/rejected, the FeedbackContract the run path accepts);
approved_with_adjustment is rejected there and lives only in the bundle seed
frontmatter + the promotion gate, so the realization correction is carried in the
rationale prose.
Load-bearing trio (tests/test_persona_skill_loadbearing.py), each proven RED on its
own detach: structure + framework-neutrality, the example is valid pipeline input
(incl. FeedbackContract, on a throwaway copy), and the simulation's marker follows
the artifact file. Suite 149->152.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
The primary method proof, offline — a deliberate, cost-driven substitution
for målbilde §11.8's real-model run (the operator runs MAF against no real
model; API for both repos is too costly privately).
`portfolio_optimiser.simulation` drives `run_project` with a scripted
synthetic chat client across two runs separated by a promotion, and shows
the learning loop close end to end:
- ScriptedChatClient subclasses the LAYERED OpenAIChatCompletionClient (not
bare BaseChatClient — else the always-attached BudgetMiddleware no-ops),
constructs offline (loopback url + dummy key), role-keys proposer/checker
replies, and records every prompt into a shared sink.
- simulate_learning_loop: Run A (fresh wiki) -> validated, persona-approved
verdict carrying a realization marker absent from the bundle -> promote_verdict
into the OKF wiki -> seed_store_from_bundle re-reads it -> Run B's hypothesis
prompt carries the marker. An empty-wiki control on Run A proves causality.
- `python -m portfolio_optimiser.simulation` prints an honest trace.
Honesty (§1): this proves the plumbing, the deterministic spine, and that the
learning dataflow closes — NOT that a live LLM would produce the proposal or
verdict (scripted stand-ins). The genuine model-behaviour comparison lives on
the Claude-SDK side (a minimal API run); the scripted client is MAF-side
scaffolding, not part of the framework-neutral shared/ core.
Load-bearing: tests/test_simulation_loadbearing.py goes red when promotion is
detached (the marker never crosses into Run B). Suite 148->149.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
Close the last agentic-loop seam (målbilde §3/§6/§7/§11 step 6): an
APPROVED verdict is promoted from the raw output layer into the context
layer (the OKF bundle) as a navigable `type: verdict` concept file, so
human/persona-approved knowledge reaches the next run's hypothesis.
- okf.py (pure stdlib, MAF-free): render_frontmatter / write_concept_file
/ link_in_index — the D7-portable OKF write counterpart of navigate.
- verdicts.py: promote_verdict + PromotionRefused gate (fail-closed; only
approved decisions enter the wiki, never raw agent output), provenance
stamp (who/experiment/when; timestamp a required kwarg), neutral index
label (signal reaches a prompt only via the gated ExpeL fold, never
bundle_context), _safe_filename_token (id sanitised for path/link).
- R4 = optional+gated: a public opt-in primitive, NOT wired into
run_project (mirrors write_verdict — the system reads, the gate promotes).
- Load-bearing trio (test_step8_promotion_loadbearing.py): gate refuses a
non-approved verdict, approved verdict is navigable, promoted signal
stays out of the read-context — all proven RED-on-detach. Suite 144->148.
Design hardened by an adversarial plan-critic (12 findings; the BLOCKER —
index-link leak into bundle_context via index_summary — closed by the
neutral label + a no-leak test). Honesty limits documented: promoted file
is minimal (signal as prose only), and the learning-key id means
same-candidate approvals share a filename (last-write-wins).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
The short loop captured the expert verdict inline into an in-memory store, so a
verdict arriving days/weeks later in a separate run could not influence any future
hypothesis (målbilde §5 row 7). Steg 7 adds the long timescale: run_project gains an
opt-in verdict_dir async inbox that load_verdicts_from_dir -> store.add MERGES into the
store BEFORE the Step-1 ExpeL fold, so a verdict dropped after an earlier run reaches a
separate, later run's hypothesis — fully resumable across runs separated in time.
- verdicts.py: verdict_to_dict / verdict_from_dict (id read verbatim, never re-minted),
write_verdict (public authoring primitive, NOT wired into run_project — system reads
the folder, expert/persona writes it, §3 role split), tolerant load_verdicts_from_dir
(missing/foreign/half-written files skipped, not raised — RAW layer per §10 R2),
VerdictStore.from_dir.
- run.py: verdict_dir kwarg; ingest-merge block after load_contracts (merge not replace
keeps run_portfolio's cross-project threading; store.add idempotent on content-hash id;
no change to the fold). CLI --bundle-dir/--verdict-dir thread the long loop to the
console entry. No auto-persist of the run's own captured verdict (outbox/Steg 8).
- Load-bearing PAIR (test_step7_async_loop_loadbearing.py): a verdict dropped after run A
must reach run B's prompt (run B uses a FRESH store -> the transfer is the file loop,
not in-memory carryover); empty-inbox control proves causality. Marker = a realization
value absent from the bundle (not the seed's 0.82). Proven RED on ingest detach.
Suite 138 -> 140 passed, 4 skipped; mypy + ruff check clean. Målbilde treated as frozen
(no §3/§5/§7 edit). Step 8 (gated wiki promotion) remains.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
Closes gap #5 (maalbilde §5/§7): generate_via_llm's outer max_attempts loop
built the prompt ONCE and re-sent it identically — a BLIND retry. The validator's
per-attempt Rejection.reason was captured in `last` but never reached the next
prompt, so the proposer re-answered the same question with no knowledge of WHY
the prior candidate failed. Step 5 routes that reason into the next attempt.
- generate.py: _build_messages() gains prior_rejection; when set it appends a
revision block carrying ONLY the falsification reason verbatim (never the
rejected proposal JSON). None -> the byte-identical base prompt, so attempt 1
is unchanged. generate_via_llm() rebuilds messages inside the outer loop with
prior_rejection=`last` (None on attempt 1); _fetch_parsed() takes messages as
an explicit parameter. `last` is overwritten each round -> only the most-recent
falsification ("forrige"), never an accumulated history. Bound unchanged:
max_attempts + meter.tick_round (no new loop; §6 — "improve until good enough"
without a ceiling stays impossible).
- Scope honesty: the only per-attempt falsifier here is the validator. The
checker is a run-level, one-shot signal (run.py, before generation); seeding
generation with the checker critique is separately scoped and NOT done here.
The boundary is written into the generate_via_llm docstring + README + CLAUDE.
Load-bearing (maalbilde §7): tests/test_step5_refine_loadbearing.py is a PAIR —
the positive test keys the proposer's flip on the validator REASON PAYLOAD (the
rejected claim value, derived from validate_proposal(bad).reason so test and SUT
share one source of truth), and asserts the reason reached attempt 2's prompt
VERBATIM (the green-but-dead guard). It goes RED on detach (build messages once):
the flip token never arrives, so the outcome never flips AND the verbatim
assertion fails — proven double-red. The bounded control proves a never-fixed
proposer exhausts exactly max_attempts and returns a Rejection.
Adversarial Plan agent hardened the design pre-implementation (flip on payload
not wrapper/call-count; derive flip-key from the validator reason; drive through
generate_via_llm directly; docstring honesty). Suite 136->138 passed, 4 skipped;
mypy + ruff check clean. New test ruff-formatted; pre-existing ruff-format drift
(budget/verdicts/test_contracts) left untouched for a surgical diff.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
Closes gap #3 (maalbilde §5): the GroupChat checker critiqued into the void —
output_from=[proposer] surfaced only the proposer, so an explicit checker
rejection was ignored and the deterministic validator was the sole gate. Two
falsifiers now act on the same candidate: the validator gates the NUMBERS
(blocking, unchanged), the checker gates the REASONING (maalbilde §2/§6).
- workflow.py: output_from=agents surfaces both participants; the checker
instruction ends with a VERDICT: APPROVE / VERDICT: REJECT - <reason> line.
- run.py: _authored_texts() reads author_name through out.messages (MAF 1.9.0
puts it there, not on the AgentResponse); _debate_text() now selects the
PROPOSER-authored output (fixes a latent texts[-1] regression that would feed
the checker's verdict to generation at even round counts); _checker_verdict()
parses the gate decision. An explicit REJECT overrides an otherwise-validated
outcome to a checker-sourced Rejection. Opt-in-reject (fail-open on a missing
marker). RunResult gains checker_verdict; provenance.validator_decision is
stamped from the validator outcome BEFORE the override, so it never conflates
the two falsifiers (provenance honesty).
Load-bearing (maalbilde §7): tests/test_checker_gate_loadbearing.py is a PAIR —
an explicit checker REJECT on a VALIDATOR-VALID proposal yields a Rejection whose
reason carries the checker's reason while validator_decision stays "validated";
the causality control (checker APPROVE, same proposer) validates normally. Proven
RED on BOTH detach points (revert output_from, or drop the override).
Suite 134->136 passed, 4 skipped; mypy + ruff check clean. Pre-existing
ruff-format drift (backends/budget/verdicts/test_contracts) left untouched for a
surgical diff.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
Closes the honest Fase 2a limitation: docs_dir==bundle_dir let keyword
chunk-stuffing leak the verdict's realization rate ("0.82") into the debate /
generation prompt regardless of the ExpeL fold (it surfaced from both
verdict-led-fro.md AND golden.json). The realization signal now reaches the
hypothesis prompt ONLY via the gated ExpeL fold.
- okf.py: bundle_context() + Bundle.context_files render the navigated bundle
(index + frontmatter + cross-links) as the agent read-context, EXCLUDING
type: verdict (maalbilde §2/§4). Pure stdlib, still MAF-free.
- datasource.py: bundle_citations() derives first-class citations from the
navigated non-verdict files.
- run_project: on the bundle path context + citations + debate tools come from
navigation (tools=[]; navigation replaces query-time RAG); the road path keeps
chunk-stuffing unchanged.
Load-bearing (maalbilde §7): the marker is upgraded from the minted verdict id
to the realization signal itself. The empty-store control now asserts "0.82"
reaches NO prompt — RED against the pre-2b chunk-stuffing path, green after
navigation (TDD red->green). New okf-level test_bundle_context_excludes_verdict_layer
guards the seam directly.
Suite 133->134 passed, 4 skipped; mypy + ruff check clean. Reverted unrelated
ruff-format drift (backends/budget/verdicts/test_contracts) to keep the diff
surgical.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
Closes maalbilde §5 gap #1 (the one missing "feedback-into-prompt" dataflow)
for the OKF-bundle path. Before, ExpeL was computed AFTER generation into a
discarded SessionContext, so a prior verdict could not influence any hypothesis
(context_providers=0).
- New okf.py: framework-neutral OKF bundle navigation (index + frontmatter +
cross-links), pure stdlib, no agent_framework/mcp (D7-portable), enforced by
test_okf_is_maf_free.
- verdicts.py: seed_store_from_bundle + bundle_candidate_features build the
ExpeL substrate + the pre-hypothesis query key from a bundle.
- run_project(bundle_dir=...): folds the candidate's prior verdicts into the
generation context BEFORE generate_via_llm; the road path is unchanged.
Load-bearing (maalbilde §7): test_step1_expel_loadbearing proves a prior verdict
reaches the hypothesis prompt and goes RED when the fold is detached (shown via
TDD red->green). The marker is the minted verdict id (content hash) because
docs_dir==bundle_dir lets keyword chunk-stuffing leak the realization rate;
clean layer separation is Fase 2b.
Suite 121->133 passed; mypy + ruff check clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
Persistent dev-fixture for energieffektivisering (energiledelse/M&V), valgt for
sin lærings-overflate: gapet mellom modellert besparelse (validatoren regner) og
faktisk realisert besparelse i drift (eksperten kjenner) — det ExpeL skal lære.
Ett kontorbygg, ett LED-retrofit-tiltak. OKF-bundle (index/project/hypothesis/
methodology/reference/verdict) bærer kontekst-laget; verdict-led-fro.md koder
realiseringsgraden (RR ≈ 0,82, forankret i National Grid SBS 2010) som ExpeL-frø.
Energi mappet inn i den EKSISTERENDE kost-IR-en uendret (affected = byggets totale
energikostnad, claimed = modellert besparelse ~10 % < 30 %-cap), så validatoren
kjører som-den-er — src/ urørt. golden.json fryser de seeded percentilene; testen
beviser at fixturen er konsumerbar (validerer, ikke Rejection), ikke bare til stede.
Domenetall verifisert mot primærkilder (EVO/IPMVP, DOE/NREL UMP, CPUC, fire
evalueringsstudier); norsk energipris mot SSB Q1 2026. README + shared/README
oppdatert (eksempel finnes, ikke lenger "planned"). Suite 121/4, ruff+mypy rene.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MHR8iKxJRxDiDfNw8HZmWE
