Stress round 6 validated three falsification arms, and every validated
approach rested only on run-level declarations nobody can attribute to one
approach. declare_requirement now takes a required approach_id (a mandate
id or own-proposal; an unknown id is refused naming the valid ones), and a
ValidatedProposal whose approach has neither a mandate requirement nor a
declaration under its own id becomes validator.Unsupported - a Rejection
subclass carrying the validator's own ruling, reported as `unsupported` in
coverage, the outcome artefact, the settlement and the judge, and never
counted or summed. The rule is active whenever the debate held the
declaration tool, the micro base included; the road and pre-pass paths are
untouched. Declaration quality is not judged, so the rule can be satisfied
by declaring any document the run read.
The v1 gate's row 6 probes pass; its artefact half reads IKKE MÅLT because
stress round 6 predates approach-addressed declarations, and IKKE MÅLT is
never green - it fails the exit code.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three seams, one commit: A, B and C touch the same four modules (run.py carries
the debate task, the grounding composition and the announcement; okf.py carries
one reference-number vocabulary read by both A and B), so splitting them into
three commits would have meant hunk-level staging of entangled files. Stated
rather than silently restructured.
A — the declaration answers with the DOCUMENT's own words. Measured: 13
declarations over round 3 and P17b, not one naming a fasit concept, while the
tool answered {"declared": true, ...} by echoing the caller's own arguments. It
now returns the document's title and req_number, read off Bundle.context_files
(so the type: verdict layer can never be named back), plus the sentence saying
what the declaration binds. A path the base carries as no concept answers with
empty strings rather than refusing. The commission's success_criteria now reach
the DEBATE task through mandate.criteria_block, the one renderer, empty when
there are none — which is what keeps every un-commissioned prompt, and the
golden, byte-identical.
B — a clause number is not a price. THE ORDER'S OWN RULE WAS FELLED BY
MEASUREMENT: it asks to refuse a code that IS declared req_number/prosessnr,
and neither of its two known positives is. n500 declares seksjon 10.4.1..10.4.4
but never the bare 10.4; r761 declares 2727 prosessnr and 2753 seksjon, none of
them 1.10.4, which occurs once, as prose ("iht. vegnormal N200 kap. 1.10.4").
The COMPLEMENT fires on both and closes the hole _ground_against_input already
admits in writing -- "it fails OPEN on a coincidental match". Unanchored run +
requirement-shaped code + the base declares a vocabulary + the code is not in
it -> refused, naming the denominator. All five of kontrakt-sorasen's real
process codes ARE declared and pass, which is what keeps the one context set
built on real codes measurable. Replayed over all 24 codes of round 3 + P17b:
exactly the two known positives flip validated -> rejected, 22 unchanged.
C — a parse failure no longer burns the round ledger blind. _fetch_parsed takes
a BUILDER instead of a finished message list, so the retry carries the parse
reason; measured, kontrakt-sorasen-04 spent 11 of 12 rounds re-asking the same
question. And announced_subject names the routed bases instead of saying "the
portfolio" for a two-base commission.
Suite 1807/5 (from 1781, +26, 0 removed), golden demo-transcript.stdout
BYTE-UNCHANGED (shasum -a 1 of the CONTENT = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f),
ruff and mypy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Two paid rounds scored 0 of 26 fasit concepts opened -- the same number twice.
P18 closed the navigation side (a listing is a window, an invented path is
refused by name) and it did not move, which makes it a ROLE question: nothing
in the loop ever asked the model to say what requirement binds the direction it
committed to, so opening one was never on the critical path to an answer.
A PREMISE OF THE ORDER WAS FELLED BEFORE ANYTHING WAS BUILT ON IT. A1 places
the demand in _INSTRUCTIONS[HYPOTHESISER_ROLE] alone. Measured: the stress
command sends --mandate and NOT --explore, the two are refused together by
name, and none of the nine round-1/2 outboxes holds a {run_id}-exploration.json
-- the hypothesiser never runs in a stress round, so A3 would have been
unreachable in exactly the paid runs this order commissions.
A2's own sentence resolves it: the refusal goes to the model "som en tur den
kan rette (samme mekanisme som quick_validate's nekt), ikke som en raise" --
and quick_validate IS a tool. declare_requirement therefore lives in
navigator_tools, held by BOTH roles that navigate (the exploration, and since
S2c the debate). It EXISTS only when the caller offers both sinks, which keeps
every pre-P19 call site byte-identical; one sink without the other is refused
at construction. 'opened' is the SAME list ExplorationToolRecorder fills, so
the refusal reads the run's own read trace.
The marked hypothesis carries 'requirement' as a REQUIRED key: omitted is a
hard error, explicit null is legal and needs 'why_none', a half-named one is
refused. A minted approach carries it; a seed never acquires one. The proposer
prompt names it only when the field exists, and the judge counts a hit against
THIS approach's fasit concepts, never against the base.
Load-bearing measured (12 arms), four mutations all red against the whole
suite, green control 1711/5 and demo-transcript.stdout byte-unchanged.
A-iii's predicted signature was FALSIFIED: the golden stays green because the
demo runs without a mandate, so _build_messages' approach branch is never
taken there. A-iv was GREEN first -- the repo's vacuous-gate class, 24th time:
the arm drove _attributable while the hit is computed at the call site.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
S7b-forberedelse, fase 2. Bruksscenarioet "dokumenter + konkret oppgave ->
forslag" hadde ingen vei: eneste kandidat-kilde var generate_via_llm.
DEN TILFOEYDE VEIEN. Eksperten sier HVA (label -> measure, verbatim), HVILKE
linjer (affected_codes) og HVOR MYE (claimed_saving_nok); dokumentet sier
MENGDE og PRIS (derive_cost_baseline, MAJOR-4). Ingenting her oppfinner et
tall. Tre nekter ved navn - manglende anslag, ingen koder, ukjent kode - og
hver av dem er ekspertens aa skrive, aldri vaar aa defaulte
(write_concept_file-regelen).
ANSLAGET BOR PAA APPROACH, IKKE PAA MANDATE, og det foelger av settle sin egen
regel: tilnaerminger er ALTERNATIVER og summeres aldri, saa ett tall paa
mandatnivaa ville vaert tvetydig over N. Det er heller ikke kjoeringens MAAL -
contracts.GoalContract eier nettopp ett saant, og skillet staar skrevet der
feltet innfoeres, ellers leses det som den driften modulen forbyr.
NULL MODELLKALL ER STRUKTURELT: evaluate_mandate_candidates er SYNC, saa den kan
ikke aware et chat-kall - ingen mutasjon av kroppen kan stille innfoere ett.
CLI-armen asserterer det likevel ATFERDSMESSIG (_default_factory patchet til aa
raise), fordi rc 0 alene ogsaa er utfallet til en doer som gjorde ingenting.
allow_own_proposals faar en not_evaluated-RAD, ikke en nekt: raden kan ikke
fylles uten en modell, men aa utelate den gjoer den uskillbar fra en
tilnaerming ingen bestilte (ApproachOutcome sin egen regel), og aa nekte hele
kjoeringen ville vaert feil andre veien - feltet defaulter til True.
Fire CLI-nekter, alle ved navn: krever --mandate, krever
--derive-cost-baseline, nektet i --portfolio (ved NAVN, ikke ved gjennomfall)
og i report_forbidden (der en utelatelse er et stille DROPP, ikke en nekt -
F4-gapet).
LOAD-BEARING MAALT: 15 mutasjoner, 14 ROEDE mot HELE suiten + groenn kontroll
1274/5 (fra 1257, supersett, 0 fjernet) og golden demo-transcript.stdout
BYTE-UENDRET (shasum -a 1 = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f).
TO MUTASJONER FALSIFISERTE TESTEN FOERST (repoets vakuoes-gate-klasse):
* M5 (bygg lazily) sto GROENN - armen asserterte kun pytest.raises, og BEGGE
implementasjoner reiser; ingen rad naar kalleren uansett, saa de er
uskillbare utenfra. Oekt 57s regel ("en nekt etter forbruket ser identisk ut
ved exit-koden") anvendt paa CBC-solves: testen TELLER naa solves, med en
kontroll som beviser at telleren faktisk beveger seg.
* M14 (rut paa mount-navnet) sto GROENN - armen brukte f"not-{declared}", som
matcher verken mount eller erklaering. Fixturene erklaerer ingen bundle_id
(S7a-3 maalte null ^bundle_id-treff under tests/), saa de to SAMMENFALLER
der. Ny arm bygger en base som erklaerer en id ulik katalognavnet og
asserterer BEGGE halvdeler: erklaert ruter, mount nektes.
EN MUTASJON FORBLIR GROENN, OG DET ER EN AERLIGHETS-GRENSE - IKKE EN GATE:
M7 (doem UTEN baselinen) er strukturelt uobserverbar, fordi kandidaten er
BYGGET fra baselinen og stage 0 derfor avstemmer med 0 % avvik ved
konstruksjon. baseline= staar som en DEFENSIV, uvitnet soem
(budget_stop-presedensen), ikke som noe en test holder.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
[skip-docs] — the invariant row for this plan lands in Step 13, where the mutations
that force it have been measured. Documenting a seam before its measurement is
the claim-without-evidence class this repo writes rows against.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <claude-opus-5>
Ordrens premiss («endrer run_project sin signatur») er FALSIFISERT foer bygging,
og ordren ba selv om nettopp den sjekken. run_project kan ikke ta mer enn en
bundle_dir: paa bundle-stien avleder den FIRE enkeltverdier fra DEN basen -
prosjektet (_project_from_bundle fail-faster naar basens egen project_id ikke er
den forespurte), validatorens stage-0-baseline, agentenes lesekontekst og
ExpeL-noekkelen - og returnerer ETT stemplet RunResult. En andre katalog paa den
signaturen ville tvunget et stille velg-en for alle fire. Planens egen setning
sier det samme lest naert: «pipelinen kjoeres per bundle som i dag
(run_portfolio-formen)» = N kall, ikke ett kall med N.
Levert form, tre soemmer:
- mandate.Approach.bundle_id (default "" - hvert mandat skrevet foer i dag er
fortsatt gyldig og dispatchbart uendret)
- mandate.route_by_bundle - ren partisjon, fail-fast paa et mandat som ikke kan
utfoeres som skrevet (load_mandate-regelen). En base som ingen approach navngir
kjoeres ikke; med NOEYAKTIG en base absorberer den alt uten navn, som ikke er en
gjetning men det eneste mulige svaret.
- run.run_mandate_across_bundles - dispatchen. INGEN project_id-parameter:
hver base sitt prosjekt leses fra DEN basens egen IR-projeksjon, altsaa den
verdien _project_from_bundle allerede fail-faster mot. En delt VerdictStore
traades paa tvers (kryss-base-laering, run_portfolio-formen), og med
portfolio_meter gjelder de to S3.4-tennene som HAR mening her: oppstartsnekt
(BudgetRefused) og aldri-startet + budget_stop + not_evaluated-rader.
INGEN eksisterende kaller endrer signatur - CLI, hosting og simulation sender
fortsatt en base hver, og kan fortsatt gjoere det.
explore(): hver myntet approach baerer bundle_id; markoeren kan navngi basen;
en umerket markoer med flere baser NEKTES (HypothesisParseError), med en base
resolveres den. Froe-approaches VALIDERES men skrives ALDRI om (§ C.6 doer 1 er
en bevaringsregel) - og valideringen skjer FOER foerste modellkall, samme
oekt-57-hoist-grunn: ved unntaket alene ser en nekt etter forbruket identisk ut.
explore()-docstringens gamle aerlighets-grense («venter paa at run_project tar
mer enn en bundle_dir») er RETTET - den ville vaert usann fra i dag.
Load-bearing MAALT, 12 mutasjoner alle roede mot HELE suiten, groenn kontroll
1020/5 (fra 999/5 + 21 nye tester); golden demo-transcript.stdout BYTE-UENDRET
(ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f): detach myntet bundle_id (2) ·
stille gjennomfall ved >1 base (1) · ukjent id resolvert etter rekkefoelge (1) ·
froe-sjekk etter forbruket (2) · ruteren gjetter foerste base (1) · uroutbar
approach droppet (1) · dispatchen kollapser til en base (5) · project_id fra
foerste base (2) · detach aldri-startet-tannen (1) · unreached urapportert (1) ·
fersk store per base (1) · detach oppstartsnekten (2).
EN MUTASJON FALSIFISERTE TESTEN FOERST (repoets vakuoes-gate-klasse, aattende
gang): store-testen sammenlignet med ==, og VerdictStore er en pydantic-modell
med VERDI-likhet - tre ulike tomme stores er alle like, saa «fersk store per
base» lot hele suiten staa groenn. Delt INSTANS er paastanden, saa testen
asserterer naa paa `is`.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01L3YHobQC3WzYVoxSgZus4d
`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
Krav 2: a run must be clear about what it shall do and achieve. `--mandate`
makes both ends explicit. BEFORE the first (paid) model call the run prints what
it was commissioned to do — objective, every named approach, whether its own
proposals are allowed, the scope, the caps, and which external services it will
contact. AFTER the run it settles: one row per approach, validated with the
figure, rejected with the validator's reason, or not evaluated with why.
The announcement is placed with the other refusals and above the scripted
banner, for the reason the required-args guard was hoisted there: a refused run
must not first print a banner about work it never did. `--live-dry-run`
announces without contacting anything, so a commission can be inspected before
it costs money.
`settle` renders the goal verdict it is GIVEN and never decides it. `ledger.to_ore`
is the framework's one NOK->øre conversion and the goal comparison already runs on
quantised integers, but `mandate.py` cannot import it without dragging `verdicts`
— and therefore agent_framework — into a deliberately framework-neutral module,
while a private copy of a money conversion is exactly the (p) defect. So the
caller decides and this renders; a goal figure without a decided verdict makes no
claim at all.
The caps the announcement prints come from named constants shared with
`run_project`/`run_portfolio`'s defaults — a second copy could drift and make the
announcement describe a run that never happened.
Load-bearing MEASURED against the whole 717-test suite, four mutations all red:
detach the announcement (4) · detach the settlement print (2) · make the CLI
loader tolerant (2) · announce the commission but never hand it to the run (2).
The last one is the one that matters: without it, a run could print a commission
it had no intention of executing.
DEVIATION from the approved plan, stated rather than quietly dropped: --goals is
still refused outside portfolio mode. Accepting it in single-project mode would
have admitted a flag whose documented function (the goal-stop against the ledger)
still does nothing there — the same accepted-but-inert defect --embedder-config
was just fixed for. The mandate's success_criteria carries "what shall this run
achieve" in the expert's own words instead; the numeric target stays portfolio-level.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULCqjLF61rehj5cZmdUoR3
Carrying an approach into the prompt only half-answers krav 1. The expert asked
for their approaches to be CONCRETELY EVALUATED, which means each must reach a
verdict and each verdict must be visible. `run_project(mandate=...)` evaluates
every commissioned approach in turn — the run's own proposal last, when allowed —
each under the SAME meter. No new loop: the caps already in force are the bound.
`RunResult.coverage` is the settlement, one row per approach: validated (with the
figure), rejected (with the validator's reason verbatim), or not_evaluated (with
why). `not_evaluated` is the row that earns the type its keep — an approach the
run never reached must be reported as unreached, because an omitted row is
indistinguishable from an approach nobody ordered. That silence is the defect
class krav 1 is asking us to remove.
Budget exhaustion mid-list is reported, not swallowed. But if the FIRST approach
exhausts it there is nothing honest to return, so BudgetExceeded propagates
exactly as before — a run that produced nothing must still fail loudly.
RunResult stays single-outcome (portfolio aggregation, outbox artefacts and HITL
keying all rest on that). The choice is deterministic: highest validated saving,
ties by mandate order — never whichever ran last.
Load-bearing MEASURED against the whole 702-test suite. FIVE mutations red:
evaluate only the first approach (5 red) · drop the rejected rows (3) · ignore
allow_own_proposals (1) · select produced[-1] (1) · select produced[0] (1).
The sixth measurement is why this commit exists in this shape: the ordering
mutation FIRST STAYED GREEN. The test had placed the bigger approach last, where
"highest saving" and "whichever ran last" give the same answer, so an
order-dependent implementation passed it. A scenario that cannot separate two
implementations proves nothing about either — the test now pins BOTH orderings,
and each mutation direction fails one of them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULCqjLF61rehj5cZmdUoR3
Operator feedback: fagpersoner must be able to name the approaches a run shall
evaluate for a project, and/or ask the system for its own. Today the hypothesis
prompt is hardcoded ("Propose ONE concrete cost-saving measure") and the only
expert-facing lever, --dimension-config, FILTERS what may pass the scoping gate
rather than DIRECTING what is spent attempts on. This is the input that was
missing.
`mandate.py` is the typed commission + a fail-fast loader (mirrors
`load_dimension`/`load_goal_config`): missing or malformed refuses, because a run
must never proceed on a silently degraded commission — the coverage report would
then describe work nobody ordered. Stdlib + pydantic only, so it joins
`_MAF_FREE_MODULES` and can be mirrored to the D7 sibling.
Two refusals carry real defect classes: an EMPTY commission (no approaches and no
own proposals) is a caller error, not a result; and a duplicate approach id — or
one claiming the reserved OWN_PROPOSAL_ID — would collapse two coverage rows onto
one key (the S3.2 key-collision class), which is exactly the silence the coverage
report exists to prevent.
The numeric target is deliberately NOT duplicated here: it already lives in
GoalContract, and two copies of one number drift apart ((p) precedent). The
mandate carries intent; `announce` merely restates the figure.
`_build_messages(approach=...)` switches the opening instruction from *find one*
to *quantify THIS one*, carrying the expert's label and description VERBATIM —
the description is the reason the approach is worth trying, the one part the model
cannot infer from cost data. `approach=None` is byte-identical to the previous
prompt, so every existing run and golden is untouched.
The gate is unmoved: `validate_proposal` is called exactly as before. A
commissioned approach gets no discount — the expert directs what is EVALUATED,
never what is APPROVED.
Load-bearing MEASURED against the whole 695-test suite, four mutations all red:
detach the approach injection (2 red, control stayed green) · let a commissioned
approach bypass the validator · make the mandate loader tolerant · drop the
empty-commission refusal.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULCqjLF61rehj5cZmdUoR3
