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>
P18's round 2 ended with two VALIDATED proposals whose affected_item codes
were ordinary words from a road standard's prose -- impulsventilator (4 of
270 N500 documents) and bituminoest baerelag (4 of 1133 N200). Both are
grounded in P7's sense and neither is inert in P18/B1's sense; they are simply
not identifiers of a cost line, and the gate had no stage that could say so.
Known positive MEASURED, not asserted: replayed offline against the bases
those runs were given, both come back Rejection naming the denominator.
IDENTIFIER_FORMS moved from generate.py to validator.py: they now drive both
P8's report and this gate, and two copies of "what an identifier looks like"
would let the two disagree about one run's own input.
B1 -- two new forms, transcribed from measurement. R761's requirement numbers
are bare dotted numbers and all six refs in kontrakt-sorasen's fasit are of
that shape, which neither pre-P19 form matched: r761's whole offer was 3
identifiers over 6.5 MB, and is now 2332. The FIRST form was widened in the
same pass because B2 made these forms decide prose vs identifier, and this
repo's own ENERGI-TOTAL-EL matched none of them -- a gate may only be wrong in
the direction that admits too much.
Three things keep the gate from being a rule about shapes: the generality
guard (it fires only where the input offers forms), the baseline exemption
(stage 0 has already ruled that code real), and full-matching.
Honesty limit, measured and given its OWN arm: a decimal and an R761 process
number are typographically identical, so the form counts both. P8's existing
"bare numbers" arm is narrowed to bare INTEGERS accordingly.
Measured over all nine round-1+2 outboxes: 26 of 36 codes are prose.
Load-bearing measured (22 arms), four mutations all red against the whole
suite (16 / 10 / 1 / 2), green control 1734/5 and the golden byte-unchanged.
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>
P18 parts B and C (order 20260914T105139Z).
B1 -- stage 0b. P7 made it `item.code in grounding`: plain containment over
ONE concatenated string. P16 ran it against a delivered corpus and measured
what containment cannot tell apart: the falsification arm a4-indeksregulering
put 250 000 NOK on a single cost line coded R761 -- the knowledge base's OWN
NAME, carried by all 2 756 of its concept documents -- and the whole gate
said validated (stage 0 skipped, un-anchored run; checker approve).
The grounding is now carried as the DOCUMENTS it is made of (validator.
Grounding), not as a blob. A structure and not a second argument beside the
text: the boundaries and the text are one fact, and .text is derived, so the
gate and P8's report measure the same characters. run.py composes one
document per concept file where the base is already walked; generate.
_grounding_text folds each cost line in as a one-line document.
N and A are MEASURED, not chosen (14.09, four mounted vegnormal bases):
- every must_cite ref and mandate affected_code in the four context sets --
shortest real identifier is FOUR characters (12.1, 52.1), so N = 3 sits one
below the measurement and cannot refuse anything measured;
- document frequency of every code-shaped token per base -- 1 692 distinct
and NOT ONE reaches 5 %. Highest anywhere 6/446 (1.35 %), highest a fasit
names 3/446 (0.67 %), R761 2 756/2 756 (100 %). A = 0.05 therefore sits
3.7x above the highest real token and 20x below the defect.
Length is NOT what makes the defect inert (R761 is four characters); the
share is. And a share is not a measurement without a denominator big enough
to take one (ansikt 4): one of three is 33 %, so an ABSOLUTE floor of 10
documents gates it. Highest absolute count any real identifier reaches is 6,
and every fixture in the repo is far below 10 -- which is why every pre-P18
gate is UNTOUCHED by this rule rather than exempted from it. Grounding.of
(one document) can never reach the floor by construction.
The refusal NAMES the denominator ("appears in 2756 of the 2756 documents
this run was given"), because Step 5 feeds that reason verbatim into the next
attempt's prompt: a proposer told only "ungrounded" answers with another
token of the same kind.
B2 SPIKE (measured, NOT built) FELLED the order's own alternative: option (b)
"ground in what the run OPENED" was run over P16's 16 code rows -- R761
stands in every OPENED document too, so (b) would NOT have caught the defect,
while B1 makes it inert and still grounds the real process line 65
ASFALTDEKKER (29/2756 = 1.05 %). (b) is not a substitute for B1.
C1 -- --docs-dir is optional once --bundle-dir is given (P16 FUNN 2). On the
bundle path docs_dir is never read: retrieval, the chunk tool and the "no
citable content" check all live in the road branch. Bound ONCE from
--bundle-dir, which is byte-identically what the README already tells an
operator to type by hand. NOT the "--docs-dir omvei": no such path is opened
and the road branch still refuses without a real --docs-dir (own arm).
C2 -- the judge's snippet arm counts only under citation_scope == "narrowed",
as (a) already does (PM decision, P16 s 6.2). P16's reason for (b') being
clean -- snippets are bodies while ref/title live in frontmatter, 0 of 446
n100 bodies -- holds for "Krav 4.1.2-1" but NOT for R761, where a process
number like 12.1 stands in the bodies. Under a whole-base citation list that
mark was "cited" before any model call.
tests: test_inert_identifier_loadbearing.py (7 arms; known positive is P16's
OWN artefact replayed against the base that run was given, known negative is
26 of 26 fasit references still grounding), test_docs_dir_optional_
loadbearing.py (5 arms). test_stress_judge_loadbearing.py's snippet arm split
into narrowed/whole-base -- the pair is the discriminator, same snippet, same
mark, only the scope differs. The grounding tests migrate from str to
Grounding.of (the honest reading of a caller that declared no boundaries).
Verification: uv run pytest -q 1698 passed / 5 skipped (1685 after part A,
strict superset, 0 removed). ruff check + format clean, mypy clean (38
files). Golden demo-transcript.stdout BYTE-UNCHANGED, shasum -a 1 of the
CONTENT = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f. No version bump, no push.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
P7 is right and landed, but re-measuring it exposed a consequence no row stated: with the gate
live, 29 of 29 cost codes in 13 of 13 delivered proposals fall across the three free recordings
(PM's denominator; 14 of 14 in 8 proposals on the PARSEABLE one -- the five blobs that separate
the numbers are refused by pydantic's `claimed <= total` and never reach stage 0b). All 29 were
invented, so the gate is right; but a gate that always refuses is as useless as one that never
does.
The cause is that the PROMPT asks for something the input cannot supply. `_build_messages`
requires each affected_item to "restate a cost line as the project's price schedule already
carries it", while K2's delivered input carries 9 occurrences / 2 distinct code-shaped tokens --
`SHA-01`/`SHA-10`, both document numbers off a page footer -- and `derive_cost_baseline` refuses
the base outright. There is no cost line in it to restate.
`GroundingOffer(chars, identifiers, cost_lines)` reports it. The PAIR is the diagnosis: "50
identifiers, 0 cost lines" says what neither number says alone. A REPORT, never a gate -- it
blocks nothing, because a blocking requirement IS `--require-cost-baseline` (F4/D-3, opt-in,
untouched), and `_ground_against_input` is untouched.
The callsite is MEASURED, not chosen: `generate.py` composes the grounding per attempt, after
`await _fetch_parsed`, so a report there could only speak once an attempt had been paid for;
`run.py` binds both halves above the `--live-dry-run` cut and before the first `debate.run`, so
the FREE trip says it. `delivered` is bound ONCE and the same variable feeds the report and
`_evaluate`; the report composes THROUGH `_grounding_text`, the gate's own composer.
A pattern is admissible here and not in the gate, and that is the difference between a report and
a falsifier: an unknown form is a token left uncounted -- an under-count, never a false rejection.
The forms are transcribed from the measurement; bare numbers are excluded with the number
(46 394 / 2 117 in K2). `grounding_offer_notice` is the ONE renderer and is silent when the run
CAN anchor -- omission, never an empty row.
Load-bearing MEASURED (tests/test_grounding_offer_loadbearing.py, 12 arms), nine mutations all
red against the WHOLE suite + green control 1570/5 (from 1558/5, strict superset, 0 removed) and
the golden byte-unchanged (shasum -a 1 of the CONTENT = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f).
Measurement: docs/2026-09-09-p8-forankringstilbudet.md
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
P6 (økt 108) ended in ValidatedProposal (verdict 5fd6272e3725fe68) on two cost
codes -- M-04-01 / M-04-03 -- that appear in NO prompt of that run. Measured
here first, verbatim: validate_proposal(p, baseline=None) validates it; the same
proposal against any non-empty CostBaseline is rejected naming both codes.
So the hole was never "fabrication goes uncaught" -- _reconcile_against_baseline
exists and is right -- but that the falsifier is reached only through
`if baseline is not None`. The input always exists; the baseline does not.
New stage 0b (_ground_against_input), OUTSIDE the baseline branch, after stage 0
so an anchored run's message is byte-identical to before. ONE Rejection, the
validator's own type, naming EVERY ungrounded identifier "; "-joined in the
proposal's own order (økt 94's completeness reason).
The rule has NO pattern -- `code in grounding`, exact substring -- and that is a
measurement: over the delivered corpora (K2 1108 files / 2 005 561 chars, the
three N payloads 8 excerpts each) the identifier forms are heterogeneous, and a
pattern chosen to cover them would be a rule about shapes. Bare numerals are the
one inert class (46 394 occurrences / 2 117 distinct in K2); the rule fails OPEN
there, never closed.
Evidence is three non-model-authored sources: what run_project DELIVERED (the
rendered cut/pointer/chunks plus the base's context_files -- never files, which
would make the type: verdict layer evidence), the project's own cost lines, and
the baseline's codes when anchored. The rendered PROMPT is deliberately NOT
evidence, on two measurements: gen_context IS the debate output on the S2c path,
and from attempt 2 the prompt carries the previous Rejection.reason verbatim --
which for this stage QUOTES the identifier it just refused. Grounding in the
prompt would let the gate's own refusal disarm it on its second round.
Prose scanning was chosen against WITH THE NUMBERS: a typed gate catches 2/2
(P6) and 2/2 (S7c) -- 100% of what reached a verdict. What stays uncaught, said
plainly: an ungrounded identifier that lives only in agent/debate prose and never
becomes an affected_item code (2 of 4 P6, 2 of 4 S7c, 1 of 2 P4).
Iron Law: 9 red / 2 green before the rule existed. Ten mutations all red against
the whole suite, green control 1558 passed / 5 skipped (from 1543/5, superset,
0 removed), golden demo-transcript.stdout BYTE-UNCHANGED (shasum -a 1 of the
CONTENT = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f).
Three existing fixtures changed, no gate weakened -- most of all
test_pre_amendment_bundle_runs_unchanged, which sent the SAME FABRICATED code and
asserted it validated: the økt-108 hole written down as an expectation.
No paid run. Order 20260909T113641Z-38938691-from-.claude.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Funn (a) fra oekt 94s levende K2-maaling (docs/2026-09-06-major2-levende-k2.md
§ 4, rad 3-4). Genererings-prompten beskrev feltet som
affected_items (list of {code, quantity, unit_cost})
og sa ingenting om HVEM sine tall det er. Stage 0 (S4.0) avstemmer hver linje
mot prosjektets egen kostbaseline, saa de eneste tallene som kan passere er
prisskjemaets EGNE - men en modell som blir bedt om aa halvere et volum leser
quantity som feltet tiltaket sitt hoerer i, fyller inn den REDUSERTE verdien
(1000 der baselinen sier 1250) og avvises. Den levende kjoeringen hadde lest det
prisede skjemaet TO ganger gjennom navigasjonsstigen og gjettet likevel: tallene
var tilgjengelige, KONTRAKTEN for feltet var ikke uttalt.
Besparelsen har sitt eget felt, og prompten sier det i samme aandedrag - "dette
er baseline-tallene" uten "og reduksjonen din hoerer der" etterlater modellen med
en verdi den er fortalt aa ikke putte noe sted.
Blokka rir paa BASE-prompten, ikke paa en gren, og det er hva arm (3) finnes for:
defekten ble maalt paa et REVIDERT forsoek, saa en instruksjon som bare naadde
forsoek 1 ville vaert fravaerende fra noeyaktig den prompten den ble maalt i.
prior_rejection / prior_feedback / approach appendes ETTER basen, saa hver
komposisjon baerer den fortsatt.
RoedT foerst: 6 av 7 armer roede (kontrollen groenn - den asserterer at
referanseprosjektet faktisk HAR kostlinjer, saa gaten ikke beskriver noe
imaginaert). Ingen endring i skjema, validator eller stage 0.
Suite 1381 passed / 5 skipped (fra 1368/5; +13, 0 fjernet - strengt supersett).
ruff + mypy rene. Golden demo-transcript.stdout BYTE-UENDRET,
shasum -a 1 av INNHOLDET = ea8c534773acdbe41ae68f2c55724d69aaf8be4f.
Ordre 20260906T212735Z-2448754-from-.claude, funn (a).
Co-Authored-By: Claude <claude-opus-5>
M38 (attempts_remaining fra max_attempts alene) 2 roede - T3a og T5, som BEGGE
navngir M38 i sin docstring; M39 (drop --checkpoint-dir-nekten) 1; M40
(honoured=True ved revise-tid) 2. Sum: 41 kjoeringer, 40 roede, 1 groenn (M29).
K2-omkjoeringen (kriterium 8), instrumentet validert mot en kjent positiv foerst
(3 954 tegn / 1 495 tok, S7a-3s tall reprodusert eksakt): utforskningen 12
prompter / 18 355 tokens UENDRET til tokenet, debatt-promptene uendret i antall
OG stoerrelse, genererings-promptene 2 -> 4. Totalt 17 -> 19 prompter,
19 274 -> 19 776 tokens (+2,6 %). Utfallet flytter seg 200 000 -> 150 000 NOK og
dom-noekkelen be8535e2 -> f23ecff8; ekspertens ord staar ordrett i 2 av 6
proposer-prompter (0 av 4 i kontrollen).
generate.py: kommentaren paasto at `assert last is not None` ville fyrt uten
baereren. M29 maalte at den ikke KAN - D1(a) returnerer inne i loekka naar
remaining == 0, og paa siste forsoek er max_attempts - i - 1 alltid 0, saa halen
er naabar kun etter en validator-avvisning, som setter `last` ogsaa. Baereren er
uvitnet (budget_stop-presedensen), og det staar naa i kilden.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Ordre 20260904T173146Z-8102814273-from-portfolio-optimiser, steg 3 av 10.
generate_via_llm faar fire keyword-only parametre: reviewer, reviews (KALLER-EID sink),
review_key og checker_verdict. Revieweren kalles synkront i det validate_proposal
AKSEPTERER en kandidat - aldri paa en avvist (den er alt matet tilbake informert; aa be
et menneske kommentere tall maskinen nettopp gjendrev bruker mennesket paa maskinens jobb).
EXIT-KONTRAKTEN ER ENDRET. Foer dette hvilte utgangen paa `last`, som KUN en validator-
avvisning setter - saa "validert -> revise" paa hvert forsoek naadde slutten av loekka med
`last is None` og doede paa `assert last is not None` (og under -O paa None.proposal).
`last_ruling` er naa en eksplisitt baerer, og D6 leses rett av den.
Sinken er kaller-eid av parse_failures' MAALTE grunn, ett hakk skarpere: meter.tick_round
reiser inne i _fetch_parsed paa forsoeket en revise kjoepte, saa paa noeyaktig den kjoeringen
posten betyr mest returnerer funksjonen INGENTING. Et felt paa GenerationResult ville vaert
blindt for det.
attempts_remaining = min(max_attempts - i - 1, meter.budget.max_rounds - meter.rounds) -
LEDGER-BEVISST, fordi rundeboka deles av hver approach i et mandat og ofte er det som binder.
honoured betyr at forsoeket revisen kjoepte FAKTISK HENTET et svar, ikke at det ble kjoept:
posten settes False og forfremmes foerst naar _fetch_parsed har returnert.
RODT foer impl: 11 armer. TO AV PLANENS EGNE TALL BLE FALSIFISERT AV MAALINGEN og staar
korrigert i testen: (1) planens T3 (max_rounds=2, max_attempts=10 => BudgetExceeded
observed=3) er ikke naabar under den ledger-bevisste remaining fra planens egen revisjon 5 -
loekka stopper etter to hentinger UTEN unntak; armen er delt i T3a (ledgeren stopper
revisjonene, M38s diskriminator) og T3b (honoured=False naar den kjoepte hentingen aldri
returnerte, M40s vitne, drevet via parse-retryen som gir noeyaktig rounds/2/3). (2) planens
T-ledger sier attempts_remaining == 0 ved max_rounds=2/max_attempts=3; maalt er det 1 -
armen bruker max_rounds=1, der ledgeren faktisk binder.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Ordre 20260904T173146Z-8102814273-from-portfolio-optimiser, steg 2 av 10.
_build_messages faar prior_feedback (keyword-only, None => byte-identisk base-prompt,
samme kontrakt prior_rejection og approach alt oppgir). Ekspertens ORD, ordrett - aldri
forrige forslags JSON, av samme grunn prior_rejection kun baerer grunnen.
Blokken beskriver noe annet enn en avvisning: en kandidat validatoren AKSEPTERTE og et
menneske likevel ba om aa endre. Aa slaa dem sammen ville fortalt modellen at maskinen
protesterte da en person gjorde det.
Rekkefoelgen er fast: base -> approach-hode -> avvisning -> tilbakemelding. En prompt
kan lovlig baere BEGGE - det er forsoeket etter en revise hvis kjoepte forsoek validatoren
saa avviste: menneskets instruks STAAR til mennesket svarer neste gang, mens maskinens
grunn er per forsoek (kun den nyeste, som i dag).
RODT foer impl paa tre armer (TypeError: uventet keyword). Kontrollen (None => byte-identisk)
er halvdelen som holder hver eksisterende kjoering, golden og nav-fixtur uroert.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Fase 1b, funn 1b. Den første levende kjøringen brant tolv runder på svar som
ikke lot seg parse til IR-formen; e371890 gjorde teksten synlig, dette fjerner
årsaken. generate_via_llm sender nå
options={"response_format": proposal_response_format()} på hvert
genererings-kall.
Formen er MÅLT, ikke valgt. ChatOptions.response_format tar
type[BaseModel] | Mapping, og begge profiler ærer den: LOCAL sender en Mapping
ordrett til Chat Completions, AZURE (FoundryChatClient -> RawFoundryChatClient
-> RawOpenAIChatClient) konverterer samme envelope til Responses-APIets
text.format. Klassen — det korteste svaret — er avvist på bevis: gitt en klasse
konverterer klienten med type_to_response_format_param, som emitterer
minimum/exclusiveMinimum/minItems/prefixItems og et assumptions-node hvis
additionalProperties er et skjema. Azures publiserte subset utelukker alle fire.
assumptions kan ikke bare droppes, og det er også en måling: validator
._monte_carlo faller tilbake på item.unit_cost for hver kode uten bånd, så uten
bånd er alle 512 samples identiske og P10 == P50 == P90. Den stokastiske
falsifisereren ville gått inert mens den fortsatt rapporterte persentiler.
Wire-en bærer derfor et array av navngitte entries som _parse_ir folder tilbake
til IR-ens map — additivt, aldri erstatning. Skjemaet deriveres fra
SavingsProposal; sanitiseren er fail-closed (StructuredOutputUnsupported).
Load-bearing målt mot hele suiten, seks mutasjoner alle røde, grønn kontroll
864/4: detach wiringen (1) · detach sanitiseren (3) · dropp assumptions fra
skjemaet (1) · fail-closed -> stille reparasjon (1) · detach normaliseringen
(3) · erstatning i stedet for tillegg (2, inkl. golden-transkriptet).
T3 ble skrevet vakuøs først og felt av sin egen mutasjon: den påsto å bli rød
når assumptions forsvant fra skjemaet, men den scriptede klienten ignorerer
skjemaet. Testen fikk en direkte assert på skjemaet.
Ærlighets-grense: ingen betalt kjøring gjort. Testene beviser konformitet med
det dokumenterte subsettet, ikke aksept fra det levende endepunktet.
859 -> 864 passed / 4 skipped. ruff + format + mypy rene.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013EQNU4tfAhsBvdefT1jUhk
Fase 1b funn 1 lukket. generate._fetch_parsed kastet hvert uparsebart modellsvar i
except: continue, så prosjektets første levende kjøring brant tolv runder på formatfeil
og etterlot null tegn av det modellen faktisk sa. Enhver videre betalt kjøring ville
vært gjetning.
HVOR teksten overflates er avgjort av en måling, ikke av symmetri med Steg 5:
meter.tick_round() raiser BudgetExceeded INNE i _fetch_parsed, og uten mandat fanger
ingen den, så på nøyaktig den stien fangsten finnes for returnerer generate_via_llm
ingenting. Et felt på GenerationResult ville vært blindt for den, og et outbox-artefakt
skrevet etter kjøringen likeså. Sinken speiler meter: en kaller-eid akkumulator hvis
innhold kalleren holder uansett hvordan løkka endte. Artefaktet skrives fra en finally,
ikke except BudgetExceeded, og kun når noe faktisk feilet.
Iron Law: testfila rød ved collection FØR modulen fantes. Seks mutasjoner mot HELE
suiten, alle røde, hver med sin egen signatur; grønn kontroll 859 passed / 4 skipped
(fra 854). Den skarpeste er trunkering som BEHOLDER sentinelen: da faller kun
verbatim-asserten, som er det som beviser at den ene testen bærer den egenskapen.
Samme økt: mutasjonsmålingen økt 34 utsatte for de to Fase 5-gatene er kjørt. Fire
preflight-mutasjoner mot hele suiten, alle røde på riktig test og ingen annen (detach
fallbacken 2 røde, snu presedensen, presence i stedet for truthiness, avslaget navngir
kun vårt navn). To handover-mutasjoner kjørt MÅLRETTET mot egen testfil under tidspress,
ikke mot hele suiten — uttalt, ikke skjult (drop uv.lock, bygg fra arbeidstreet i stedet
for tracked files). De to DEPLOY.md-mutasjonene gjenstår: git archive leser HEAD, ikke
arbeidstreet, så de krever en midlertidig commit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WLQd8ojQ9xwxhB8vsETYBs
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
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
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
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
