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>
